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
In response filed September 8, 2025, claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, 19-20 are amended. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 9 of the response, filed on September 8 2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C. §112 rejection of claims 6, 13 and 20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. §112 of claims 6, 13 and 20 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 9 of the response, filed on September 8 2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection of claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. §101 of claims 1-20 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with regards to the prior art rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that Weinstein fails to disclose “generating a score by determining a weighted combination of a first expected time to traverse the walking segment and a second expected time to traverse the driving segment, wherein determining the weighted combination comprises applying a weighting factor to prioritize minimizing the first expected time.” (page 14) The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Weinstein teaches “generating a score of each of the plurality of routes by determining a weighted combination of a first expected time to traverse the walking segment and a second expected time to traverse the driving segment” by disclosing “additionally or alternatively, the coalescing controller system 102 can employ a weighted distance-time route score that considers costs in a variable fashion by applicably weighting distance and/or time for one or both of walking and driving cost terms such that: M1=α; M2=β; M3=γ; and M4=μ” [0069] and “For example, as discussed above, the route scoring engine 904 can apply a coalescing factor to one or both of a walking score and a driving score to determine a route score.” [0087]
Furthermore, Weinstein teaches “wherein determining the weighted combination comprises applying a weighting factor configured to prioritize minimizing the first expected time” by disclosing “[s]imilarly, more walking efficiency or less amounts of walking (reflected in a lower walking score) can decrease an overall route score or otherwise positively counter decreased provider efficiencies or increased amounts of driving (reflected in a higher driving score), and vice-versa.” [0050] Here, Weinstein teaches a need to prioritize minimizing the expected walking time because it would help with obtaining a lower overall route score by countering the negative affects of increased driving time.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 8, 11, 13, 15, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Pub No. US2021/0095979 to Weinstein et al.
Regarding Claim 1:
A method comprising:
receiving a ride request from a user, the ride request comprising an origin location and a destination location; [0022]
identifying a plurality of pickup locations proximate to the origin location; [0033], [0049]
generating a plurality of routes to the destination location, each of the plurality of routes comprising a walking segment to one of the plurality of pickup locations and a driving segment from the one of the plurality of pickup locations to the destination location, the walking segment generated based on a walking path database; [0030], [0035], [0044]
generating a score for each of the plurality of routes by determining a weighted combination of a first expected time to traverse the walking segment and a second expected time to traverse the driving segment, wherein determining the weighted combination comprises applying a weighting factor configured to prioritize minimizing the first expected time; [0050], [0087]
selecting one of the plurality of routes based on the scores, the selected route comprising a selected pickup location; [0053]
instruction an autonomous vehicle (AV) to drive to the selected pickup location; [0122] and
sending instructions to a device associated with the user, the instructions indicating the corresponding walking segment to the selected pickup location. [0025], [0032], [0033], [0053]
Regarding Claim 4:
the method of claim 1, wherein the walking path database comprises:
data describing a pair of pathways separated by a roadway; [0049] and
data describing whether pedestrian cross the roadway between the pair of pathways in the absence of a crosswalk. [0049]
Regarding Claim 6:
the method of claim 1, further comprising:
identifying a plurality of drop-off locations proximate to the destination location; [0033], [0049]
generating a second plurality of routes to the destination location, each of the second plurality of routes comprising a second driving segment to one of the plurality of drop-off locations and a second walking segment to the destination location, the second walking segment generated based on a walking path database; [0030], [0035], [0044]
generating a second score for the second plurality of routes, based in part on an expected time to traverse each of the second walking segments of the second plurality of routes; [0050]
selecting one of the second plurality of routes based on the second scores, the route comprising a selected drop-off location; [0053] and
instruction the AV to drive to the selected drop-off location. [0053], [0122]
Regarding Claim 8:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to:
receive a ride request from a user, the ride request comprising an origin location and a destination location; [0022]
identify a plurality of pickup locations proximate to the origin location; [0033], [0049]
generate a plurality of routes to the destination location, each of the plurality of routes comprising a walking segment to one of the plurality of pickup locations and a driving segment from the one of the plurality of pickup locations to the destination location, the walking segment generated based on a walking path database; [0030], [0035], [0044]
generating a score for each of the plurality of routes by determining a weighted combination of a first expected time to traverse the walking segment and a second expected time to traverse the driving segment, wherein determining the weighted combination comprises applying a weighting factor configured to prioritize minimizing the first expected time; [0050], [0087]
select one of the plurality of routes based on the scores, the selected route comprising a selected pickup location; [0053]
instruction an autonomous vehicle (AV) to drive to the selected pickup location; [0122] and
sending instructions to a device associated with the user, the instructions indicating the corresponding walking segment to the selected pickup location. [0025], [0032], [0033], [0053]
Regarding Claim 11:
the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 8, wherein the walking path database comprises:
data describing a pair of pathways separated by a roadway; [0049] and
data describing whether pedestrian cross the roadway between the pair of pathways in the absence of a crosswalk. [0049]
Regarding Claim 13:
the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 8, wherein the instructions further cause the processor to:
identify a plurality of drop-off locations proximate to the destination location; [0033], [0049]
generate a second plurality of routes to the destination location, each of the second plurality of routes comprising a second driving segment to one of the plurality of drop-off locations and a second walking segment to the destination location, the second walking segment generated based on a walking path database; [0030], [0035], [0044]
generate a second score for the second plurality of routes, based in part on an expected time to traverse each of the second walking segments of the second plurality of routes; [0050]
select one of the second plurality of routes based on the second scores, the route comprising a selected drop-off location; [0053] and
instruct the AV to drive to the selected drop-off location. [0122], [0053]
Regarding Claim 15:
An apparatus comprising:
a computer processor for executing computer program instructions; and
a non-transitory computer-readable memory storing computer program instructions executable by the computer processor to perform operations comprising:
receiving a ride request from a user, the ride request comprising an origin location and a destination location; [0022]
identifying a plurality of pickup locations proximate to the origin location; [0033], [0049]
generating a plurality of routes to the destination location, each of the plurality of routes comprising a walking segment to one of the plurality of pickup locations and a driving segment from the one of the plurality of pickup locations to the destination location, the walking segment generated based on a walking path database; [0030], [0035], [0044]
generating a score for each of the plurality of routes by determining a weighted combination of a first expected time to traverse the walking segment and a second expected time to traverse the driving segment, wherein determining the weighted combination comprises applying a weighting factor configured to prioritize minimizing the first expected time; [0050], [0087]
selecting one of the plurality of routes based on the scores, the selected route comprising a selected pickup location; [0053]
instruction an autonomous vehicle (AV) to drive to the selected pickup location; [0122] and
sending instructions to a device associated with the user, the instructions indicating the corresponding walking segment to the selected pickup location. [0025], [0032], [0033], [0053]
Regarding Claim 18:
the apparatus of claim 15, wherein the walking path database comprises:
data describing a pair of pathways separated by a roadway; [0049] and
data describing whether pedestrian cross the roadway between the pair of pathways in the absence of a crosswalk. [0049]
Regarding Claim 20:
the apparatus of claim 15, the operations further comprising:
identifying a plurality of drop-off locations proximate to the destination location; [0033], [0049]
generating a second plurality of routes to the destination location, each of the second plurality of routes comprising a second driving segment to one of the plurality of drop-off locations and a second walking segment to the destination location, the second walking segment generated based on a walking path database; [0030], [0035], [0044]
generating a second score for the second plurality of routes, based in part on an expected time to traverse each of the second walking segments of the second plurality of routes; [0050]
selecting one of the second plurality of routes based on the second scores, the route comprising a selected drop-off location; [0053] and
instruction the AV to drive to the selected drop-off location. [0053]
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.
Claims 2, 3, 7, 9, 10, 14, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weinstein et al in view of US Pub. No. US2020/0173787 to Sullivan.
Regarding Claims 2, 9, 16:
Weinstein et al disclose that mapping data may be obtained from third-party server such as Google Maps data [0044]. Weinstein et al do not expressly disclose that the map database comprises data describing a crosswalk across a roadway, the data derived from sensor data collected by one or more sensors of the AV. However, Sullivan discloses a mapping system where autonomous vehicles with sensors are used to obtain map data. More specifically, Sullivan discloses that the mapping data may include crosswalks. [0048] Accordingly, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Weinstein et al’s transportation matching system to utilize the mapping data created by the autonomous vehicles as disclosed by Sullivan. Weinstein et al provide motivation for such modification by disclosing that the environment includes a third-party server, and the third-party server may include a remote server or a third-party server for obtaining map data. [0044]
Regarding Claims 3, 10, 17:
Weinstein et al disclose that mapping data may be obtained from third-party server such as Google Maps data [0044]. Weinstein et al do not expressly disclose that the map database comprises a pathway observed as being used by a perceived pedestrian, wherein the pedestrian was perceived based on sensor data collected by one or more sensors of the AV. However, Sullivan discloses a mapping system where autonomous vehicles with sensors are used to obtain map data. More specifically, Sullivan discloses that the mapping data may include vehicle sensors detecting a non-normal condition such as a pedestrian standing in the path of the vehicle. [Sullivan 0044] Accordingly, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Weinstein et al’s transportation matching system to utilize the mapping data created by the autonomous vehicles as disclosed by Sullivan. Weinstein et al provide motivation for such modification by disclosing that the environment includes a third-party server, and the third-party server may include a remote server or a third-party server for obtaining map data. [Weinstein 0044]
Regarding Claims 7, 14:
Weinstein et al disclose that mapping data may be obtained from third-party server such as Google Maps data [0044], and that the generated walking portion may reflect a degree of difficulty/complexity of the walking portion [0066]. Weinstein et al do not expressly disclose that the difficulty/complexity of the walking portion is the result of a temporary blockage of a walking path, the temporary blockage perceived by the AV. However, Sullivan discloses a mapping system where autonomous vehicles with sensors are used to obtain map data. More specifically, Sullivan discloses that the mapping data may include vehicle sensors detecting a non-normal condition such as a fallen tree across a sidewalk, a road closure, etc. [Sullivan 0082] Accordingly, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Weinstein et al’s transportation matching system to utilize the mapping data created by the autonomous vehicles as disclosed by Sullivan. Weinstein et al provide motivation for such modification by disclosing that the environment includes a third-party server, and the third-party server may include a remote server or a third-party server for obtaining map data. [Weinstein 0044]
Claims 5, 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weinstein et al in view of US Pub. No. US20210078598 to Kim.
Regarding Claims 5, 12, 19:
Weinstein et al disclose that the generated walking portion may reflect a walking time based on degree of difficulty/complexity of the walking portion [0066] and communicating with third party data servers such as Google to obtain maps data for driving and walking from location to location [0044]. Weinstein et al do not expressly disclose the walking path database comprise intersection data describing traffic controls at intersections. However, Kim discloses a pedestrian guidance system where an autonomous vehicle is able to calculate an estimated intersection crossing time to be the sum of an existing traffic light time and an additional time according to the pedestrian type. [Kim 0282] Accordingly, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Weinstein et al’s transportation matching system to utilize the pedestrian intersection crossing time calculation as disclosed by Kim. Weinstein et al provide motivation for such modification by disclosing that the coalescing controller system may implement varying estimated time of arrivals in response to a number of factors including traffic in order to optimize the pick-up and drop-off of requestors. [0061]
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 Rutao Wu whose telephone number is (571)272-6045. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5.
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, Tariq Hafiz can be reached at 571-272-5350. 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.
/RUTAO WU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3623
