DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
Claims 1, 2, 4-13, and 15-20 have been examined in this application. Claims 1, 2, 6, 11, and 12, are amended. Claims 4, 5, 7-10, 13, and 15-20 are as previously presented. Claims 3 and 14 are cancelled.
This is a final office action in response to the arguments and amendments filed 12/18/2025. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Office Action Formatting
The following is an explanation of the formatting used in the instant Office Action:
• [0001] – Indicates a paragraph number in the most recent, previously cited source;
• [0001, 0010] – Indicates multiple paragraphs (in example: paragraphs 1 and 10) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• [0001-0010] – Indicates a range of paragraphs (in example: paragraphs 1 through 10) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1 – Indicates a column number and a line number (in example: column 1, line 1) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1, 2:1 – Indicates multiple column and line numbers (in example, column 1, line 1 and column 2, line 2) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1-10 – Indicates a range of lines within one column (in example: all lines spanning, and including, lines 1 and 10 in column 1) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• 1:1-2:1 – Indicates a range of lines spanning several columns (in example: column 1, line 1 to column 2, line 1 and including all intervening lines) in the most recent, previously cited source;
• p. 1, ln. 1 – Indicates a page and line number in the most recent, previously cited source;
• ¶1 – The paragraph symbol is used solely to refer to Applicant's own specification (further example: p. 1, ¶1 indicates first paragraph of page 1); and
• BRI – the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Benefit Claim
Applicant’s arguments and the cancellation of Claims 3 and 14 are acknowledged, and the claims are determined to comply with the conditions to receive the benefit of an earlier filing date.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 12/18/2025, have been fully considered.
Regarding the remarks pertaining to the Benefit Claim (presented on p. 5 under the heading “Benefit Claim”), the arguments and the cancellation of Claims 3 and 14 are acknowledged, and the claims are determined to comply with the conditions to receive the benefit of an earlier filing date.
Regarding the remarks pertaining to the claim objections (presented on p. 4 under the heading “Claim Objections”), the amendments are acceptable. Therefore, the objections have been withdrawn.
Regarding the remarks pertaining to the claim interpretation under 112(f) (presented on p. 5-6 under the heading “Claim Interpretation”), the remarks are acknowledged and based on the amendments, no terms in the claims are presently interpreted as invoking 112(f).
Regarding the arguments pertaining to the claim rejections under 112 (presented on p. 6 under the heading “Claim Rejections Under 35 USC § 112”), the arguments and amendments are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn.
Regarding the arguments pertaining to the claim rejections under 101 (presented on p. 6-10 under the heading “Claim Rejections Under 35 USC § 101”), the arguments and amendments are not persuasive. The arguments state that the features of Claim 1 are not a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind. However, no reasoned arguments have been provided regarding Applicant’s position, or the examples of how a person could perform the method which were provided in the previous office action. The arguments (p. 7) recite examples in the MPEP including data encryption. However, the claims of the present invention are not analogous to this as there is no data encryption present in the instant claims. The office maintains that people are capable of performing multi-step mental processes, for example using iterative thinking. The arguments (p. 8 ) further state that the claims should be considered in terms of their broadest reasonable interpretation, and states that the rejection ignores the express claim language of Claim 1. The rejection has been updated in view of the amendments, however the claims recite largely the same functions. It is noted that the scope of “causing” is unclear, and is interpreted as data output by the one or more processors. The office maintains that a person can perform the functional limitations, as people visualize or decide on parking spots as a routine matter, and the determining and causing is similar to, for example, a driver knowing of two parking spaces which are normally empty which could be used to transfer passengers, and could output such decisions as written instructions or map or position data. The functions are merely applied by a generic processor (see the rejection below for complete rationale). The arguments (p. 9-10) further recite particular functions in the specification such as addressing faults in autonomous vehicles. However, the claims do not contain any such limitations which reflect the portions of the specification that discusses faults. Additionally, portions of the specification regarding determining whether a passenger or good has been transferred are recited. However, these portions of the specification only appear in Claim 11, which was not rejected under 101. Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive and the rejections under 101 are maintained.
Regarding the arguments pertaining to the claim rejections under Double Patenting (presented on p. 10-11 under the heading “Double Patenting”), the arguments and amendments are persuasive. Therefore, the prior rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of an updated interpretation using the previously relied upon art.
Regarding the arguments pertaining to the claim rejections under 102 and 103 (presented on p. 11-12 under the heading “Claim Rejections Under 35 USC §§ 102 and 103”), the arguments and amendments are not persuasive. The arguments (p. 12) recites a description of what Yamamoto relates to based on paragraph [0005], and then state that Yamamoto does not disclose each and every feature of Claim 1. However, paragraph [0005] of Yamamoto was not relied upon to teach the limitations of Claim 1. No reasoned arguments have been provided regarding any of the portions of Yamamoto which were relied upon in the rejections. Thus, the arguments are not persuasive. The rejections have been updated to reflect the claim amendments (see the complete rejections below).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claims 1 and 12, the limitations for the processor “causing” vehicles to park or “causing” a request render the claims indefinite. Cause is generally defined as “to make something happen.” In other words, the causing limitations specify the result of what happens. However, it is not clear what action the processor takes or what output is generated in order to cause the stated results. For example, it is not clear whether causing parking is the processor actually controlling the vehicle, or may be merely output of a trajectory to a parking space, or providing permission to park, and it not clear whether causing a request is mere data generation or transmitting, or something else. The specification (e.g. ¶0034, 0061) uses causing to refer to various actions such as causing acceleration or transmitting. The scope of the claims is therefore indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the causing steps are interpreted as any data determination or output that could have an intended use or effect for vehicle parking.
Claims 2, 4-11, 13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected Claim 1 or 12 and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
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, 2, 4-10, 12, 13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
(101 Analysis - Step 1 - Statutory Category) Regarding Claims 1, 2, 4-10, 12, 13, and 15-20 the claims are directed to one of the statutory categories of subject matter as the claims recite a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
(101 Analysis - Step 2A, Prong I - Judicial Exception) Regarding Independent Claim 1, the claim recites a method comprising:
determining, by one or more processors, a plurality of areas to facilitate a transfer of at least one of a passenger or a good from a first vehicle to a second vehicle, wherein the plurality of areas include: (1) a first area of the plurality of areas for the first vehicle to park, and (2) a second area of the plurality of areas for the second vehicle to park and pick up the at least one of the passenger or the good; and
in response to determining the first and second areas:
causing, by the one or more processors, the first vehicle to park in the first area in an autonomous driving mode; and
causing, by the one or more processors, a request for the second vehicle to park in the second area in the autonomous driving mode.
The limitations indicated in BOLD above, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are an abstract idea of a mental process, capable of being performed in a human mind or manually, using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Particularly, a person is capable of mentally or manually performing a method comprising:
determining a plurality of areas to facilitate a transfer of at least one of a passenger or a good from a first vehicle to a second vehicle (a person mentally thinking of, or manually drawing areas on a map for the transfer), wherein the plurality of areas include: (1) a first area of the plurality of areas for the first vehicle to park (the person thinking of or drawing a first area, such as a known parking spot on a particular street), and (2) a second area of the plurality of areas for the second vehicle to park and pick up the at least one of the passenger or the good (the person thinking of a second area, such as an adjacent or nearby parking space on the street); and
in response to determining the first and second areas:
causing the first vehicle to park in the first area in an autonomous driving mode (the person thinking of or writing a written instruction for the first vehicle to park and where, intended for an autonomous vehicle); and
causing a request for the second vehicle to park in the second area in the autonomous driving mode (the person thinking of or writing a second written instruction for the second vehicle to park and where, intended for an autonomous vehicle).
Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
(101 Analysis - Step 2A, Prong II - Practical Application) This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The limitations indicated with underlining above are additional elements in the claim. That is, the additional elements in the claim are the one or more processors performing the functions.
These elements are all recitations of generic computer components and their use, recited at a high level of generality. The claims do not provide an improvement in computer hardware or computing technology. Therefore, the claims act as mere instructions to “apply” the abstract idea using generic computer components as tools to perform the functions. This does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Additionally, the ordered combination of additional elements and steps of the method and claim as a whole are not determined to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as the ordered combination merely recites a series of abstract ideas performed in a specific order (such as an order of operations or a multi-step mental process) and output by a generic computer.
(101 Analysis - Step 2B - Significantly More / Inventive Concept) The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As above, the additional elements in the claim are the one or more processors performing the recited functions.
For the same reasons as presented above, these elements are all recitations of generic computer components and their use, at a high level of generality, such that the claims act as mere instructions to “apply” the functions using a generic computer components as tools to perform the functions, or perform basis computer tasks. This does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Additionally, such elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art (see MPEP 2106.05(d) computer functions which are recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity include: ii. Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199; Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012)).
Additionally, the ordered combination of additional elements and claim as a whole are not determined to amount to significantly more as the ordered combination merely establishing performing of the abstract idea and output of a result by generic computer components, and does not establish an inventive concept.
Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Independent Claim 12, the claim recites the same abstract idea and additional elements and therefore is rejected under the same rationale. Claim 12 also recites a vehicle, however this is recited broadly, without any details of the vehicle or its functions. Therefore, the claim merely generally ties the abstract idea to the field of vehicles , and does not limit the claim or abstract idea in a meaningful way. Therefore, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) and furthermore such elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art (see e.g. US-20070193798-A1 at [0004]).
Dependent Claims 2, 4-10, 13, and 15-20 do not recite further limitations that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claims 2, 4, 13, and 15 recite determinations of whether the first area meets requirements. These are all further functions of the abstract idea of a mental process, which can be done by a person by evaluation and judgment. The claims do not recite any new additional elements.
Claims 5-10 and 16-20 recite the further determination of a third area and determination of whether the third area meets requirements. These are all further functions of the abstract idea of a mental process, which can be done by a person by evaluation and judgment. The claims do not recite any new additional elements.
Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
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. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. 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, 2, 4-7, 10-13, 15-18, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6, 7, and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,214,272 B2 in view of Published Application US2018/0349825A1 (Yamamoto et al.).
Regarding Claims 1, 2, 5-7, 10-13, 16-18, and 20 Patent 11,214,272 B2 recites all limitations or narrower limitations except for the first and second vehicle caused to park “in an autonomous driving mode.” The table below shows the claims of the Patent 11,214,272 B2 which correspond to the claims of the instant application:
18/535,532(Instant Application)Claims: 12/18/2025
US 11,214,272 B2 Published (1/4/2022)
1, 2, 5-7, 11
1
10, 20
6 or 7
12, 13, 16-18
16
Yamamoto et al. teaches a technique in evaluating a first and second area for passenger transfer (see Figure 7, transit points (4) and (5)), wherein vehicles are caused to park:
in an autonomous driving mode (see Claims 3 and 4, ridesharing management device instructs automatically driven vehicle to affect route to travel to transfer place).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the selection of the first and second areas of U.S. Patent No. 11,214,272 B2 to include causing vehicles to park in an autonomous mode as taught by Yamamoto et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving area selection, user experience and extending the use to vehicles without requiring driver operation (see Yamamoto et al., [0004, 0031]).
Regarding Claims 4 and 15, U.S. Patent No. 11,214,272 B2 does not explicitly recite wherein the one or more requirements include the first area being within a predetermined distance from the second area.
However, Yamamoto et al. teaches a technique in evaluating a first and second area for passenger transfer (see Figure 7, transit points (4) and (5)),
wherein the one or more requirements include the first area being within a predetermined distance from the second area (see [0064] distance between routes (on which transit points are located) less than predetermined distance).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the selection of the first and second areas of U.S. Patent No. 11,214,272 B2 to include the evaluation as taught by Yamamoto et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of enhancing the robustness and flexibility of the area selection and improving user experience (see Yamamoto et al., [0004]).
Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,214,272 B2 in view of Published Application US2018/0349825A1 (Yamamoto et al.), further in view of Published Application US2018/0328748A1 (Chachra et al.).
Regarding Claim 8, U.S. Patent No. 11,214,272 B2 does not explicitly recite wherein the one or more requirements include the third area being a type of surface.
However, Chachra et al. teaches a technique to evaluate pickup locations (see [0027]),
wherein the one or more requirements include the third area being a type of surface (see [0027] road conditions, i.e. whether third area is dry surface, slick, icy, etc.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the selection of the areas of U.S. Patent No. 11,214,272 B2 to further include use of surface type information as taught by Chachra et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving efficiency and customer experience of the transportation service (see Chachra et al., [0003, 0020]).
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,214,272 B2 in view of Published Application US2018/0349825A1 (Yamamoto et al.), further in view of Published Application WO2019/023324A1 (Ramot et al.).
Regarding Claims 9 and 19, U.S. Patent No. 11,214,272 B2 does not explicitly recite wherein the one or more requirements include the third area being a minimum distance from a sidewalk or road shoulder.
However, Ramot et al. teaches a technique in evaluating a pick-up or drop off area (see [0286] drop off location),
wherein the one or more requirements include the third area being a minimum distance from a sidewalk or road shoulder (see [0286] weighted parameters to evaluate location include distance from a sidewalk, and [0298] use of a threshold distance to the sidewalk. I.e. a determined requirement to evaluate the location is whether or not third area is within the distance).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the selection of the areas of U.S. Patent No. 11,214,272 B2 to further include use of parameters including distance to sidewalk, as taught by Ramot et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving passenger safety (see Ramot et al., [0286]).
Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9-13, and 15-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, and 5 of U.S. Patent No. US 11,878,703 B2 in view of Published Application US2018/0349825A1 (Yamamoto et al.).
Regarding Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9-11, 13, 16, 17, 19, and 20, Patent 11,878,703 B2 recites all limitations or narrower limitations except for causing the first vehicle to park in an autonomous driving mode and the request for the second vehicle being for an autonomous driving mode. The table below shows the claims of the Patent 11,878,703 B2 which correspond to the claims of the instant application.
18/535,532(Instant Application)Claims: 12/18/2025
US 11,878,703 B2 Published (1/23/2042)
1, 5, 6, 9-11, 16, 17, 19, 20
1
2, 13
4 or 5
Yamamoto et al. teaches a technique in evaluating a first and second area for passenger transfer (see Figure 7, transit points (4) and (5)), wherein vehicles are caused to park:
in an autonomous driving mode (see Claims 3 and 4, ridesharing management device instructs automatically driven vehicle to affect route to travel to transfer place).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the selection of the first and second areas of U.S. Patent No. 11,214,272 B2 to include causing vehicles to park in an autonomous mode as taught by Yamamoto et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving area selection, user experience and extending the use to vehicles without requiring driver operation (see Yamamoto et al., [0004, 0031]).
Regarding Claims 4 and 15, U.S. Patent No. US 11,878,703 B2 does not explicitly recite wherein the one or more requirements include the first area being within a predetermined distance from the second area.
However, Yamamoto et al. teaches a technique in evaluating a first and second area for passenger transfer (see Figure 7, transit points (4) and (5)),
wherein the one or more requirements include the first area being within a predetermined distance from the second area (see [0064] distance between routes (on which transit points are located) less than predetermined distance).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the selection of the first and second areas of U.S. Patent No. US 11,878,703 B2 to include the evaluation as taught by Yamamoto et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of enhancing the robustness and flexibility of the area selection and improving user experience (see Yamamoto et al., [0004]).
Regarding Claim 7 and 18, U.S. Patent No. US 11,878,703 B2 does not explicitly recite wherein the one or more requirements include the third area being a minimum size.
However, Yamamoto et al. teaches a technique in evaluating a first and second area for passenger transfer (see Figure 7, transit points (4) and (5)),
wherein the one or more requirements include the third area being a minimum size (see [0069] transfer place P is area including transit points (4) and (5), which may be area with predetermined radius, i.e. the third area required to be at least as big as the transit point areas)..
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the selection of the third area of U.S. Patent No. US 11,878,703 B2 to include the evaluation as taught by Yamamoto et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of enhancing the robustness and flexibility of the area selection and improving user experience (see Yamamoto et al., [0004]).
Regarding Claim 12, US 11,878,703 B2 does not explicitly recite a first vehicle comprising the one or more processors.
However, Yamamoto et al. teaches a technique in evaluating a first and second area for passenger transfer (see Figure 7, transit points (4) and (5)),
Performed by: a first vehicle comprising the one or more processors (see Figure 1, [0045, 0054] operations performed by processors in the vehicle, and see also [0096] ridesharing management device can be in vehicle).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the process of U.S. Patent No. US 11,878,703 B2 to be done in a vehicle as taught by Yamamoto et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of enhancing the robustness and flexibility of the area selection and improving user experience (see Yamamoto et al., [0004]).
Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, and 5 of U.S. Patent No. US 11,878,703 B2 in view of Published Application US2018/0349825A1 (Yamamoto et al.), further in view of Published Application US2018/0328748A1 (Chachra et al.).
Regarding Claim 8, U.S. Patent No. US 11,878,703 B2. does not explicitly recite wherein the one or more requirements include the third area being a type of surface.
However, Chachra et al. teaches a technique to evaluate pickup locations (see [0027]),
wherein the one or more requirements include the third area being a type of surface (see [0027] road conditions, i.e. whether third area is dry surface, slick, icy, etc.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the selection of the areas of U.S. Patent No. US 11,878,703 B2 to further include use of surface type information as taught by Chachra et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving efficiency and customer experience of the transportation service (see Chachra et al., [0003, 0020]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 10, 12, 13, 15-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Published Application US2018/0349825A1 (Yamamoto et al.).
Regarding Claim 1, Yamamoto et al. discloses a method comprising:
determining, by one or more processors (see Figure 1, [0045, 0054] operations performed by processors in the vehicles and/or ridesharing management device), a plurality of areas (see [0059] registering records as operation schedule information, and see Figure 6, [0069] including transit points 4 and 5, which may be areas) to facilitate a transfer of at least one of a passenger or a good from a first vehicle to a second vehicle (see Figures 6, 7, [0069] transit points facilitating user alighting vehicle M-2 and riding vehicle M-3), wherein the plurality of areas include: (1) a first area of the plurality of areas (see [0069] transit point (4)) for the first vehicle to park (see [0043] transit points where vehicle stops), and (2) a second area of the plurality of areas for the second vehicle to park (see [0069] transit point (5)) and pick up the at least one of the passenger or the good (see [0069] where a user rides vehicles M-3);
in response to determining the first and second areas:
causing, by the one or more processors, the first vehicle to park in the first area in an autonomous driving mode(see [0031], Claims 3 and 4, the management device may change routes of the allocable vehicles to allow the transfer place to be set, and instruct automatically driven vehicles for the changed route); and
causing, by the one or more processors, a request for the second vehicle to park in the second area in the autonomous driving mode (see [0031], Claims 3 and 4, the management device may change routes of the allocable vehicles to allow the transfer place to be set, and instruct automatically driven vehicles for the changed route).
Regarding Claim 2, Yamamoto et al. discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining, by the one or more processors, whether the first area meets one or more requirements (see [0064] first area required to be on route RA and distance requirement to RB of second vehicle).
Regarding Claim 4, Yamamoto et al. discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the one or more requirements include the first area being within a predetermined distance from the second area (see [0064] distance between routes (on which transit points are located) less than predetermined distance).
Regarding Claim 5, Yamamoto et al. discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of areas further include: (3) a third area of the plurality of areas for the transfer of the at least one of the passenger or the good from the first vehicle to the second vehicle (see Figure 7, [0064] transfer place P at which the user U transfers between the vehicles 200 (i.e. third area either being all of P or the portion of P not occupied by the transit points)).
Regarding Claim 6, Yamamoto et al. discloses the method of claim 5, further comprising:
determining, by the one or more processors, whether the third area meets one or more requirements (see [0064] transfer place P meeting distance between route criteria or predetermined time criteria).
Regarding Claim 7, Yamamoto et al. discloses the method of claim 6, wherein the one or more requirements include the third area being a minimum size (see [0069] transfer place P is area including transit points (4) and (5), which may be area with predetermined radius, i.e. the third area required to be at least as big as the transit point areas).
Regarding Claim 10, Yamamoto et al. discloses the method of claim 6, wherein the one or more requirements include the third area being a minimum or maximum distance from a road or from the second area (see [0065], third area “includes” the alighting/riding places (transfer points), i.e. third area overlaps second area, therefore maximum 0 distance).
Regarding Claim 12, Yamamoto et al. discloses a first vehicle (see Figure 7, [0068], vehicle 200 with ID M-2) comprising one or more processors (see Figure 1, [0045, 0054] operations performed by processors in the vehicle, and see also [0096] ridesharing management device can be in vehicle) configured to:
determine a plurality of areas (see [0059] registering records as operation schedule information, and see Figure 6, [0069] including transit points 4 and 5, which may be areas) to facilitate a transfer of at least one of a passenger or a good from the first vehicle to a second vehicle (see Figures 6, 7, [0069] transit points facilitating user alighting vehicle M-2 and riding vehicle M-3), wherein the plurality of areas include: (1) a first area of the plurality of areas (see [0069] transit point (4)) for the first vehicle to park (see [0043] transit points where vehicle stops), and (2) a second area of the plurality of areas for the second vehicle to park (see [0069] transit point (5)) and in response to determining the first and second areas:
in response to determining the first and second areas:
cause the first vehicle to park in the first area in an autonomous driving mode (see Claims 3 and 4, the management device may change routes of the allocable vehicles to allow the transfer place to be set, and instruct the vehicles for the changed route, [0031, 0045] automated driving); and
cause the second vehicle to park in the second area in the autonomous driving mode (see Claims 3 and 4, the management device may change routes of the allocable vehicles to allow the transfer place to be set, and instruct the vehicles for the changed route, [0031, 0045] automated driving).
Regarding Claim 13, Yamamoto et al. discloses the first vehicle of claim 12, wherein the first area is determined to meet one or more requirements (see [0064] first area required to be on route RA and distance requirement to RB of second vehicle).
Regarding Claim 15, Yamamoto et al. discloses the first vehicle of claim 13, wherein the one or more requirements include the first area being within a predetermined distance from the second area (see [0064] distance between routes (on which transit points are located) less than predetermined distance).
Regarding Claim 16, Yamamoto et al. discloses the first vehicle of claim 12, wherein the plurality of areas further include: (3) a third area of the plurality of areas for the transfer of the at least one of the passenger or the good from the first vehicle to the second vehicle (see Figure 7, [0064] transfer place P at which the user U transfers between the vehicles 200 (i.e. third area either being all of P or the portion of P not occupied by the transit points)).
Regarding Claim 17, Yamamoto et al. discloses the first vehicle of claim 16, wherein the third area is determined to meet one or more requirements (see [0064] transfer place P meeting distance between route criteria or predetermined time criteria).
Regarding Claim 18, Yamamoto et al. discloses the first vehicle of claim 17, wherein the one or more requirements include the third area being a minimum size (see [0069] transfer place P is area including transit points (4) and (5), which may be area with predetermined radius, i.e. the third area required to be at least as big as the transit point areas).
Regarding Claim 20, Yamamoto et al. discloses the first vehicle of claim 17, wherein the one or more requirements include the third area being a minimum or maximum distance from a road or from the second area (see [0065], third area “includes” the alighting/riding places (transfer points), i.e. third area overlaps second area, therefore maximum 0 distance).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Published Application US2018/0349825A1 (Yamamoto et al.) in view of Published Application US2018/0328748A1 (Chachra et al.).
Regarding Claim 8, Yamamoto et al. further discloses part of the third area being a drop off or pick up location (see Figure 7, the transfer place P including the alighting and riding places).
Yamamoto et al. does not explicitly recite the method of claim 6, wherein the one or more requirements include the third area being a type of surface.
However, Chachra et al. teaches a technique to evaluate pickup locations (see [0027]),
wherein the one or more requirements include the third area being a type of surface (see [0027] road conditions, i.e. whether third area is dry surface, slick, icy, etc.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the selection of the areas of Yamamoto et al. to further include use of surface type information as taught by Chachra et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving efficiency and customer experience of the transportation service (see Chachra et al., [0003, 0020]).
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Published Application US2018/0349825A1 (Yamamoto et al.) in view of Published Application WO2019/023324A1 (Ramot et al.).
Regarding Claim 9, Yamamoto et al. further discloses part of the third area being a drop off or pick up location (see Figure 7, the transfer place P including the alighting and riding places).
Yamamoto et al. does not explicitly recite the method of claim 6, wherein the one or more requirements include the third area being a minimum distance from a sidewalk or road shoulder.
However, Ramot et al. teaches a technique in evaluating a pick-up or drop off area (see [0286] drop off location),
wherein the one or more requirements include the third area being a minimum distance from a sidewalk or road shoulder (see [0286] weighted parameters to evaluate location include distance from a sidewalk, and [0298] use of a threshold distance to the sidewalk. I.e. a determined requirement to evaluate the location is whether or not third area is within the distance).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the selection of the areas of Yamamoto et al. to further include use of parameters including distance to sidewalk, as taught by Ramot et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving passenger safety (see Ramot et al., [0286]).
Regarding Claim 19, all limitations as recited have been analyzed with respect to Claim 9. Claim 19 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond Claim 9, therefore, the claim is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Published Application US2018/0349825A1 (Yamamoto et al.) in view of Published Application US2019/0122561A1 (Shimizu et al.).
Regarding Claim 11, Yamamoto et al. further discloses causing the first vehicle to travel to a designated location (see Figure 7, [0077] vehicle scheduled to travel on route RA, i.e. any further point on the route after the transfer place being a designated location [0045] automated driving), and causing the first vehicle to move by transmitting instructions (see Claims 3-5).
Yamamoto et al. does not explicitly recite the method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining, by the one or more processors, that the at least one of the passenger or the good have transferred from the first vehicle parked in the first area to the second vehicle parked in the second area; and
in response to the determining that that the at least one of the passenger or the good has transferred from the first vehicle to the second vehicle, transmitting second instructions, by the one or more processors, to the first vehicle, the second instructions causing the first vehicle to travel to a designated location.
However, Shimizu et al. teaches a method pertaining to multi-vehicle travel (see [0107]), comprising:
determining, by the one or more processors (see Figure 2, [0051-0054] computing devices on vehicle), that the at least one of the passenger or the good have transferred from the first vehicle parked in the first area to the second vehicle parked in the second area (see [0115] a change in weight by vehicle sensors allows determining that switching has completed); and
in response to the determining that that the at least one of the passenger or the good has transferred from the first vehicle to the second vehicle, causing further travel of the first vehicle (see [0115-0116] upon completion of switching, vehicle 1 starts self-driving again).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the passenger transfer and further traveling of the first vehicle of Yamamoto et al. to be monitored as taught by Shimizu et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving the robustness of vehicles and reliability of travel by allowing for sensing of both vehicle exit and entry and facilitating transfer between vehicles based on additional conditions such as vehicle charge level (see Shimizu et al. [0007-0009, 0115]).
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 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 Paul Allen whose telephone number is (571)272-4383. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 9am to 5pm, Eastern.
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.
/P.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669