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 .
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.
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to amendments and remarks filed on November 20, 2025. Claims 1 and 14 have been amended. Claims 17-20 have been newly cancelled. Claims 21-24 have been newly added. Therefore, Claims 1-16 and 21-24 are presented for examination.
Response to Amendments/Remarks
Applicant’s amendments and remarks, filed on November 20, 2025, with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore the previous 103 rejections have been withdrawn (see Allowable Subject Matter).
Examiner notes for purposes of clarity that the Double Patenting rejection has been updated with the amended claim language.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1/14/21 (independent) and 8-12 are rejected on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1 and 8 of US Patent Number 11313688 (Reference Application).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the instant application cover the same subject matter claimed in the reference application with only slight but obvious/implicit differences in wording, when the claims of the reference application are read in light of the reference application specification, and with the limitations of the claims in the instant application corresponding to and/or obvious from the limitations in the reference application as seen below (limitations not patentably distinct are shown as underlined in the table below):
Instant Application
Reference Application (11313688)
Claim 1 (which recite substantially similar subject matter as claims 14 and 21):
A method of advanced trip planning for an autonomous vehicle service, the method comprising:
storing in a storage system, by one or more processors of one or more server computing devices, user information for a user of an application of the autonomous vehicle service, the user information including historical trip information about previous trips and preferred locations;
determining, by the one or more processors, at least one potential pickup location for the user and a set of potential destination locations for the user based on the user information;
determining, by the one or more processors, a set of potential trips, wherein each potential trip of the set of potential trips starts from the potential pickup location for the user and ends at a respective potential destination location of the set of potential destination locations;
for each potential trip of the set of potential trips, determining, by the one or more processors, trip information, wherein the trip information for each potential trip includes an estimated time of arrival to a respective destination determined, at least partly, based on an assigned vehicle;
providing, by the one or more processors, the trip information for each potential trip of the set of potential trips to a client computing device for display to the user; and
automatically sending, by the one or more processors, instructions to the assigned vehicle of the autonomous vehicle service in order to cause the assigned vehicle to maneuver to the potential pickup location
Claim 1:
A method of advanced trip planning for an autonomous vehicle service, the method comprising:
determining, by one or more processors of one or more server computing devices, a potential pickup location for a user [and] determining, by the one or more processors, a set of potential destination locations for the user;
determining, by the one or more processors, a set of potential trips, wherein each potential trip of the set of potential trips starts from the potential pickup location for the user and ends at a respective potential destination location of the set of potential destination locations;
for each potential trip of the set of potential trips, determining, by the one or more processors, trip information including a first estimated time of arrival for a vehicle of a fleet of autonomous vehicles of the autonomous vehicle service to reach the respective potential destination location;
providing, by the one or more processors, the trip information for each potential trip of the set of potential trips to a client computing device for display to the user;
determining, by the one or more processors, a user score for a potential trip of the set of potential trips that was selected based on the trip information;
receiving, by the one or more processors from the client computing device, confirmation information identifying the selected potential trip; and
sending, by the one or more processors, instructions to the vehicle in order to cause the vehicle to maneuver to the potential pickup location for the selected potential trip, wherein whether the instructions are sent before or after the confirmation information is received depends upon the determined user score.
Claim 8:
The method of claim 1,
(Claim 8) wherein the historical trip information includes historical user scores that are determined based on a plurality of values representative of multiple factors relating to how the user interacted with service representatives of the autonomous vehicle service in the past
Claim 8:
The method of claim 7, further comprising: determining the historical user score based on one or more of:
a number of trips the user has taken,
a number of reviews or other posts about the service,
whether the user has incurred any costs to the service,
how the user has interacted with an application of the service on the client computing device, or
whether the user was on time for past pickups.
Claim 9:
The method of claim 8,
wherein the multiple factors include a number of trips the user has taken in the past.
Claim 8:
The method of claim 7, further comprising: determining the historical user score based on one or more of:
a number of trips the user has taken,
a number of reviews or other posts about the service,
whether the user has incurred any costs to the service,
how the user has interacted with an application of the service on the client computing device, or
whether the user was on time for past pickups.
Claim 10:
The method of claim 8,
wherein the multiple factors include a number of reviews or other posts about the autonomous vehicle service the user has made in the past.
Claim 8:
The method of claim 7, further comprising: determining the historical user score based on one or more of:
a number of trips the user has taken,
a number of reviews or other posts about the service,
whether the user has incurred any costs to the service,
how the user has interacted with an application of the service on the client computing device, or
whether the user was on time for past pickups.
Claim 11:
The method of claim 8,
wherein the multiple factors include an extent to which the user has incurred maintenance costs to the autonomous vehicle service in the past.
Claim 8:
The method of claim 7, further comprising: determining the historical user score based on one or more of:
a number of trips the user has taken,
a number of reviews or other posts about the service,
whether the user has incurred any costs to the service,
how the user has interacted with an application of the service on the client computing device, or
whether the user was on time for past pickups.
Claim 12:
The method of claim 8,
wherein the multiple factors include an extent to which the user has been timely for past pickups.
Claim 8:
The method of claim 7, further comprising: determining the historical user score based on one or more of:
a number of trips the user has taken,
a number of reviews or other posts about the service,
whether the user has incurred any costs to the service,
how the user has interacted with an application of the service on the client computing device, or
whether the user was on time for past pickups.
Claims 1 and 8 of the reference application recite all the limitations of Claims 1/14/21 and 8-12 of the instant application, except for the following: storing in a storage system, by one or more processors of one or more server computing devices, user information for a user of an application of the autonomous vehicle service, the user information including historical trip information about previous trips and preferred locations and determining how the user interacted with service representatives
Nevertheless, Urmson teaches an autonomous vehicle service (Abstract) comprising:
storing in a storage system, by one or more processors of one or more server computing devices [the user information] (Paragraph 0061, “Storage system 450 may also store shared user information with the system”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the reference application by incorporating the features taught by Urmson that allow storing user information in a storage system. Doing so would allow processing steps to be performed on a server side (Urmson, Paragraph 0061).
However, the reference application as modified still does not teach: determining how the user interacted with service representatives.
Nevertheless, Wood teaches autonomous vehicle services (Paragraph 0017, “…a service provider can use a fleet of vehicles to provide a service to a plurality of users”) comprising:
determining how the user interacted with service representatives (Paragraph 0054, “…the computing device(s) 106 can identify user(s) based, at least in part, on a user rating associated with each of the user(s). The user rating can be indicative of the user's behavior when interacting with the service provider, its employees, contractors, vehicles, etc. to use the associated services”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the reference application by incorporating the features taught by Wood that allow passenger ratings to be based on past interactions with service representatives. Doing so would allow distinguishing between users (Wood, Paragraph 0054) and thereby allow for greater personalization of vehicle services.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-16 and 21-24 would be allowable if the double patenting rejection is overcome. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for indicating allowable subject matter:
Previously, independent claim 1 was rejected by Thakur (US20200312153A1) which teaches an autonomous rideshare service for recommending a destination based on a user profile, Mendels (US20180017404A1) which teaches a navigation application configured to suggest a plurality of destinations, along with ETAs associated with each destination, and Urmson (US20170193627A1) which teaches relevant structure for implementing autonomous rideshare services.
The amendments to claim 1 added “wherein the trip information for each potential trip includes an estimated time of arrival to a respective destination determined, at least partly, based on an assigned vehicle”. The examiner agrees that the art pertinent to determining trip information, particularly Mendels, does not teach determining travel time for each destination based on possible vehicle assignments.
Upon further search and consideration, the closest prior art newly found include:
Newlin (US20160298977A1) teaches determining and displaying predicted travel times associated with possible vehicle assignments (see at least Figure 16, “1505”, “1507”, and “1509”). However, this differs from the claimed invention as the destination is set prior to the step of determining travel times, and does not teach at least the features for associating travel times with a plurality of potential destinations.
Kajiwara (US20200334783A1) teaches features for determining an estimated travel time to a plurality of potential destinations (see at least Figure 4, "rough moving time"). However, this differs from the claimed invention as the estimated travel times are limited to being used for scoring potential destinations in order to recommend a destination to a group of similar users, and does not teach at least the features for presenting combinations of potential destinations with expected travel times based on possible vehicle assignments.
Therefore, the prior art of record does not appear to explicitly disclose or teach features that would, reasonably and absent impermissible hindsight, motivate one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Thakur invention in order to teach claim 1 as amended (which recites substantially similar subject matter as claims 14 and 21).
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 EISEN YIM whose telephone number is (703)756-5976. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at (571) 270-7429. 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.
/EISEN YIM/Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669