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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
1. A. Regarding claim 1, the Applicant argues that the combination of Urano and Kuhara fails to teach or suggest the claimed limitations of:
“provide, to a predetermined communication terminal of the one or more communication terminals, a recommended place determined based on the movement history”.
However, the Examiner maintains that the Kuhara, which is an analogous art equivalently discloses the claimed limitations of:
“provide, to a predetermined communication terminal of the one or more communication terminals, a recommended place determined based on the movement history” (= vehicle operator 6 is to be made to remotely operate the delivery vehicle 3 in case where movement control has been carried out in the past at the dispatch destination, see [0482 and Fig. 36]).
Therefore, the combination of Urano and Kuhara is proper and the Office Action is being made FINAL as shown below.
B. The rejection of all the dependent claims, by virtue of their dependency from the independent claims, is also being made Final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Urano (US 2022/0081010), (hereinafter, Urano) in view of Kuhara (US 2019/0066516), (hereinafter, Kuhara).
Regarding claim 1, Urano discloses a communication control server/ communication control method (= vehicle dispatch system includes vehicle dispatch server 10, see [0033]), comprising circuitry configured to:
store, in a memory (= map database 4 and remote assistance history database 5 are connected to the server 10, see [0071]), movement history of one or more mobile apparatuses (= travel histories of autonomous driving vehicle 2, see [0109]) that have moved by remote operation from one or more communication terminals (= remote operator R transmits remote assistance object by transmitting the remote assistance to server 10 through interface 3, see [0039]), each of the one or more mobile apparatuses being movable in a real space and remotely operable by one of the one or more communication terminals (= remote assistance may include remote manipulation of the autonomous driving vehicle by the remote operator R, see [0037 and 0039]); and
provide, to a predetermined communication terminal of the one or more communication terminals, the predetermined communication terminal being currently performing remote operation of one of the one or more mobile apparatuses (= server 10 instructs the dispatched candidate vehicles to dispatch the vehicle; and vehicle dispatch instruction including a vehicle dispatch route to the dispatched candidate vehicles, thereby starting the vehicle dispatch to the point of dispatch P, see [0108]).
Urano explicitly fails to disclose the claimed limitations of:
“provide, to a predetermined communication terminal of the one or more communication terminals, a recommended place determined based on the movement history”.
However, Kuhara, which is an analogous art discloses the claimed limitations of:
“provide, to a predetermined communication terminal of the one or more communication terminals, a recommended place determined based on the movement history” (= vehicle operator 6 is to be made to remotely operate the delivery vehicle 3 in case where movement control has been carried out in the past at the dispatch destination, see [0482 and Fig. 36]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Kuhara with Urano for the benefit of achieving a communication system whereby an autonomous vehicle could be controlled by a user at the dispatched destination.
Regarding claim 2, as mentioned in claim 1, Urano explicitly fails to disclose the communication control server, wherein the recommended place is determined based on a predetermined condition concerning the movement history.
However, Kuhara, which is an analogous art discloses the communication control server, wherein the recommended place is determined based on a predetermined condition concerning the movement history (see, [0482])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Kuhara with Urano for the benefit of achieving a communication system whereby an autonomous vehicle could be controlled by a user at the dispatched destination.
Regarding claim 5, as mentioned in claim 2, Urano further disclose the communication control server, wherein the predetermined condition indicates that a place to be recommended is an exhibition place of an exhibitor who has an attribute related to an attribute of a predetermined user operating the predetermined communication terminal (see, [0084-85]).
Allowable Subject Matter
3. Claims 3-4 and 6-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
4. Claims 13-14 are allowable.
CONCLUSION
5. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of 33the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kwasi Karikari whose telephone number is
571-272-8566.The examiner can normally be reached on M-Sat (6am – 10pm).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Charles Appiah can be reached on 571-272-7904.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8566.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Kwasi Karikari/
Primary Examiner: Art Unit 2641.
Prosecution Insights