DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
Claims 1, 2, 4-13, and 15-22 have been examined in this application. Claims 1, 5, 11-13, and 15-20 are amended. Claims 2, 4, and 6-10 are as previously presented. Claims 21 and 22 are new. Claims 3 and 14 are cancelled. This is a non-final office action in response to the Request for Continued Examination filed 4/21/2026. 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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/21/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 4/21/2026, have been fully considered.
Regarding the arguments pertaining to the claim rejections under 112 (presented on p. 6), 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. 6-11), the arguments and amendments are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn.
Regarding the arguments pertaining to the claim rejections under Double Patenting (presented on p. 11), the arguments and amendments are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn.
Regarding the arguments pertaining to the claim rejections under 102 and 103 (presented on p. 11-15), the arguments and amendments are partially persuasive. The arguments (p. 13) state that Published Application US2018/0349825A1 (Yamamoto et al.) does not teach determining of a plurality of areas because it teaches determination of the single transfer place P, and doesn’t teach that either of the vehicles determine the transfer place because the rideshare managing device 300 sets the transfer place. However, these arguments are not persuasive. In the previous rejection, the determination of plural areas was not mapped to the setting of transfer place P. Rather, the limitation was mapped to the setting of transit points, e.g. points 4 and 5, the riding and alighting points, which are described in [0069] as not necessarily being points and may be areas instead. Furthermore, although the previous version of Claim 1 did not require the processor in the vehicle, this feature was determined to be taught by Yamamoto et al. in the rejection of Claim 12, as Yamamoto et al. at [0096] states that the ridesharing management device 300 may be mounted in a vehicle 200. The arguments on p. 14 recite features of Claim 1 and state that Yamamoto et al. does not teach them, however no reasoned arguments have been provided. However, the arguments are persuasive in that Yamamoto et al. does not teach an embodiment including all claimed functions by the processor in the vehicle including transmitting a request to a fleet management system. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of the additional prior art of US2017/0101054A1 (Dusane) as well as the previously relied upon prior art of US2018/0349825A1 (Yamamoto et al.), US2018/0328748A1 (Chachra et al.), WO2019/023324A1 (Ramot et al.), and US2019/0122561A1 (Shimizu et al.).
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 10, 12, 13, 15-18, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Published Application US2018/0349825A1 (Yamamoto et al.) in view of Publication US2017/0101054A1 (Dusane).
Regarding Claim 1, Yamamoto et al. discloses a method comprising:
while a vehicle of a fleet (see [0063] vehicle 200A, and see Figure 1 and [0031, 0034] managing device for plural vehicles - the plain and ordinary definition of fleet being: a group operated under unified control) is in transit in an autonomous driving mode (see [0031] automatically driven) to a destination associated with at least one of a passenger or a good aboard the vehicle (see Figure 7, [0062, 0064] in transit on route RA as part of overall transit to destination [0042-0043] obtained by HMI, for user’s trip), determining, by one or more processors of the vehicle (see Figure 1, [0045, 0054] operations performed by processors in the vehicles and/or ridesharing management device, which [0096] can be mounted in vehicle), 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 the at least one of the passenger or the good from the 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 vehicle to park (see [0043] vehicle stops), and (2) a second area of the plurality of areas for another vehicle of the fleet to park (see [0069] transit point (5), [0043] vehicle stops) and pick up the at least one of the passenger or the good (see [0069] where a user rides vehicles M-3); and
in response to determining the first and second areas:
operating, by the one or more processors, the vehicle in the autonomous driving mode to park in the first area (see Figure 7, [0031] automatic driving, [0069] to transit point 4 [0043] and stopping); and
designating the other vehicle of the fleet (vehicle M-3) to park in the second area (see Figures 6, 7, [0069] second vehicle arriving at transit point (5) [0043] and stopping) to pick up the at least one of the passenger or the good, and continue transit of the at least one of the passenger or the good to the destination (see [0069-0070] user rides the other vehicle, [0062] as part of overall trip to destination).
As above, Yamamoto et al. discloses the use of the other vehicle in the fleet, but does not explicitly recite the vehicle performing:
transmitting, by the one or more processors to a fleet management system, a request for the other vehicle of the fleet.
However, Dusane teaches a technique in vehicle fleet operations (see [0025] remote server as fleet management), including:
transmitting, by the one or more processors (see Figures 3, 4A, [0076, 0087] processor 214 in vehicle performing transmitting step 413) to a fleet management system (see [0087] transmitting alert to remote server), a request for the other vehicle of the fleet (see [0087] remote server executes method 450 of Figure 4B, including [0107] transmitting alert to other 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 method including selection of another vehicle and transferring of a passenger to the another vehicle of Yamamoto et al. to alternatively or additionally utilize a request for assistance via a fleet management system as taught by Dusane, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of enhancing the robustness and flexibility of the vehicle and system to respond to alert conditions and obtain assistance from additional nearby vehicles (see Dusane, [0002, 0078]).
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 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 vehicle of a fleet (see [0063] vehicle 200A, and see Figure 1 and [0031, 0034] managing device for plural vehicles - the plain and ordinary definition of fleet being: a group operated under unified control) comprising one or more processors (see Figure 1, [0045, 0054] operations performed by processors in the vehicles and/or ridesharing management device, which [0096] can be mounted in vehicle) configured to:
while the vehicle is in transit, in autonomous driving mode (see [0031] automatically driven), to a destination associated with at least one of a passenger or a good aboard the vehicle (see Figure 7, [0062, 0064] in transit on route RA as part of overall transit to destination [0042-0043] obtained by HMI, for user’s trip), 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 the at least one of the passenger or the good from the 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 vehicle to park (see [0043] vehicle stops), and (2) a second area of the plurality of areas for another vehicle of the fleet to park (see [0069] transit point (5), [0043] vehicle stops) and pick up the at least one of the passenger or the good (see [0069] where a user rides vehicles M-3); and
in response to determining the first and second areas:
operate the vehicle in the autonomous driving mode to park in the first area (see Figure 7, [0031] automatic driving, [0069] to transit point 4 [0043] and stopping); and
designating the other vehicle of the fleet (vehicle M-3) to park in the second area (see Figures 6, 7, [0069] second vehicle arriving at transit point (5) [0043] and stopping) to pick up the at least one of the passenger or the good, and continue transit of the at least one of the passenger or the good to the destination (see [0069-0070] user rides the other vehicle, [0062] as part of overall trip to destination).
As above, Yamamoto et al. discloses the use of the other vehicle in the fleet, but does not explicitly recite the vehicle’s processor configured to:
transmit, to a fleet management system, a request for the other vehicle of the fleet.
However, Dusane teaches a technique in vehicle fleet operations (see [0025] remote server as fleet management), including a vehicle processor (see Figures 3, 4A, [0076, 0087] processor 214 in vehicle performing transmitting step 413) to:
transmit, to a fleet management system (see [0087] transmitting alert to remote server), a request for the other vehicle of the fleet (see [0087] remote server executes method 450 of Figure 4B, including [0107] transmitting alert to other 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 method including selection of another vehicle and transferring of a passenger to the another vehicle of Yamamoto et al. to alternatively or additionally utilize a request for assistance via a fleet management system as taught by Dusane, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of enhancing the robustness and flexibility of the vehicle and system to respond to alert conditions and obtain assistance from additional nearby vehicles (see Dusane, [0002, 0078]).
Regarding Claim 13, Yamamoto et al. discloses the 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 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 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 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 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 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 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).
Regarding Claim 21, Yamamoto et al. discloses determining the plurality of areas to facilitate the transfer of the at least one of the passenger or the good from the vehicle is based on a requirement for assistance from the other vehicle (see Figure 7, [0043, 0062] stopping to transfer passenger to second vehicle), while the vehicle is in transit in the autonomous driving mode (see [0031] automatically driven) to the destination (see Figure 7, [0062, 0064] in transit on route RA as part of overall transit to destination).
Yamamoto et al. does not explicitly recite the method of claim 1, wherein determining the plurality of areas to facilitate the transfer of the at least one of the passenger or the good from the vehicle is based on a local failure at the vehicle while the vehicle is in transit in the autonomous driving mode to the destination.
However, Dusane teaches the technique as above, wherein a requirement for assistance:
is based on a local failure at the vehicle while the vehicle is in transit (see Figure 4A, [0078] alert condition e.g. mechanical failure).
The motivation to combine Yamamoto et al. and Dusane was provided above in the rejection of Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 22, Yamamoto et al. does not explicitly recite the method of claim 21, further comprising determining, by the one or more processors, that the local failure has occurred.
However, Dusane teaches the technique as above,
further comprising determining, by the one or more processors, that the local failure has occurred (see Figures 3, 4A, [0076, 0078] executed by vehicle processor, determination of alert condition at 404).
The motivation to combine Yamamoto et al. and Dusane was provided above in the rejection of Claim 1.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Published Application US2018/0349825A1 (Yamamoto et al.) in view of Publication US2017/0101054A1 (Dusane), further 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 Publication US2017/0101054A1 (Dusane), further 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 Publication US2017/0101054A1 (Dusane), further 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 operating (see [0031]).
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 vehicle to the other vehicle; and
in response to the determining that that the at least one of the passenger or the good has transferred from the vehicle to the other vehicle, operating, by the one or more processors, the vehicle in the autonomous driving mode 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 vehicle to the other vehicle (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 vehicle to the other 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
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
Prosecution Insights