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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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.
Applicant's arguments filed, 08/08/2025, with regards to 101 rejections set forth by the previous office action have been fully considered but are found to be unpersuasive at this time:
The claim(s), as presently amended, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind, or by a human using pen and paper, and therefore recite mental processes. More specifically, nothing in the claim element precludes the aforementioned steps from practically being performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper. The mere recitation of a generic computer does not take the claim out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea. For more information regarding the amendments, please see the 101 sections below.
Applicant argues that the amended feature(s) integrate the invention into a practical application. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The amendments recite features which amount to merely applying the idea using generic computer components and extra solution activity (please see rejection below).
Applicant argues that the amended feature(s) integrate the invention into more than a judicial exception. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The amended features do not provide significantly more than the judicial exception the newly added features act to apply the abstract idea using a generically recited device. Additionally, and/or alternatively the feature(s) amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity because the function (displaying data) is well understood and conventional activity (see rejection below).
Applicant’s amendments have been considered and the claim objections and 112(b) rejections of the previous office action have been withdrawn accordingly.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 4-13, and 16-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test entails considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Claims 1-13 and 15-20 are directed to a method (process) and a system (machine or manufacture), respectively. As such, the claims are directed to statutory categories of invention.
If the claim recites a statutory category of invention, the claim requires further analysis in Step 2A. Step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
Claim(s) 1 and 13 recites abstract limitations, which are emphasized (bolded) below.
1. (Currently Amended) A method for pickup and drop off planning, comprising:
providing a plurality of sensors and a controller, the controller including a processor and a tangible, non-transitory, machine-readable medium, the controller being in communication with the plurality of sensors:
receiving via the controller people-transfer data, wherein the people-transfer data includes passenger data and destination data, the passenger data includes information about a person that will move between a vehicle and a pedestrian location outside the vehicle, the pedestrian location outside the vehicle is adjacent to an infrastructure, and the destination data includes information about the infrastructure and an area directly adjacent to the infrastructure;
detecting via the controller a plurality of restricted locations along the infrastructure using the destination data, wherein each of the plurality of restricted locations is unavailable for the vehicle to stop;
determining via the controller a transfer location based on the plurality of restricted locations and the passenger data, wherein the transfer location is a position where the passenger will transfer between the vehicle and the pedestrian location outside the vehicle, wherein the passenger data includes:
an input of time requested by the passenger for pickup or dropoff:
information on items carried by the passenger including quantity, weight, or size; and
an indication of whether the passenger has assistance needs,
wherein the passenger data is used to estimate a time of transfer;
estimating via the controller the time of transfer for the passenger to transfer between the vehicle and the pedestrian location outside the vehicle based on the passenger data, wherein the estimation includes:
receiving the information on the items carried by the passenger and assistance need;
determining whether such items or assistance require additional time of transfer: and
determining the estimated time of transfer by adding a predetermined time value to the time requested by the passenger for pickup or drop-off, the predetermined time value corresponding to the information on the items carried by the passenger and the indication of whether the passenger has assistance needs:
filtering out via the controller the plurality of restricted locations to determine a plurality of available stop segments along the infrastructure: and
commanding via the controller the vehicle to perform a control action in response to determining the transfer location, wherein the control action is to command a user interface of the vehicle to show the transfer location on a map.
13. (Currently Amended) A vehicle, comprising:
a plurality of sensors;
a controller including a processor and a tangible, non-transitory, machine- readable medium, wherein the controller is in communication with the plurality of sensors, and the controller is programmed to:
receive people-transfer data, wherein the people-transfer data includes passenger data and a destination data, the passenger data includes:
an input of time requested by a passenger for pickup or dropoff;
information on items carried by the passenger including quantity, weight, or size;
an indication of whether the passenger has assistance needs, wherein the passenger data is used to estimate a time of transfer, and
information about a person that will move between a vehicle and a pedestrian location outside the vehicle, the pedestrian location outside the vehicle is adjacent to an infrastructure, and the destination data includes information about the infrastructure and an area directly adjacent to the infrastructure;
detect a plurality of restricted locations along the infrastructure using the destination data, wherein each of the plurality of restricted locations is unavailable for the vehicle to stop;
determine a transfer location based on the plurality of restricted locations and the passenger data, wherein the transfer location is a position where the passenger will transfer between the vehicle and the pedestrian location outside the vehicle; and
estimate the time of transfer for the passenger to transfer between the vehicle and the pedestrian location outside the vehicle based on the passenger data, wherein the estimation includes the controller being programmed to:
receive the information on the items carried by the passenger and assistance need;
determine whether such items or assistance require additional time of transfer; and
determine the estimated time of transfer by adding a predetermined time value to the time requested by the passenger for pickup or drop-off, the predetermined time value corresponding to the information on the items carried by the passenger and the indication of whether the passenger has assistance needs;
filter out the plurality of restricted locations to determine a plurality of available stop segments along the infrastructure; and
command the vehicle to perform a control action in response to determining the transfer location, wherein the control action is to command a user interface of the vehicle to show the transfer location on a map.
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, a process for managing relationships or interactions (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) and are therefore a method of organizing human activity. More specifically, nothing in the claim element precludes the abstract steps recited above from practically being performed by a human. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Additionally, the providing limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind, or by a human using pen and paper, and therefore recite mental processes. More specifically, nothing in the claim element precludes the aforementioned steps from practically being performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper. The mere recitation of a generic computer does not take the claim out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
If the claim recites a judicial exception in step 2A Prong One, the claim requires further analysis in step 2A Prong Two. In step 2A Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
The claim recites additional elements of: which are emphasized (underlined) below.
1. (Currently Amended) A method for pickup and drop off planning, comprising:
providing a plurality of sensors and a controller, the controller including a processor and a tangible, non-transitory, machine-readable medium, the controller being in communication with the plurality of sensors:
receiving via the controller people-transfer data, wherein the people-transfer data includes passenger data and destination data, the passenger data includes information about a person that will move between a vehicle and a pedestrian location outside the vehicle, the pedestrian location outside the vehicle is adjacent to an infrastructure, and the destination data includes information about the infrastructure and an area directly adjacent to the infrastructure;
detecting via the controller a plurality of restricted locations along the infrastructure using the destination data, wherein each of the plurality of restricted locations is unavailable for the vehicle to stop;
determining via the controller a transfer location based on the plurality of restricted locations and the passenger data, wherein the transfer location is a position where the passenger will transfer between the vehicle and the pedestrian location outside the vehicle, wherein the passenger data includes:
an input of time requested by the passenger for pickup or dropoff:
information on items carried by the passenger including quantity, weight, or size; and
an indication of whether the passenger has assistance needs, wherein the passenger data is used to estimate a time of transfer;
estimating via the controller the time of transfer for the passenger to transfer between the vehicle and the pedestrian location outside the vehicle based on the passenger data, wherein the estimation includes:
receiving the information on the items carried by the passenger and assistance need;
determining whether such items or assistance require additional time of transfer: and
determining the estimated time of transfer by adding a predetermined time value to the time requested by the passenger for pickup or drop-off, the predetermined time value corresponding to the information on the items carried by the passenger and the indication of whether the passenger has assistance needs:
filtering out via the controller the plurality of restricted locations to determine a plurality of available stop segments along the infrastructure: and
commanding via the controller the vehicle to perform a control action in response to determining the transfer location, wherein the control action is to command a user interface of the vehicle to show the transfer location on a map.
13. (Currently Amended) A vehicle, comprising:
a plurality of sensors;
a controller including a processor and a tangible, non-transitory, machine- readable medium, wherein the controller is in communication with the -a-plurality of sensors, and the controller is programmed to:
receive people-transfer data, wherein the people-transfer data includes passenger data and a destination data, the passenger data includes:
an input of time requested by a passenger for pickup or dropoff;
information on items carried by the passenger including quantity, weight, or size;
an indication of whether the passenger has assistance needs, wherein the passenger data is used to estimate a time of transfer, and
information about a person that will move between a vehicle and a pedestrian location outside the vehicle, the pedestrian location outside the vehicle is adjacent to an infrastructure, and the destination data includes information about the infrastructure and an area directly adjacent to the infrastructure;
detect a plurality of restricted locations along the infrastructure using the destination data, wherein each of the plurality of restricted locations is unavailable for the vehicle to stop;
determine a transfer location based on the plurality of restricted locations and the passenger data, wherein the transfer location is a position where the passenger will transfer between the vehicle and the pedestrian location outside the vehicle; and
estimate the time of transfer for the passenger to transfer between the vehicle and the pedestrian location outside the vehicle based on the passenger data, wherein the estimation includes the controller being programmed to:
receive the information on the items carried by the passenger and assistance need;
determine whether such items or assistance require additional time of transfer; and
determine the estimated time of transfer by adding a predetermined time value to the time requested by the passenger for pickup or drop-off, the predetermined time value corresponding to the information on the items carried by the passenger and the indication of whether the passenger has assistance needs;
filter out the plurality of restricted locations to determine a plurality of available stop segments along the infrastructure; and
command the vehicle to perform a control action in response to determining the transfer location, wherein the control action is to command a user interface of the vehicle to show the transfer location on a map.
The characterization of the …providing a plurality of sensors and a controller, the controller including a processor and a tangible, non-transitory, machine-readable medium, the controller being in communication with the plurality of sensors and/or A vehicle, comprising: a plurality of sensors; a controller including a processor and a tangible, non-transitory, machine-readable medium, amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception and cannot integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Additionally, and/or alternatively; The characterization of A vehicle, comprising: a plurality of sensors; a controller including a processor and a tangible, non-transitory, machine-readable medium, wherein the controller is in communication with the plurality of sensors, and the controller is programmed to are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tool to perform the abstract idea.
The characterization of receiving/detecting/determining/estimating/filtering/commanding via the controller… merely amounts to applying the abstract idea using a generically recited device.
The characterization of … wherein the control action is to command a user interface of the vehicle to show the transfer location on a map merely amounts to applying the abstract idea using a generically recited device. Additionally, and/or alternatively the feature(s) amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. activity incidental to the primary process that is merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)). MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function.
Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
If the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application in step 2A Prong Two, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception, and requires further analysis under Step 2B to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).
As discussed above, the characterization of A vehicle, comprising: a plurality of sensors; a controller including a processor and a tangible, non-transitory, machine-readable medium amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, which does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The characterization of receiving/detecting/determining/estimating/filtering/commanding via the controller…, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it”. See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The characterization of … wherein the control action is to command a user interface of the vehicle to show the transfer location on a map does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation merely amounts to applying the abstract idea using a generically recited device. Additionally, and/or alternatively the feature(s) amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. activity incidental to the primary process that is merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)). MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function.
Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
Claims 4-11 and 16-20 merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations.
Claim 12 also further recites commanding the vehicle to move, which may or may not be an autonomous function per the specification and therefore may be a method of organizing human activity (commanding a human to operate a vehicle to move).
Therefore, for the reasons described above with respect to claim(s) 1 and 13, the judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Examiner notes that, though not actively recited, the collection and transition of information between devices (e.g. via the recited sensors) would amount to extra-solution activity when recited at this level of breadth. The Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs. and buySAFE court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
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 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) Claim(s) 1, 4, 13, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Efland (US-20200089973-A1), Glaser (US-10082793-B1), Kanitz (US-20210380135-A1), and Kim (US-20160055605-A1), in view of Banthia (US-20230089493-A1).
1. (Currently Amended) Efland (US-20200089973-A1) discloses A method for pickup [0023] …services typically load (or pick-up) passengers from one geographic location and unload (or drop-off) the passengers at another geographic location. and drop off planning [0023] …autonomous vehicle needs to determine a drop-off location that is both convenient and safe for the passenger to exit… near a main entrance to the building and also free from obstacles (e.g., vehicles, debris, pedestrians, etc.) that may create a hazardous situation for the public or the passenger. , comprising:
providing a plurality of sensors and a controller [0002; Claim 1] , the controller including a processor and a tangible, non-transitory, machine-readable medium [0064-66] In particular embodiments, processor 702 includes hardware for executing instructions, such as those making up a computer program. As an example and not by way of limitation, to execute instructions, processor 702 may retrieve (or fetch) the instructions from an internal register, an internal cache, memory 704, or storage 706 , the controller being in communication with the plurality of sensors [0002; Claim 1] …the vehicle may have a computing system (e.g., one or more central processing units, graphical processing units, memory, storage, etc.) for controlling various operations of the vehicle, such as driving and navigating. To that end, the computing system may process data from one or more sensors. :
receiving via the controller people-transfer data [0023, 0048] , wherein the people-transfer data includes passenger data [0048] and destination data [0023] A transportation management system may comprise a fleet of such vehicles. In general, vehicles used to provide transportation services typically load (or pick-up) passengers from one geographic location and unload (or drop-off) the passengers at another geographic location. , the passenger data includes information about a person that will move between a vehicle and a pedestrian location outside the vehicle [0048] …a ride request from a ride requestor 601 may include an identifier that identifies the ride requestor in the system 660. The transportation management system 660 may use the identifier to access and store the ride requestor's 601 information, in accordance with the requestor's 601 privacy settings... Ride information may include, for example, preferred pick-up and drop-off locations, driving preferences (e.g., safety comfort level, preferred speed, rates of acceleration/deceleration, safety distance from other vehicles when travelling at various speeds, route, etc.), entertainment preferences and settings (e.g., preferred music genre or playlist, audio volume, display brightness, etc.), temperature settings, whether conversation with the driver is welcomed, frequent destinations, historical riding patterns (e.g., time of day of travel, starting and ending locations, etc.), preferred language, age, gender, or any other suitable information... , the pedestrian location outside the vehicle is adjacent to an infrastructure [0009; FIG.1, 4] … the interaction point is used to load one or more passengers from the at least one physical structure, unload one or more passengers at the at least one physical structure, , and the destination data includes information about the infrastructure [0004, 0012] …wherein determining contextual information describing the at least one physical structure corresponding to the location comprises: determining a presence of the at least one physical structure at the location based at least in part on the data captured by the one or more sensors of the vehicle; and determining one or more features that describe the at least one physical structure based at least in part on the data captured by the one or more sensors of the vehicle. and an area directly adjacent to the infrastructure [0005] … the one or more features correspond to at least one of: doorways for entering or exiting the at least one physical structure, windows associated with the at least one physical structure, parking spots within a threshold distance of the at least one physical structure, marked loading and unloading zones within a threshold distance of the at least one physical structure, and parking restrictions for a road on which the at least one physical structure is located. ;
detecting via the controller [0025-28] a plurality of restricted locations [0033] …de-prioritize or disqualify an interaction point based on known or determined parking restrictions for roads. For example, the interaction point module 208 can de-prioritize or disqualify an interaction point that is within a restricted parking zone along the infrastructure [0004-5] …parking spots within a threshold distance of the at least one physical structure, marked loading and unloading zones within a threshold distance of the at least one physical structure, and parking restrictions for a road on which the at least one physical structure is located using the destination data [0004, 0012] , wherein each of the plurality of restricted locations is unavailable [0025-28] for the vehicle to stop [0024] …a vehicle can use sensor data to disambiguate between physical structures on or adjacent to roads such as buildings. The vehicle can also determine various features corresponding to those physical structures (e.g., doors, windows, parking spots near entrances, marked loading and unloading zones, parking restrictions, etc.). ;
determining via the controller a transfer location based on the plurality of restricted locations [0028] …real-time (or near real-time) sensor data can be used to determine and prioritize interaction points for locations. … FIG. 1C, the vehicle 132 has identified a first interaction point 160, a second interaction point 162, a third interaction point 164, and a fourth interaction point 166. In this example, the vehicle 132 can determine that the second interaction point 162 is about to be occupied by a vehicle 158 and, therefore, is not available. The vehicle 132 can also determine the third interaction point 164 is not available because a group of pedestrians 168 are predicted to be located at the third interaction point 164 by the time the vehicle 132 arrives. Thus, the vehicle 132 can identify the first interaction point 160 and the fourth interaction point 166 as convenient and safe locations for parking the vehicle 132 when picking up and dropping off passengers and the passenger data [0048]… Ride information may include, for example, preferred pick-up and drop-off locations. , wherein the transfer location is a position where the passenger will transfer between the vehicle and the pedestrian location outside the vehicle [0024] …the vehicle can determine respective interaction points for each of the identified buildings based on a map, such as a three dimensional map of interaction points… an interaction point for a given building can be some space (or region) on a road that can be used to safely park or otherwise stop a vehicle for some purpose (e.g., picking passengers up from the building, dropping passengers off at the building, making deliveries to the building, etc.). , wherein the passenger data includes:
an input [0055] passenger inputs (e.g., through a user interface in the vehicle 640, passengers may send/receive data to the transportation management system 660 and third-party system 670), and any other suitable data. ****:
****,
****;
****:
****;
****: and
****:
filtering out via the controller the plurality of restricted locations [0024] The vehicle can then identify one or more prioritized interaction points to use for the building. In various embodiments, the vehicle can determine a prioritized list of interaction points for various physical structures. to determine a plurality of available stop segments along the infrastructure [0028] the vehicle 132 has identified a first interaction point 160, a second interaction point 162, a third interaction point 164, and a fourth interaction point 166. In this example, the vehicle 132 can determine that the second interaction point 162 is about to be occupied by a vehicle 158 and, therefore, is not available. The vehicle 132 can also determine the third interaction point 164 is not available because a group of pedestrians 168 are predicted to be located at the third interaction point 164 by the time the vehicle 132 arrives. Thus, the vehicle 132 can identify the first interaction point 160 and the fourth interaction point 166 as convenient and safe locations for parking the vehicle 132 when picking up and dropping off passengers at the first building 138, the second building 140, or the third building 142.: and
commanding via the controller the vehicle to perform a control action in response to determining the transfer location, wherein the control action is to command a user interface of the vehicle to show the transfer location on a map [0055] …the vehicles 640 may receive data from and transmit data to the transportation management system 660 … may include, e.g., instructions, new software or software updates, maps, 3D models, trained or untrained machine-learning models, location information (e.g., location of the ride requestor, the vehicle 640 itself, other vehicles 640, and target destinations such as service centers), navigation information, … through a user interface in the vehicle 640, passengers may send/receive data to the transportation management system 660 … any other suitable data.
Efland lacks the following underlined limitations:
…time requested by the passenger for pickup or dropoff:
…information on items carried by the passenger including quantity, weight, or size; and an indication of whether the passenger has assistance needs,
…wherein the passenger data is used to estimate a time of transfer; estimating via the controller the time of transfer for the passenger to transfer between the vehicle and the pedestrian location outside the vehicle based on the passenger data, wherein the estimation includes:
…receiving the information on the items carried by the passenger and assistance need;
determining whether such items or assistance require additional time of transfer: and
determining the estimated time of transfer by adding a predetermined time value to the time requested by the passenger for pickup or drop-off, the predetermined time value corresponding to the information on the items carried by the passenger and the indication of whether the passenger has assistance needs:
Regarding the limitation; “…time requested by the passenger for pickup or dropoff”, Glaser (US-10082793-B1) discloses in a similar invention field of endeavor, a consideration for [col.9 ln.8] In accordance with a typical use case workflow, a registered user of the autonomous vehicle transportation system 52 can create a ride request via the user device 54. The ride request will typically indicate the passenger's desired starting location (e.g., based on their current GPS location), their final destination location, and a departure time. The autonomous vehicle transportation system 52 receives the ride request, processes the request, and dispatches a selected one of the autonomous vehicles 10a-10n (when and if one is available) to pick up the passenger at the designated pickup location and at the appropriate time.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the instant application was effectively filed to adapt the modified system of Efland to include a time requested by the passenger for pickup or dropoff with a reasonable expectation for success, as taught by Glaser, for the benefit of allowing a system to coordinate with a user inorder to provide services at a time designated by a user request, increasing efficiency and time management of both a vehicle system and a passenger.
Regarding the limitation; “…information on items carried by the passenger including quantity, weight, or size; and an indication of whether the passenger has assistance needs… information on the items carried by the passenger and assistance need”, Kanitz (US-20210380135-A1) discloses in a similar invention field of endeavor, a consideration for [0024, 0105] For instance, the one or more passenger preferences (e.g., preference data 625) can be indicative of a seat preference, a passenger orientation preference, etc. As another example, the one or more passenger attributes (e.g., attribute data 620) can include an age, a susceptibility to motion sickness, a special accommodation (e.g., wheelchair usage, etc.), amount of luggage, and/or any other ride related attribute for a passenger 605A… [0024,0053] In addition, or alternatively, the computing system can determine that the at least one passenger is associated with a motion constraint requirement based, at least in part, on the passenger data. A motion constraint requirement can include, for example, an age constraint, a susceptibility to motion sickness constraint, a handicap constraint, and/or any other constraint that may justify limited vehicle mobility, etc.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the instant application was effectively filed to adapt the modified system of Efland to include information on items carried by the passenger including quantity, and an indication of whether the passenger has assistance needs and information on the items carried by the passenger and assistance need with a reasonable expectation for success, as taught by Kanitz, for the benefit of providing a system with passenger related information which may affect travel time, capacity, and/or accommodation needs for vehicular travel.
Regarding the limitation; “…wherein the passenger data is used to estimate a time of transfer; …estimating via the controller the time of transfer for the passenger to transfer between the vehicle and the pedestrian location outside the vehicle based on the passenger data”, Kim (US-20160055605-A1) discloses in a similar invention field of endeavor, a consideration for [0061] The system 100 can periodically determine the user ETA by determining the user's position information. For example, at one instance in time (illustrated by FIG. 3), the system 100 can determine the user ETA, shown as ETA1 (14 minutes), based on the current location of the user (or the last received/determined location data point of the user), one or more previous location data points of the user, the specified method of transit, transit information, mapping information, traffic information, and/or the transfer location data point… [0034] The client ETA determine 140 can determine the user ETA 143 based on the user's rate of travel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the instant application was effectively filed to adapt the modified system of Efland to include wherein the passenger data is used to estimate a time of transfer and estimating via the controller the time of transfer for the passenger to transfer between the vehicle and the pedestrian location outside the vehicle based on the passenger data with a reasonable expectation for success, as taught by Kim, for the benefit of allowing a system to coordinate with a user in order to precisely adjust time estimations for system capabilities according to individual user details/information regarding luggage, accessibility needs, and/or other considerations that may affect the time allocated/spent in addressing user needs.
However; Kim lacks distinct disclosure regarding adding a predetermined time value corresponding to passenger needs.
Regarding the limitation; “…determining whether such items or assistance require additional time of transfer… determining the estimated time of transfer by adding a predetermined time value to the time requested by the passenger for pickup or drop-off, the predetermined time value corresponding to the information on the items carried by the passenger and the indication of whether the passenger has assistance needs”, Banthia (US-20230089493-A1) discloses in a similar invention field of endeavor, a consideration for [0075] … For example, a fleet manager for a first fleet of vehicles that are designed to be accessible to passengers that require special assistance may assign vehicles in the first fleet to have a drop-off wait time of 5 minutes to account for any special assistance each passenger may need, such as a wheelchair ramp or being helped to their door. In contrast, a fleet manager for a second fleet of vehicles that do not have capabilities to accommodate passengers with special assistance and only operates in a city environment may set a drop-of wait time of 15 seconds as most drop-offs are in non-sanctioned parking spots (e.g., in front of a fire hydrant, double parked, etc.)… may determine that timelines corresponding to trips that have a transportation port (e.g., train terminal, airport) have an allotted time of 3 minutes for unloading passengers since trips with destinations at a transportation port tend to include passengers with luggage and thus, the passengers may require more time to exit the vehicle and unload their luggage compared to trips with other types of destinations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the instant application was effectively filed to adapt the modified system of Efland to include adding a predetermined time value corresponding to the information on the items carried by the passenger and the indication of whether the passenger has assistance needs with a reasonable expectation for success, as taught by Banthia, for the benefit of allowing a system to determine individual user details/information regarding luggage, accessibility needs, and/or other considerations that may affect services rendered for a passenger and allocate/compute/reserve the time necessary to address passenger needs during operations.
In re claim 4. Efland (US-20200089973-A1) discloses The method of claim 1, further comprising determining an optimal transfer point [0023] without restrictions [0033] …For example, the interaction point module 208 can use the disambiguation information to identify a building associated with the location as well as a main entrance to the building. In this example, the interaction point module 208 can prioritize interaction points that are within a threshold distance of the main entrance of the building over other candidate interaction points.
In re claim 13. Efland (US-20200089973-A1) discloses A vehicle, comprising: a plurality of sensors; a controller including a processor and a tangible, non-transitory, machine-readable medium [0064-66] In particular embodiments, processor 702 includes hardware for executing instructions, such as those making up a computer program. As an example and not by way of limitation, to execute instructions, processor 702 may retrieve (or fetch) the instructions from an internal register, an internal cache, memory 704, or storage 706;, wherein the controller is in communication with the a plurality of sensors [0002; Claim 1] …the vehicle may have a computing system (e.g., one or more central processing units, graphical processing units, memory, storage, etc.) for controlling various operations of the vehicle, such as driving and navigating. To that end, the computing system may process data from one or more sensors., …
Regarding the remaining limitations: The limitations are similar in scope to those disclosed in the method of claim 1 and are therefore rejected under the same premise. For more information regarding the limitations, please see the rejection in re claim 1.
In re claim 16. The limitations are similar in scope to those disclosed in the method of claim 4 and are therefore rejected under the same premise. For more information regarding the limitations, please see the rejection in re claim 4.
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Efland (US-20200089973-A1), Glaser (US-10082793-B1), Kanitz (US-20210380135-A1), Kim (US-20160055605-A1), and Banthia (US-20230089493-A1), as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Woo (US-20210101586-A1).
In re claim 5. Efland (US-20200089973-A1) lacks The method of claim 4, further comprising determining a midpoint of a length of each of the plurality of available stop segments.
Regarding the limitation; Woo (US-20210101586-A1) discloses in a similar invention field of endeavor, a consideration for a method for determining available [FIG.4] parking spaces [FIG.3] parking area 300 based upon measured dimensions of the parking space [0036] …the computer 105 determines parking space 310 dimensions, i.e., a length and width, based on the boundaries 315, 325. and further discloses a consideration for determining a midpoint associated with the parking space [FIG.3] parking space center axis 315.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the instant application was effectively filed to adapt the modified system of Efland to include determining a midpoint of a length of each of the plurality of available stop segments with a reasonable expectation for success, as taught by Woo, for the benefit of ensuring parking spaces can accommodate user vehicles by configuring a system to comprise a method which contains a consideration for minimum clearances based upon measured dimensions of a parking space (to include a midpoint), ensuring a vehicle is able to orient itself within the confines of available parking space dimensions [FIG.4].
In re claim 6. Efland (US-20200089973-A1) lacks The method of claim 5, further comprising determining a length of each of the plurality of available stop segments.
Regarding the limitation; Woo (US-20210101586-A1) discloses in a similar invention field of endeavor, a consideration for a method for determining available [FIG.4] parking spaces [FIG.3] parking area 300 based upon measured dimensions of the parking space [0036] …the computer 105 determines parking space 310 dimensions, i.e., a length and width, based on the boundaries 315, 325. and further discloses a consideration for determining a midpoint associated with the parking space [FIG.3] parking space center axis 315.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the instant application was effectively filed to adapt the modified system of Efland to include determining a length of each of the plurality of available stop segments with a reasonable expectation for success, as taught by Woo, for the benefit of ensuring parking spaces can accommodate user vehicles by configuring a system to comprise a method which contains a consideration for minimum clearances based upon measured dimensions of a parking space (to include a length), ensuring a vehicle is able to orient itself within the confines of available parking space dimensions [FIG.4].
In re claim 7. Efland (US-20200089973-A1) discloses The method of claim 6, further comprising filtering out segments to determine a plurality of feasible stop segments.
Efland lacks the following underlined limitations:
comprising filtering out segments that have a length that is less than a predetermined length threshold to determine a plurality of feasible stop segments
Regarding the limitation; “…that have a length that is less than a predetermined length threshold”, Woo (US-20210101586-A1) discloses in a similar invention field of endeavor, a consideration for a method for determining available [FIG.4] parking spaces [FIG.3] parking area 300 based upon measured dimensions of the parking space [0036] …the computer 105 determines parking space 310 dimensions, i.e., a length and width, based on the boundaries 315, 325. and further discloses a consideration for determining a midpoint associated with the parking space [FIG.3] parking space center axis 315. Woo further discloses wherein the method includes a consideration for filtering out parking spaces that are not feasible due to dimensional (length) thresholds [FIG.4 process 400] FEASIBLE? 440. The process 400 is further defined as having a consideration for longitudinal and lateral [0012] “clearance” [0049] …the computer 105 could be programmed to determine, based on the specified or default distance of the center point 210 from the boundary 330, to determine whether, when the vehicle 120 is parked at a bias, i.e., the angle β, a corner of the vehicle will extend beyond a length of the parking space 310… [0016] …detecting a longitudinal boundary of the parking space
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the instant application was effectively filed to adapt the modified system of Efland to include determining a length that is less than a predetermined length threshold with a reasonable expectation for success, as taught by Woo, for the benefit of ensuring parking spaces can accommodate user vehicles by configuring a system to comprise a method which contains a consideration for minimum clearances based upon measured dimensions of a parking space (to include a length in relation to predetermined measured thresholds), ensuring a vehicle is able to orient itself within the confines of available parking space dimensions [FIG.4].
Claim(s) 8-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Efland (US-20200089973-A1), Glaser (US-10082793-B1), Kanitz (US-20210380135-A1), Kim (US-20160055605-A1), Banthia (US-20230089493-A1), and Woo (US-20210101586-A1), as applied to claim 7 above and further in view of Shah (US-10157543-B1).
In re claim 8. Efland (US-20200089973-A1) discloses The method of claim 7, further comprising determining a distance with respect to the optimal transfer point without restrictions to determine a plurality of segment distances [0033] …For example, the interaction point module 208 can use the disambiguation information to identify a building associated with the location as well as a main entrance to the building. In this example, the interaction point module 208 can prioritize interaction points that are within a threshold distance of the main entrance of the building over other candidate interaction points.
Efland lacks the following underlined limitations:
…midpoint of the length of each of the plurality of feasible stop segments
a distance from …each of the plurality of feasible stop segments to the optimal transfer point
Regarding the limitation; “…midpoint of the length of each of the plurality of feasible stop segments”, Woo (US-20210101586-A1) discloses in a similar invention field of endeavor, a consideration for a method for determining available [FIG.4] parking spaces [FIG.3] parking area 300 based upon measured dimensions of the parking space [0036] …the computer 105 determines parking space 310 dimensions, i.e., a length and width, based on the boundaries 315, 325. and further discloses a consideration for determining a midpoint associated with the parking space [FIG.3] parking space center axis 315.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the instant application was effectively filed to adapt the modified system of Efland to include determining a midpoint of a length of each of the plurality of available stop segments with a reasonable expectation for success, as taught by Woo, for the benefit of ensuring parking spaces can accommodate user vehicles by configuring a system to comprise a method which contains a consideration for minimum clearances based upon measured dimensions of a parking space (to include a reference midpoint), ensuring a vehicle is able to orient itself within the confines of available parking space dimensions [FIG.4].
Regarding the limitation; “…a distance from …each of the plurality of feasible stop segments to the optimal transfer point”, Shah (US-10157543-B1) discloses in a similar invention field of endeavor, a consideration for a smart parking system configured to select parking spaces based on probability of availability and/or distance between parking spots in order to select an optimal parking space based upon weighted score thresholds [col.13 ln.20] parking system 220 can consider both a probability of availability and distance between parking spots and a destination associated with the vehicle. Accordingly, parking system 220 can not necessarily select a most likely available parking spot as the parking destination, but can select a likely available parking spot that is closer to the destination associated with the vehicle than the most likely available parking spot.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the instant application was effectively filed to adapt the modified system of Efland to include a distance from each of the plurality of feasible stop segments to the optimal transfer point with a reasonable expectation for success, as taught by Shah, for the benefit of selecting a likely available parking spot that is closer to the destination associated with the vehicle than the most likely available parking spot [col.13 ln.20].
In re claim 9. Efland (US-20200089973-A1) discloses The method of claim 8, further comprising determining, for each of the plurality of feasible stop segments [0033] …interaction point module 208 can determine and prioritize interaction points for locations …based on generally known techniques for automatically identifying interaction points, a probability that the plurality of feasible stop segments will be available when the vehicle reaches a corresponding one of the plurality of feasible stop segments to determine a plurality of available probabilities [0033] …some of these potential interaction points may not be usable, for example, due to obstructions or other road conditions. For example, a potential interaction point may be de-prioritized or disqualified because the interaction point is being partially or fully obstructed by one or more objects …based on predicted trajectories of objects detected on a road. …an interaction point that is likely to be partially or fully obstructed in the near future (e.g., a time prior to a time of anticipated arrival at the interaction point by a vehicle that is to stop) by one or more objects in motion…
In re claim 10. Efland (US-20200089973-A1) discloses The method of claim 9, further comprising sorting the plurality of feasible stop segments based distance from to the optimal transfer point without restrictions [0033] …In this example, the interaction point module 208 can prioritize interaction points that are within a threshold distance of the main entrance of the building over other candidate interaction points. with respect to the probability that the plurality of feasible stop segments will be available when the vehicle reaches a corresponding one of the plurality of feasible stop segments [0033] …some of these potential interaction points may not be usable, for example, due to obstructions or other road conditions. For example, a potential interaction point may be de-prioritized or disqualified because the interaction point is being partially or fully obstructed by one or more objects …based on predicted trajectories of objects detected on a road. …an interaction point that is likely to be partially or fully obstructed in the near future (e.g., a time prior to a time of anticipated arrival at the interaction point by a vehicle that is to stop) by one or more objects in motion…
Efland lacks the following underlined limitations:
…based on a ratio between the distance from the midpoint of the length of each of the plurality of feasible stop segments to the optimal transfer point without restrictions with respect to the probability that the plurality of feasible stop segments will be available when the vehicle reaches a corresponding one of the plurality of feasible stop segments.
Regarding the limitation; “…the midpoint of the length”, Woo (US-20210101586-A1) discloses in a similar invention field of endeavor, a consideration for a method for determining available [FIG.4] parking spaces [FIG.3] parking area 300 based upon measured dimensions of the parking space [0036] …the computer 105 determines parking space 310 dimensions, i.e., a length and width, based on the boundaries 315, 325. and further discloses a consideration for determining a midpoint associated with the parking space [FIG.3] parking space center axis 315.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the instant application was effectively filed to adapt the modified system of Efland to include determining a midpoint of a length of each of the plurality of available stop segments with a reasonable expectation for success, as taught by Woo, for the benefit of ensuring parking spaces can accommodate user vehicles by configuring a system to comprise a method which contains a consideration for minimum clearances based upon measured dimensions of a parking space (to include a reference midpoint), ensuring a vehicle is able to orient itself within the confines of available parking space dimensions [FIG.4].
Regarding the limitation; “…based on a ratio between distance from … each of the plurality of feasible stop segments to the optimal transfer point without restrictions with respect to the probability that the plurality of feasible stop segments will be available when the vehicle reaches a corresponding one of the plurality of feasible stop segments”, Shah (US-10157543-B1) discloses in a similar invention field of endeavor, a consideration for a smart parking system configured to sort based on a ratio of distance compared to probability of availability [col.13 ln.25] parking system 220 can utilize a scoring system to select a parking spot of the parking lot ... Scores can be calculated for one or more of the parking spots in the parking lot based on the scoring system, and parking system 220 can select a parking destination based on the score for that parking spot relative to the others and/or based on that parking spot having a score that satisfies a threshold. Accordingly, parking system 220 can score the parking spots of the parking lots based on probability of availability and/or distance to the destination… Accordingly, an optimal parking spot (i.e., optimal relative to the scoring system) can be selected for a vehicle from the plurality of parking spots in the parking lot. parking spaces based on probability of availability and/or distance between parking spots in order to select an optimal parking space based upon weighted score thresholds [col.13] Depending on weighting of the scoring system used by parking system 220 to select the transaction card, parking system 220 can select the first parking spot for the vehicle if probability of availability is more heavily weighted than distance to the destination, or parking system 220 can select the second parking spot if distance to the destination is more heavily weighted than probability of availability.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the instant application was effectively filed to adapt the modified system of Efland to include a ratio between distance from each of the plurality of feasible stop segments to the optimal transfer point without restrictions with respect to the probability that the plurality of feasible stop segments will be available when the vehicle reaches a corresponding one of the plurality of feasible stop segments with a reasonable expectation for success, as taught by Shah, for the benefit of selecting a likely available parking spot that is closer to the destination associated with the vehicle than the most likely available parking spot [col.13 ln.20].
In re claim 11. Efland (US-20200089973-A1) lacks The method of claim 10, further comprising: determining which of the plurality of feasible stop segments has a lowest value ratio between the distance from the midpoint of the length of each of the plurality of feasible stop segments to the transfer point without restrictions with respect to the probability that the plurality of feasible stop segments will be available when the vehicle reaches a corresponding one of the plurality of feasible stop segments to selecting the plurality of feasible stop segments with the lowest value of the ratio between the distance from the midpoint of the length of each of the plurality of feasible stop segments to the optimal transfer point without restrictions with respect to the probability that the plurality of feasible stop segments will be available when the vehicle reaches a corresponding one of the plurality of feasible stop segments to determine a selected feasible stop segment.
Regarding the limitation; “…the midpoint of the length”, Woo (US-20210101586-A1) discloses in a similar invention field of endeavor, a consideration for a method for determining available [FIG.4] parking spaces [FIG.3] parking area 300 based upon measured dimensions of the parking space [0036] …the computer 105 determines parking space 310 dimensions, i.e., a length and width, based on the boundaries 315, 325. and further discloses a consideration for determining a midpoint associated with the parking space [FIG.3] parking space center axis 315.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the instant application was effectively filed to adapt the modified system of Efland to include determining a midpoint of a length of each of the plurality of available stop segments with a reasonable expectation for success, as taught by Woo, for the benefit of ensuring parking spaces can accommodate user vehicles by configuring a system to comprise a method which contains a consideration for minimum clearances based upon measured dimensions of a parking space (to include a reference midpoint), ensuring a vehicle is able to orient itself within the confines of available parking space dimensions [FIG.4].
Regarding the remaining limitation; Shah (US-10157543-B1) discloses in a similar invention field of endeavor, a consideration for determining which of the plurality of feasible stop segments [col.13-14] has a lowest value ratio Accordingly, an optimal parking spot (i.e., optimal relative to the scoring system) can be selected for a vehicle from the plurality of parking spots in the parking lot. between the distance from each of the plurality of feasible stop segments to the transfer point without restrictions with respect to the probability that the plurality of feasible stop segments will be available when the vehicle reaches a corresponding one of the plurality of feasible stop segments to selecting the plurality of feasible stop segments with the lowest value of the ratio (i.e., optimal relative to the scoring system) between the distance from each of the plurality of feasible stop segments to the optimal transfer point without restrictions with respect to the probability that the plurality of feasible stop segments will be available [col.13 ln.25] parking system 220 can utilize a scoring system to select a parking spot of the parking lot ... Scores can be calculated for one or more of the parking spots in the parking lot based on the scoring system, and parking system 220 can select a parking destination based on the score for that parking spot relative to the others and/or based on that parking spot having a score that satisfies a threshold. Accordingly, parking system 220 can score the parking spots of the parking lots based on probability of availability and/or distance to the destination… Accordingly, an optimal parking spot (i.e., optimal relative to the scoring system) can be selected for a vehicle from the plurality of parking spots in the parking lot. when the vehicle reaches a corresponding one of the plurality of feasible stop segments to determine a selected feasible stop segment [col.13] parking system 220 can select the first parking spot for the vehicle if probability of availability is more heavily weighted than distance to the destination, or parking system 220 can select the second parking spot if distance to the destination is more heavily weighted than probability of availability.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the instant application was effectively filed to adapt the modified system of Efland to include a distance from each of the plurality of feasible stop segments to the transfer point without restrictions with respect to the probability that the plurality of feasible stop segments will be available when the vehicle reaches a corresponding one of the plurality of feasible stop segments with a reasonable expectation for success, as taught by Shah, for the benefit of selecting a likely available parking spot, based upon a scoring system, to identify the parking space that is closer to the destination associated with the vehicle than the most likely available parking spot [col.13 ln.20].
In re claim 12. Efland (US-20200089973-A1) discloses The method of claim 11, wherein the selected feasible stop segment is designated as the transfer location [0028; Claim 9] …the vehicle 132 can identify the first interaction point 160 and the fourth interaction point 166 as convenient and safe locations for parking the vehicle 132 when picking up and dropping off passengers, and the method further includes commanding the vehicle to move toward the feasible stop segment [0054; FIG.6] the transportation management system 660 may control the operations of the vehicles 640, including, e.g., dispatching select vehicles 640 to fulfill ride requests, instructing the vehicles 640 to perform select operations… instructing the vehicles 640 to enter select operation modes (e.g., operate normally… [0048] …the transportation management system 660 may fulfill ride requests for one or more users 601 by dispatching suitable vehicles.
Claim(s) 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Efland (US-20200089973-A1), Glaser (US-10082793-B1), Kanitz (US-20210380135-A1), Kim (US-20160055605-A1), and Banthia (US-20230089493-A1), as applied to claim 13 above and further in view of Woo (US-20210101586-A1).
In re claim 17. The limitations are similar in scope to those disclosed in the method of claim 5 and are therefore rejected under the same premise. For more information regarding the limitations, please see the rejection in re claim 5.
In re claim 18. The limitations are similar in scope to those disclosed in the method of claim 6 and are therefore rejected under the same premise. For more information regarding the limitations, please see the rejection in re claim 6.
In re claim 19. The limitations are similar in scope to those disclosed in the method of claim 7 and are therefore rejected under the same premise. For more information regarding the limitations, please see the rejection in re claim 7.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Efland (US-20200089973-A1), Glaser (US-10082793-B1), Kanitz (US-20210380135-A1), Kim (US-20160055605-A1), Banthia (US-20230089493-A1), and Woo (US-20210101586-A1), as applied to claim 19 above and further in view of Shah (US-10157543-B1).
In re claim 20. The limitations are similar in scope to those disclosed in the method of claim 8 and are therefore rejected under the same premise. For more information regarding the limitations, please see the rejection in re claim 8.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW JOHN MOSCOLA whose telephone number is (571)272-6944. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:30.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached on (571) 272-9855. 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.
/M.J.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ABBY J FLYNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights