Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 12/22/2025 has been entered. Claims 11-27 remain pending in the application, and new claims 28-30 have been added. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection and rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 9/22/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 for claim 11 should be withdrawn, stating that a human mind cannot record information into a navigation apparatus of a motor vehicle, and that a human mind cannot detect ‘automatically’ whether the main motor vehicle is carrying a small vehicle. However, Applicant’s arguments are mixing the abstract idea with the additional claim elements that perform the abstract idea. Regarding Step 2A, Prong One, a human is fully capable of detecting whether a main motor vehicle is carrying a small vehicle, and the word ‘automatically’ is broad enough to encompass the abilities of a human performing the observation action.
Regarding Step 2A, Prong Two, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive in view of the guidance provided by the MPEP for whether additional elements integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Section 2106.05(h) states “limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.” This directly pertains to Applicant’s arguments, which additionally indicate that detection requires a sensor, which is not claimed.
For the dependent claims, Applicant argues against the rejection of claims 12-13, 17, and 26. Claims 12 and 13 comprise well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry in a mere data gathering configuration, and fail to integrate the claim into a practical application or provide an inventive concept, see MPEP 2106.05(d). Claim 17 pertains to estimating journey duration as a partial criterion for selecting the transfer point. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive, there is no reason a human could not reasonably compare two routes in a navigation scenario and determine which one would reduce a journey duration based on familiarity with the area. Claim 26 pertains to utilizing a machine learning apparatus, which is generically claimed and comprises well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry of navigation planning.
Applicant argues that the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 for claim 27 should be withdrawn. Applicant’s arguments are persuasive and the rejection is hereby withdrawn.
Applicant argues that claims 11 and 27 are allowable over Aich and Semple, but the arguments are not persuasive. As identified by the Applicant, Semple does teach that the process of executing a multimodal route is based on whether it is detected that the vehicle is carrying a small vehicle. P [0060] of Semple, for example, discloses that “at block 620, a determination is made whether various factors warrant the vehicle 100 being stopped at the intermediate location 215”, including “availability of secondary vehicles”, which broadly includes whether there are secondary vehicles present for use. Then, in P [0065] Semple additionally highlights that use readiness involves verifying whether the battery of the secondary vehicle is charged. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the invention, would have been motivated to modify the process of Aich for planning a multimodal route based on the presence of a bicycle. Simply put, Aich would not be able to plan the multimodal route without a bicycle being present, and the battery status determination is reasonably modified with any other kind of status monitoring, such as in Semple. If for example, the bicycle were not present or was present with insufficient charge, the system would automatically refrain from planning a multimodal route using the bicycle. Alternatively, as in P [0019] of Aich, "the navigation module 125 may prompt the user to seek an alternative route or charge the on-board battery 105 or bicycle battery 140 prior to embarking on the route."
With regards to claim 14, Aich teaches in P [0017]: “the processing device 120 may be programmed to monitor the batteries plugged into the charging interface 115”, and in P [0023] “the bicycle battery 140 can be charged by the on-board battery 105 or gasoline engine (if available) via, e.g., the charging interface 115, while the vehicle 100 travels”. Because the vehicle is designed to be in use while carrying the bicycle and “the state of charge data is collected by the charging interface 115 located on the vehicle 100” (P [0025]), one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that in view of the modification with Semple, the carrier or carrying method of Aich is directly tied to a relationship with the charging interface 115, which is used to detect the bicycle and its charge status.
Applicant's arguments with respect to new claim(s) 28-30 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references and/or rationale being used in the current rejection.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: navigation apparatus, transmitting apparatus, receiving apparatus, carrier apparatus, apparatus, machine learning apparatus, and detection apparatus in claims 11, 13-14, and 25-27.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof, see processor for navigation apparatus on Page 19 Line 29 for navigation apparatus and machine learning apparatus, RFID, Bluetooth, or NFC signal for transmitting and receiving apparatuses on Page 7 Line 15, bicycle rack for carrier apparatus on Page 20 Line 9, camera for apparatus on Page 14 Line 27, and see again the structures defined for transmitting and receiving apparatus for the detection apparatus of claim 27.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a method for route planning using a small vehicle Claim 11 has been reproduced below wherein the bolded parts demonstrate an abstract idea and the underline shows additional claim elements.
Claim 11 recites a method for automatic route planning, comprising:
recording a navigation destination using a navigation apparatus of a main motor vehicle, said navigation apparatus configured for route planning,
detecting automatically whether the main motor vehicle is carrying a small vehicle, and
responsive to detecting that the main motor vehicle is carrying the small vehicle, automatically planning a multimodal route to the navigation destination using the navigation apparatus, said route comprising a first route section that is to be traversed using the main motor vehicle, and a second route section that substantially adjoins the first route section at a transfer point, that leads to the navigation destination, and is to be traversed using the small vehicle.
101 ANALYSIS - STEP 1: Does the claimed invention fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition matter)?
Yes, the claims are directed to a method.
STEP 2A - Prong One: Does the Claim Recite A Judicial Exception (An Abstract Idea, Law of Nature or Natural Phenomenon)?
Independent claim 11 recites steps for detecting whether the vehicle is carrying a small vehicle and planning a multimodal route. The navigation apparatus is described with a high level of generality within the claim, and is understood to generally indicate the use of a generic computer processor, as disclosed in the Specification. The components claimed in claim 11 are thus directed to generic computer components that are applied to detection of a small vehicle, and planning a navigation route based on the detection. Nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. The identified steps are directed to the judicial exception of observation and navigation planning by a user. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
STEP 2A - Prong Two: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application of the Exception?
Claim 11 recites only a navigation apparatus with a high level of generality. The navigation performs a series of recording, detection, and planning steps that organize(s) human activity in a multi modal route planning scenario. The steps involve recording a destination, detecting the presence of a small vehicle carried by a larger vehicle, and planning a multi modal route that involves adjoined sections for utilizing each vehicle. This/These additional elements does/do not implement the abstract idea into a practical application and does/do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
STEP 2B: If there is an exception, determine if the claim as a whole recites significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
With respect to step 2B, in which any additional element or combination of elements is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in step 2A, prong 2 is re-evaluated, to see if re- evaluation finds that the recited elements are unconventional or otherwise more than well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the art. The examiner finds that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. More specifically, recording a navigation destination using a navigation apparatus is considered well-understood, routine, convention activity. This step is directed to insignificant extra solution activity of mere data gathering per MPEP 2106.05(g). In this particular case, the Thus, the independent claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims additionally fail to recite more than the abstract idea recited in claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, utilizing a camera to capture image data and reviewing the image data is considered insignificant extra solution activity that can be reasonably performed by a human. This step comprises well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry in a mere data gathering configuration, and fails to integrate the claim into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
Regarding claim 13, reviewing sensor data in communication between two devices is considered insignificant extra solution activity that can be reasonably performed by a human. This step comprises well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry in a mere data gathering configuration, and fails to integrate the claim into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
Regarding claim 14, the utilization of and detection of a carrier apparatus installed on a main motor vehicle for receiving a small vehicle is considered insignificant extra solution activity that can be reasonably performed by a human and fails to integrate the claim into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
Regarding claim 15, identifying the weight of numerous small vehicles on a carrier apparatus is considered insignificant extra solution activity that can be reasonably performed by a human and fails to integrate the claim into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
Regarding claim 16, optimizing a jou is considered insignificant extra solution activity that can be reasonably performed by a human and fails to integrate the claim into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
Regarding claim 17, establishing a criterion to reduce journey duration is considered insignificant extra solution activity that can be reasonably performed by a human and fails to integrate the claim into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
Regarding claim 18, optimizing the route with consideration to reducing the use of major roads for a second section is considered insignificant extra solution activity that can be reasonably performed by a human and fails to integrate the claim into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
Regarding claim 19, optimizing the route with consideration to length of a second section or a gradient and/or incline difference is considered insignificant extra solution activity that can be reasonably performed by a human and fails to integrate the claim into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
Regarding claim 20, adhering to space and safety requirements for selecting a route and transfer point is considered insignificant extra solution activity that can be reasonably performed by a human and fails to integrate the claim into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
Regarding claim 21, minimizing the distance of a path between a transfer point and a start of a path exclusively for the small vehicle is considered insignificant extra solution activity that can be reasonably performed by a human and fails to integrate the claim into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
Regarding claim 22, minimizing cost is considered insignificant extra solution activity that can be reasonably performed by a human and fails to integrate the claim into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
Regarding claim 23, estimating the time it takes to unload or offload the small vehicle and factoring it into the multimodal route planning is considered insignificant extra solution activity that can be reasonably performed by a human and fails to integrate the claim into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
Regarding claim 24, establishing a threshold distance value for which the total distance must be shorter is considered insignificant extra solution activity that can be reasonably performed by a human and fails to integrate the claim into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
Regarding claim 25, coordinating the number of occupants of a main motor vehicle with the number of small vehicles is considered insignificant extra solution activity that can be reasonably performed by a human and fails to integrate the claim into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
Regarding claim 26, planning a multimodal route only after meeting certain conditions that have been established for typical use is considered insignificant extra solution activity that can be reasonably performed by a human and fails to integrate the claim into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. The machine learning apparatus is described with a high level of generality within the claim, and is understood to generally indicate the use of a generic computer processor.
Examiner Note: New claim 29 involves the use of an interface configured to output the route to a driver of the vehicle or a small vehicle. Although there is no corresponding claim that depends on claim 11, providing such an interface would involve subject matter that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application for a navigation guidance scenario.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 11-14, 16-19, 24-25, and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aich et al., hereinafter Aich (Document ID: US 20170219366 A1) in view of Semple (Document ID: US 20220020105 A1).
Regarding claims 11 and 27, Aich teaches a method for automatic route planning and a motor vehicle, comprising:
recording a navigation destination using a navigation apparatus (navigating module 125) of a main motor vehicle, said navigation apparatus configured for route planning (see at least P [0008]: “A navigation module may be programmed to generate a route to the destination based on the estimated traveling ranges of the vehicle and the bicycle.”),
Aich further teaches in P [0025] automatically receiving charge data of a bicycle as a small vehicle, but Aich is not explicitly teaching detecting automatically whether the main motor vehicle is carrying a small vehicle.
Instead, Semple teaches in at least P [0023] “a status indication whether the secondary vehicle 140 is currently docked in the dock 150”, as an automatic detection of whether the main motor vehicle is carrying a small vehicle. Semple additionally teaches in P [0025]-[0026] other identification and monitoring techniques, and in P [0065] checking whether the secondary vehicle is ready for use based on charging information.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the multi modal route with a small vehicle and charging status detection of the small vehicle of Aich with the automatic status monitoring of Semple in order to "obtain various types of information" as in P [0027] of Semple pertaining to the use of a secondary vehicle stored in a main vehicle for multi modal trips.
Finally, in view of the modification, Aich teaches
responsive to detecting that the main motor vehicle is carrying the small vehicle, automatically planning a multimodal route to the navigation destination using the navigation apparatus, said route comprising a first route section that is to be traversed using the main motor vehicle, and a second route section that substantially adjoins the first route section at a transfer point, that leads to the navigation destination, and is to be traversed using the small vehicle (see at least P [0027]: “generate a route to the selected destination. The route may include a route from the current location of the vehicle 100 to an intermediate location… The route may further include a route from the intermediate location to the selected destination based on the state of charge of the bicycle battery 140. Moreover, the route to the selected destination may identify infrastructure available for bicycle traffic.”).
Regarding claim 12, modified Aich teaches the method as claimed in claim 11, but Aich does not teach
automatically activating a camera of the main motor vehicle, and processing image data captured by said camera in order to detect the small vehicle.
Instead Semple teaches in P [0027]: “The storage area 130 of the vehicle 100 may also have an imaging device 170, such as, for example, a video camera or a digital camera. The imaging device 170 is arranged to capture images of the docks and/or the secondary vehicles.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the small vehicle state monitoring of Aich with the camera monitoring of Semple in order to "observe activities associated with the secondary vehicles, such as a removal of the secondary vehicle 140 from the dock 150 and/or from the vehicle 100." (Semple P [0027])
Regarding claim 13, modified Aich teaches the method as claimed in claim 11, and Aich further teaches
the small vehicle is detected at least in part based on a signal emitted wirelessly by a transmitting apparatus of the small vehicle and received by a receiving apparatus of the main motor vehicle (see at least P [0025] wherein the small vehicle information is collected “he state of charge data is collected by the charging interface 115 located on the vehicle 100 and transmitted to the processing device 120, 165 via, e.g., the communication module 130, 160 through a wired or wireless communication protocol.”).
Regarding claim 14, modified Aich teaches the method as claimed in claim 11, and Aich further teaches
a carrier apparatus installed on the main motor vehicle and configured to receive the small vehicle is detected in order to detect the small vehicle (see at least P [0014]: “The bicycle 135 (see FIG. 3) may be stowed in the vehicle 100 in, e.g., the trunk or other compartment or mounted to a carrier on top of or behind the vehicle 100.” Note that the bicycle additionally interfaces and is detected via use of the charging interface 115).
Regarding claim 16, modified Aich teaches the method as claimed in claim 11, and Aich further teaches
the route and a position of the transfer point are at least partially optimized (see at least P [0018] for the route considerations used to optimize the route by the navigation module 125) by the navigation apparatus with respect to at least one of the following criteria:
minimizing a total journey duration, minimizing a proportion of major roads for the second route section, adhering to a threshold value that is predefined for the second route section, adhering to a threshold value that is predefined for the second route section for a maximum length, adhering to a threshold value that is predefined for the second route section gradient and/or incline difference, complying with minimum space and safety requirements that are predefined for the transfer point, minimizing a distance between the transfer point and a start of a path that is permissible for the small vehicle but inaccessible for cars and that forms at least part of the second route section, and minimizing total costs (see at least P [0018]-[0019] which considers parking availability, charging constraints, and infrastructure considerations).
Regarding claim 17, modified Aich teaches the method as claimed in claim 11, and Aich further teaches using traveling distances in P [0026] for route generation but does not explicitly teach that
the route and a position of the transfer point are selected by the navigation apparatus based at least in part on a criterion of reducing a total journey duration.
Instead, Semple teaches in P [0031]: “the auxiliary operations computer 110, may determine that there is a traffic delay on the first travel segment 210,” and then making a determination to use the stop as an intermediate location 215 for swapping to the secondary vehicle in P [0033].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the route generation decision process of Aich with the duration based selection in response to a traffic delay or other slowdown of Semple in order to execute a design choice for utilizing a secondary vehicle to reduce the total time of a user's trip.
Regarding claim 18, modified Aich teaches the method as claimed in claim 11, and Aich further teaches
the route and a position of the transfer point are selected by the navigation apparatus based at least in part on a criterion of reducing a proportion of major roads for the second route section (see at least P [0018] wherein “infrastructure that is suited for bicycle traffic” is incorporated, after “The navigation module 170 may consider the infrastructure available to the vehicle 100 and bicycle 135 when generating the routes.” in P [0023]).
Regarding claim 19, modified Aich teaches the method as claimed in claim 11, and Aich further teaches in P [0027] that “The route may further include a route from the intermediate location to the selected destination based on the state of charge of the bicycle battery 140.” Aich also teaches in P [0032] an evaluation whether “the selected destination is beyond the reach of the vehicle 100 and bicycle 135.” But Aich does not explicitly teach that
the route and a position of the transfer point are at least partially optimized by the navigation apparatus with respect to at least one of the following criteria:
adhering to a threshold value that is predefined for the second route section for a maximum length, and adhering to a threshold value that is predefined for the second route section gradient and/or incline difference.
Instead, Semple teaches optimizing a multi modal route and stops based on adhering to a threshold value that is predefined for the second route section for a maximum length, in P [0060]: “factors such as the distance between a current location of the vehicle 100 and the trip destination 225 being small (or too far) to inconvenience the passengers with use of the secondary vehicles”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the route generation decision process of Aich with the distance based evaluation for an intermediate location of Semple in order to execute a design choice for utilizing a secondary vehicle only when the distance to be traveled on the secondary vehicle is not too far.
Regarding claim 24, modified Aich teaches the method as claimed in claim 11, and Aich further teaches
planning the multimodal route only if the total distance to the navigation destination is shorter than a predefined distance threshold value (see at least P [0019] wherein a determination based on available charge is made about the range of both vehicles. The multimodal route is only planned if the total distance is within an acceptable range of the vehicles based on their charge).
Regarding claim 25, modified Aich teaches the method as claimed in claim 11, but Aich does not explicitly teach that
a number of and/or identity of occupants of the main motor vehicle is automatically identified by an apparatus of the main motor vehicle and the multimodal route planning involving the small vehicle is only automatically carried out if a predefined criterion with respect to the number and/or the identity of the identified occupants has been met.
Instead, Semple teaches in P [0018] identifying the number of passengers and number of secondary vehicles in order “to make a determination whether there are enough number of secondary vehicles available for use during a trip.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the route generation decision process of Aich with the number of vehicle and number of passenger measurement of Semple in order to execute a design choice for planning a multimodal trip with a personal small vehicle for numerous users. .
Aich and Semple do not explicitly teach that route planning involving the small vehicle is only automatically carried out if a predefined criterion with respect to the number and/or the identity of the identified occupants has been met.
But Semple does teach in P [0056] that “Information provided by the inventory may include items such as the number of secondary vehicles available for use, the number of secondary vehicles that have been assigned to one or more passengers of the vehicle 100, the number of secondary vehicles that have been removed from the vehicle 100, and the number of secondary vehicles that are unavailable for use.”
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the passenger occupancy awareness and matching to secondary vehicles of Aich and Semple with a design choice to only plan a route involving a secondary vehicle with respect to a criteria with respect to the number of identified occupants in order to execute a design choice to only perform multi modal routing if multiple modes of transport are available. See for example P [0060] of Semple wherein conditions are evaluated about whether a multimodal route planning takes place.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aich in view of Semple, and further in view of Eskman et al., hereinafter Eskman (Document ID: SE 538875 C2).
Regarding claim 15, modified Aich teaches the method as claimed in claim 14, and Aich further teaches in P [0014] numerous known vehicle types and carrier types which are known in the art to be capable of supporting a number of small vehicles. But Aich does not explicitly teach that
the carrier apparatus is configured to support a number of small vehicles,
Instead, Semple teaches in P [0024]-[0026] carrying a number of small vehicles, and numerous techniques for obtaining individual information about the secondary vehicles.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the vehicle type and carrier of Aich with the multiple vehicle carrier configuration of Semple in order to execute a design choice for carrying multiple secondary vehicles for multiple passengers.
But Aich and Semple do not explicitly teach that the number of small vehicles is detected on the basis of a weight load occurring when one or more of the small vehicles are supported on the carrier apparatus.
Instead, Eskman, whose invention pertains to detecting a vacant load capacity of a vehicle, teaches on Page 7, Line 25 “The system 400 in the vehicle 100 comprises at least one sensor 380, configured for detecting vacant load capacity in the vehicle 100 and also configured for determining size of the detected vacant load capacity”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the numerous secondary vehicles and individual detection of Aich and Semple with the load based space detection of Eskman in order to determine how much space is available for additional secondary vehicles or keep track of how many and what kind of secondary vehicles are currently contained in the main vehicle.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aich in view of Semple, and further in view of Beaurepaire et al., hereinafter Beaurepaire (Document ID: US 20200378771 A1).
Regarding claim 20, modified Aich teaches the method as claimed in claim 11, and Aich further teaches the route and a position of the transfer point are selected at least partially on a basis of complying with minimum space requirements in P [0018]: “The intermediate location may include a parking lot at the outskirts of a crowded urban area or other area where vehicle navigation is difficult”, but Aich and Semple do not explicitly teach complying with safety requirements.
Instead, Beaurepaire, whose invention pertains to passenger drop off for multi modal route planning, teaches in P [0108] optimizing “the navigation route based on a safety level of the least one intermodal route leg to the least one destination”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the parking area selection for a main vehicle of Aich and Semple with the safety consideration of an intermediate location or area of Beaurepaire in order to "avoiding letting a passenger travelling alone in a given area or with a specific mode of transport there" as in P [0108] of Beaurepaire.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aich in view of Semple, and further in view of Spielman et al., hereinafter Spielman (Document ID: US 20210102815 A1).
Regarding claim 21, modified Aich teaches the method as claimed in claim 11, and Aich further teaches in P [0018] the consideration of infrastructure and path segments that are accessible to cars in comparison to a bicycle, or a small vehicle. But Aich and Semple do not explicitly teach that
the route and a position of the transfer point are selected by the navigation apparatus at least partially based on minimizing a distance between the transfer point and a start of a path that is permissible for the small vehicle but inaccessible for cars and that forms at least part of the second route section.
Instead, Spielman, whose invention pertains to multi modal route planning, teaches multi modal planning involving automobiles, public transit, and small personal mobility vehicles. In P [0047] Spielman highlights that “users that are not in close proximity to a transit stop may have to walk long distances over a significant amount of time to access the transit stop from their starting location.” Therefore, when combining modalities, as in P [0048], Spielman aims to minimize the distances between the transfer point between two modalities of transport, or different vehicles. By highlighting the use of walking or train transit Spielman is also utilizing transportation modalities that are not accessible to cars.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the infrastructure and vehicle access considerations of Aich and Semple with the ability to piece together segments using different modalities of Spielman in order to provide faster transportation with the use of multiple modalities of transport as in P [0048] of Spielman.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aich in view of Semple, and further in view of Klampfl et al., hereinafter Klampfl (Document ID: US 8949028 B1)
Regarding claim 22, modified Aich teaches the method as claimed in claim 11, but Aich and Semple do not explicitly teach that
the route and a position of the transfer point are selected by the navigation apparatus at least partially based on minimizing total costs.
Instead, Klampfl, whose invention pertains to planning a multi modal route teaches in at least Col 6 Line 24 consideration of minimizing total costs when selecting a transfer point: “but a node 203 could be selected for a route over the node 211 where parking at the node 203 would be cheaper”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the intermediate location or stopping point consideration of Aich and Semple with the cost based transfer node selection for a multi modal route of Klampfl in order to execute a design choice for prioritizing a user's cost preferences when embarking on a multi modal transport route.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aich in view of Semple, and further in view of Hance et al., hereinafter Hance (Document ID: US 20190066041 A1).
Regarding claim 23, modified Aich teaches the method as claimed in claim 11, and Semple teaches using time constraints in P [0059] to advise the route planning. But Aich and Semple do not explicitly teach
determining automatically a time duration estimation for unloading or offloading the small vehicle from the main motor vehicle; and
planning the multimodal route base at least in part on the time duration estimation.
Instead, Hance, whose invention pertains to providing routes for a delivery vehicle, teaches in P [0035]: “a projected unload time” for offloading cargo from a vehicle, and indicating that the “projected unloaded time may be factored into a decision to reroute the delivery vehicle”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the time and multimodal route generation of Aich and Semple with the consideration for time it takes to unload objects from a vehicle of Hance in order to execute a design choice to factor in the logistical aspect of unloading time for a total travel route.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aich in view of Semple, and further in view of Vaughn et al., hereinafter Vaughn (Document ID: US 20200408546 A1).
Regarding claim 26, modified Aich teaches the method as claimed in claim 11, but Aich and Semple do not explicitly further teach that
conditions in which a user of the main motor vehicle uses a small vehicle supported by the main motor vehicle are automatically learned by a machine learning apparatus, and the multimodal route planning is only automatically carried out if one or more of the conditions have been met.
Instead, Vaughn, whose invention pertains to planning a multimodal route for a user, teaches in P [0094]-[0095] a process for learning when “a user auxiliary vehicle is predicted to outperform a user passenger” and in P [0129] “machine learning training” for multi modal route planning. In P [0095] it can be seen that dynamic observation of route conditions changes the preference for planning a multimodal route or not.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the multimodal route planning determination of Aich and Semple with the artificial intelligence route planning and condition monitoring of Vaughn in order to plan an "optimum driving route between first and second locations" (Vaughn [0030]) based on real time condition monitoring.
Claim(s) 28-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Semple in view of Aich.
Regarding claim 28, Semple teaches a motor vehicle, comprising:
a detection apparatus configured to automatically detect a small vehicle supported by the motor vehicle (see at least P [0027]: “an imaging device 170… arranged to capture images of the docks and/or the secondary vehicles.”); and
Semple teaches a unified transportation service module 425 configured to automatically plan a multimodal route to a navigation destination responsive to a small vehicle being detected, said route comprising a first route section that is to be traversed using the motor vehicle, and a second route section that substantially adjoins the first route section at a transfer point, that leads to the navigation destination, and is to be traversed using the small vehicle. See at least in P [0023] “a status indication whether the secondary vehicle 140 is currently docked in the dock 150”, as an automatic detection of whether the main motor vehicle is carrying a small vehicle. Semple additionally teaches in P [0024]-[0026] facilitating communication with an auxiliary operations computer 110, which makes decision about a transfer point as an intermediate point, as well as other identification and monitoring techniques. Then, in P [0056] and P [0065] checking whether the secondary vehicle available and ready for use based on charging information. In P [0036] passengers “can make use of the secondary vehicle 140 to travel from the intermediate location 215 to the trip destination 225.”
To summarize, the auxiliary operations computer 110 operates “as a master control element that supervises and executes various operations in cooperation with the various smartphones and other devices in the vehicle 100.” (Semple [0038]), and the unified transportation service module 425 is shown in P [0047] to conduct navigation related processing, but Semple does not explicitly teach a navigation apparatus.
Instead, Aich teaches a navigating module 125 capable of generating a multimodal route to a navigation destination in at least P [0008], P [0018], and P [0027].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the automatic status monitoring and intermediate location planning of Semple with the navigation module for planning a multimodal route of Aich in order to utilize a navigation processor for planning a multimodal route that favors different modes of transportation in different areas, as in P [0018] of Aich.
Finally, Semple additionally teaches
the detection apparatus comprises a sensor system disposed on the motor vehicle configured to detect smaller vehicles that do not have a drive motor (see at least P [0065]: “The communication device 166 may respond to the information by ensuring that the secondary vehicle 140 is ready to be removed from the dock 150 and that the secondary vehicle 140 is ready for use.” Note that Semple teaches that the secondary vehicle 140 may be a battery operated vehicle, but the readiness check is performed in the case that the small vehicle does not have a drive motor as well).
Regarding claim 29, modified Semple teaches the motor vehicle of claim 28, and Semple further teaches in P [0027] using smartphones as an interface for providing communications about the secondary vehicle 140, providing traffic information in P [0031] to the smartphone as an interface, and in P [0036] indicating via the smartphone that the secondary vehicle 140 should be used “to travel from the intermediate location 215 to the trip destination 225”. But Semple does not explicitly teach that
the navigation apparatus includes an interface configured to output the route to a driver of the vehicle or the small vehicle.
Instead, Aich teaches in P [0018]: “The navigation system may be further programmed to develop routes from the current location to a selected destination, as well as display a map and present driving directions to the selected destination via, e.g., a user interface device.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the automatic status monitoring and intermediate location planning of Semple with the navigation interface of Aich in order to output the plans of a multimodal route that favors different modes of transportation in different areas to a user, as in P [0018] of Aich.
Regarding claim 30, modified Semple teaches the motor vehicle of claim 28, and Semple further teaches
using the navigation apparatus to output the route to a driver of the vehicle or the small vehicle.
Instead, Aich teaches in P [0018]: “The navigation system may be further programmed to develop routes from the current location to a selected destination, as well as display a map and present driving directions to the selected destination via, e.g., a user interface device.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the automatic status monitoring and intermediate location planning of Semple with the navigation interface of Aich in order to output the plans of a multimodal route that favors different modes of transportation in different areas to a user, as in P [0018] of Aich.
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.
Additional art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Document ID: US 20140055253 A1
Invention pertains to determining whether one object is fastened to a main transport device.
Document ID: US 11835345 B2
Invention pertains to determining and implementing transportation vehicle routes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Dairon Estevez whose telephone number is (703)756-4552. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00AM - 4:00PM.
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, Khoi Tran can be reached at (571) 272-6919. 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.
/D.E./Examiner, Art Unit 3656
/KHOI H TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3656