DETAILED ACTION
This final action is in response to the reply, filed 26 March 2026, which was in response to the non-final action, dated 29 December 2025.
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 .
Reply to Amendment
Claims 1-12 are pending. Claim 1 has been amended.
With regard to the non-statutory double patenting rejection of claims 1-12, (pgs. 3-5, Action) applicant’s filing of the terminal disclaimer on 26 March 2026 renders this rejection moot. Accordingly, the non-statutory double patenting rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments necessitated a new matter rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), as discussed below.
With regard to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 1-12 (pgs. 5-12, Action) Applicant contends that based upon the amendments, (pgs. 8, Reply) that “the claim integrates the abstract idea into a practical application, with the inclusion of additional elements beyond the abstract idea impose meaningful limits that apply the idea in specific technological way, providing concrete improvement to transportation hub technology”. Specifically identifies the additional elements “automated docking mechanisms”, “sensors”, “autonomous vehicles equipped with module interior components” and “sever transmits signals to physically reposition vehicles .... and reconfigure their module interiors,” to support their contentions. The examiner disagrees and notes that some of these additional elements have been identified as new matter as discussed below. The examiner is not persuaded by this contention, as explained in the section below.
With regard to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1-12 (pgs. 12-35, Action) applicant’s amendments necessitated additional searching and consideration of new grounds of rejection. Accordingly, the new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 are: claim 1 in view of Anonymous, Balva, Williams and Laetz; claims 2 and 5 in view of Anonymous, Balva, Williams, Laetz and Jiwani; claims 3 and 4 in view of Anonymous, Balva, Williams, Laetz, Jiwani and Wang; claims 6, 8, 9 and 11 in view of Anonymous, Balva, Laetz, Williams and Cradick; claims 7 and 10 in view of Anonymous, Balva, Laetz, Williams, Cradick and Kanitz; and claim 12 in view of Anonymous, Balva, Laetz, Williams, Cradick, Levy and Khavakh.
Applicant cites MPEP 2143.01 VI (pg. 11, Reply) which states that “if the proposed modification or combination of the prior art would change the principle of operation of the prior art invention being modified, then the teachings of the references are not sufficient to render the claims prima facie obvious. In re Ratti, 270 F.2d 810, 813, 123 USPQ 349, 352 (CCPA 1959)” However, applicant has neither applied the rule nor shown how applying the teachings from the secondary reference would render the primary references unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. Thus this contention is unpersuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the following limitations:
“a plurality of sensors disposed in the connections slots and configured to collect real-time data including at least passenger flow rates and vehicle occupancy”,
“a server in communication with sensors”,
“collecting real-time data”,
“an automated docking mechanism configured to physically connect the vehicle hub to an interior space of a vehicle parked therein ”,
“using a trained machine learning model”,
demand for vehicles belonging to the use or category based on the “real time data ... “
“historical” tendency, and
“transmitting control signals to the vehicle”.
Although applicant contends that “[s]upport for the amendments can be found throughout the as-filed specification as well as originally filed claims ... and [t]hus, no new matter is added (pg. 8, Reply), the claims, drawings and specification are silent with regard to the above limitations.
With regard the limitation “trained machine learning model”, although the specification at [0034] discloses analyzing or classifying the tendency or preference of the passenger using “big data analysis-based techniques (AI)”, there is no disclosure of “training” the model.
With regard to the limitation “transmitting control signals to the vehicle”, although the specification generally discloses that the “server” may “perform control such that the vehicles” (e.g. [0031] “vehicles 100 are provided with articles necessary for various activities”; [0035] “moves along the set movement route” ; [0036] “wait in the connections lots”) , the specification does not disclose nor illustrate “transmitting control signals to the vehicle”. Further, nowhere in the specification is it shown or disclosed that there is a transmission of control signals to the vehicle.
Claims 2-12 are also rejected based upon their dependence of independent claim 1.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In January, 2019 (updated October 2019), the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
• STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
• STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
o STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
o STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
o STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claim 1 is directed toward non-statutory subject matter as shown below.
STEP 1: Does claim 1 fall within one of the statutory categories? Yes, because claim 1 is directed toward a system which falls within one of the statutory categories.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
1. Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
2. Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
3. Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
As per claim 1, the system is a mental process that can be performed in the mind and, therefore, an abstract idea. In particular, claim 1 recites the abstract ideas:
“categorize the vehicles by use”;
“group the connection slots by ranked categories such that the connection slots that are grouped together by category are disposed adjacent to each other”;
“predict, by using a trained machine learning model, demand for vehicles belonging to the use or the category based on real-time data from sensors, historical tendency or preference of passengers”;
“change the use or the category of the vehicles”,
“reposition the vehicles into different connections slots” and
“reconfigure the module interior components of the vehicles ... “.
These recitations merely consist of categorizing the vehicles by use, grouping the connection slots by ranked categories, predicting demand for vehicles based on the preference of passengers, changing the use or category of the vehicles to satisfy passenger demand, repositioning the vehicles and reconfigure the vehicle interiors. This is equivalent to a person categorizing the vehicles by use, grouping the connection slots by ranked categories, predicting demand for vehicles based on the preference of passengers, changing the use or category of the vehicles to satisfy passenger demand, planning to reposition the vehicles and planning to reconfigure the vehicle interiors. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same). As such, a person, categorizing the vehicles by use, grouping the connection slots by ranked categories, predicting demand for vehicles based on the preference of passengers, changing the use or category of the vehicles to satisfy passenger demand, planning to reposition the vehicles and planning to reconfigure the vehicle interiors. The mere nominal recitations that these steps are carries out at the “server,” “a plurality of sensors”, and a “plurality of autonomous vehicles,” “a trained machine learning model”, does not take the limitation out of the mental process grouping.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
• an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
• an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
• an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
• an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
• an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
• an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
• an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
• an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claim 1 does not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into practical application. Claim 1 further recites the additional elements:
“collect real-time data including at least passenger flow rates and vehicle occupancy”, and
“collect passenger information related to a use of the vehicles preferred by passengers”.
This additional element further limits the abstract idea without integrating the abstract idea into practical application or significantly more. In particular, the “collect real-time data and passenger information … “ limitations are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering an electronic representation of passenger movement and passengers using the vehicles) and amount to mere data gathering, a form of insignificant extra-solution activity added to the judicial exception per MPEP 2106.05(g), because the steps characterize pre solution activity.
Claim 1 still further includes the additional element “a server”. This element is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because it fails to integrate the exception into practical application. The mere inclusion of instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea is indicative that the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application. In the instant case, the system accomplishes colleting of the passenger information by “a server” i.e. via computers. Thus, it is clear that the abstract idea is merely implemented on a computer, which is indicative of the abstract idea having not been integrated in the practical application. The “server” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise metal judgements in a generic or general purpose computing environment. The server is recited at a high level of generality and merely automate the collecting steps.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, claim 1 does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
• adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
• simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Claim 1 does not recite any specific limitation or combination of limitations that are well-understood, routine, conventional (WURC) activity in the field. Collecting data are fundamental, i.e. WURC, activities performed by servers, such as servers operating on databases such as the units recited in claim 1. Further, applicant’s specification does not provide any indication that the collecting activities of the system are performed using anything other than a conventional computer. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Thus, since claim 1 is: (a) directed toward an abstract idea; (b) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into practical application; and (c) does not recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claim 1 is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claims 2-12 further limit the abstract idea without integrating the abstract idea into practical application or adding significantly more. For example, the additional elements in claims 2-5 are further limitations that under their broadest reasonable interpretation are abstract using the analysis for independent claim 1. Further, the additional elements in claims 6-12 are further limitations that under their broadest reasonable interpretations are limitations that are further limit the abstract idea without integrating the abstract idea into practical application or significantly more.
As such, claims 1-12, are rejected as being drawn to an abstract idea without significantly more, and thus are ineligible
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 non-obviousness.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anonymous: "Hyundai Motor Presents Smart Mobility Solution 'UAM-PBV-Hub' to Vitalize Future Cities", 7 January 2020 (2020-01-07), X.1?055884829, Retrieved from the Internet: URL:https://www.hyundai.com/worldwide/en/company/newsroom/worldwide/en/company/newsroom/worldwide/en/company/newsroom/worldwide/en/company/newsroom/hyundai-motor-presents-smart-mobility-solution-'uam-pbv-hub'-to-vita.li:r.e-:f.uture-cities-0000016368 [retrieved on 21 December 2022] (hereafter Anonymous) in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2021/0142248 to Balva, U.S. Patent Publication Number 2022/0364866 Williams et al. (hereafter Williams) and U.S. Patent Publication Number 2018/0366004 to Laetz.
MPEP 2153(a) states that a disclosure that would otherwise qualify as prior art under AIA U.S.C. 102(a)(1) will not be treated as prior art by Office personnel if the disclosure is made one year or less before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and the evidence shows that the disclosure is by the inventor or a joint inventor. The Anonymous disclosure is not attributed to the inventor and the examiner has no evidence showing the disclosure is by the inventor of joint inventor. Although the disclosure is one year or less before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, there is no evidence that the disclosure is attributed to the inventor, and therefore the examiner has cited the Anonymous disclosure as 102(a)(1) prior art.
As per claim 1, Anonymous discloses [a] transportation system (see at least Anonymous, pg. 1 unlabeled figure at the beginning of the disclosure),
a vehicle hub comprising: a plurality of connection slots (see at least Anonymous, pg. 2, unlabeled figure, titled “Hyundai’s Smart Mobility Solution”, showing hub with a plurality of connecting slots, and further disclosing a disclosing a hub ... Connect people to people .... Transform into infinite new spaces ... )
including an automated docking mechanism configured to physically connect the vehicle hub to an interior space of a vehicle parked therein (see at least Anonymous, pg. 1, unlabeled figure at the beginning of the disclosure showing vehicle hub connected to interior spaces of the vehicles through connection slogs; Pg. 2 unlabeled figure, titled "Hyundai's Smart Mobility Solution", showing hub, and vehicles, Urban Air Mobility (UAM) and Purpose built vehicle (PBV)); and
... (1) ... ; ... (2) ... the server configured to:
categorize the vehicles by use; dynamically group the connection slots by ranked categories such that the connection slots that are grouped together by category are disposed adjacent to each other (see at least Anonymous, pg. 2 showing PAV and UAM grouped by use relative to the hub. Disclosing that the hub is a space that connects UAM and PBV); ... (3) ... ; ... (4) ... ; ... (5) ... ; ... (6) ... , ... (7) ... ,
wherein passenger transfer time within the vehicle hub is reduced by clustering high-demand categories adjacently based on the predicted demand (see at least Anonymous, Pg. 2 showing PAV and UAM group by use relative to the hub. Disclosing that the hub is a space that connects UAM and PBV). But, Anonymous does not explicitly teach the following limitations taught in Balva:
(2) a server in communication with the sensors, the automated docking mechanism, and the vehicles (see at least Balva, [0040] disclosing that In this system, various users can use applications executing on various types of computing devices 402 to submit route requests over at least one network 404 to be received by an interface layer 406 of a service provider environment 408. he service provider environment can include any resources known or used for receiving and processing electronic requests, as may include various computer servers, data servers, and network infrastructure),
(3) collect passenger information related to a use of the vehicles preferred by passengers (see at least Balva, [0042] disclosing that a passenger ride request may be associated with one or more conditions, such the number of passengers and an amount cargo that will be brought onboard. Other conditions may include preferences such as a preference for the passenger-only vehicle, no preference regarding riding with cargo, or no preference regarding riding with cargo as long as no deliveries are made during the passenger's trip <interpreted as passenger information related to use>);
(4) predict, by using a trained machine learning model, demand for vehicles belonging to the use or the category based on the real-time data from sensors, historical tendency or preference of passengers (see at least Balva, [0026] disclosing that an artificial intelligence-based approach, as may include machine learning or a trained neural network, for example, can be used to further optimize the function based upon various trends and relationships determined from the data; [0047]; [0049] disclosing that FIG. 5 illustrates an example system 500 similar to that of FIG. 4, but which includes additional component configured to predict demand and provide for proactive vehicle movement in accordance with various embodiments. In this example, the system can include at least one demand simulation sub-system 502, device, or component, which can attempt to predict demand for a specific service area as discussed and suggested herein. The demand simulator can determine simulation parameters, such as the time of day (e.g., a fifteen minute window), a day of the week, a season, and special events or planned occurrences (e.g., construction), which can be used to run the simulation. The simulator 502 can obtain relevant data from a historical demand data repository 504, and can analyze that data using one or more predictive algorithms or processes to predict demand (and potentially other values discussed herein) for that particular time and location); and
(5) according to the predicted demand change the use or the category of the vehicles such that the demands of passengers are satisfied (see at least Balva, [0058] disclosing that various machine learning techniques may be used in order to generate the predicted demand for the future times. A set of proactive passenger requests and cargo requests corresponding to the predicted demand may be generated 606. The set of proactive ride requests may be submitted 608 with a set of actual passenger requests and cargo requests, to a vehicle selection <interpreted as changing the use or category of the vehicles> and route determination system) ... . But, neither Anonymous nor Balva explicitly teach the following limitations taught in Williams:
(1) a plurality of sensors disposed in the connections slots and configured to collect real-time data including at least passenger flow rates and vehicle occupancy (see at least Williams, [0100] disclosing that plurality of sensors 106 may detect the presence of cargo 108 in vehicle 100. In some embodiments, cargo 108 includes persons <interpreted as vehicle occupancy>, such as one or more passengers (not specifically shown) in vehicle 100.); and
(7) reconfigure the modular interior components of the vehicles based on the changed category of the vehicles (see at least Williams, [0246] disclosing that the present disclosure provides for creating a hub system of support, maintenance, and services to keep vehicles operating and creating revenue 24/7/365, by (i) using onboard sensors to detect and track when an autonomous delivery service vehicle needs basic maintenance such as oil change, tire rotation, tire inflation, new wipers, light replacement, interior/exterior detailing and route to the appropriate vendor relationship in accordance with down time routing strategy ) ... . But, neither Anonymous, Balva nor Williams teach the following limitation taught in Laetz:
(6) by transmitting control signals to the vehicles to reposition the vehicles into different connection slots (see at least Laetz, Claim 1, [0011] disclosing an anticipatory deployment system for self-driving vehicles by means of a computer generated matrix of anticipatory vehicle demand values calculated by probability by a computer and using a city street map and a grid pattern of some designs ; [0026]; and [0037] disclosing a self-deploying vehicle being deployed in one location, and then deployed to different position when a change in a data variable causes a change in the value of the potentiality of anticipated user requests. Autonomously driven vehicles can be provided with anticipatory deployment instructions so as to arrive within proximity to any zone based upon calculations that include any number of variables; [0048] further disclosing that a user enters a transportation request to the system, for example, pick-up or drop-off at a specified location, within a specified time window. "One-time preferences" are any trip specific requests or variations from user profiles that the user requests for a trip. And that the system retrieves at step 904, information pertaining to the user such as a user profile, a preference profile and the ownership groups that the user belongs to. The user profile includes the type of transportation and favorite routes) ... .
Anonymous, Balva, Williams and Laetz are analogous art to claim 1 because they are in the same field of transportation systems. Anonymous relates to a smart mobility solution using air and ground vehicles (see at least Anonymous, pg. 1). Balva relates to methods for selecting vehicles and optimizing routes for a combination of passenger transportation requests and cargo delivery requests (see Balva, Abstract). Williams relates to a vehicle routing system includes a vehicle routing and analytics (VRA) computing device, one or more databases, and one or more vehicles communicatively coupled to the VRA computing device that generate an optimal route for a vehicle to travel that maximizes potential revenue for operation of the vehicle (see at least Williams, Abstract). Laetz relates to methods and systems for management and anticipatory deployment of autonomously controlled vehicles including calculating the geographic locations and periods of time where self-driving vehicles might experience the greatest probability of being requested to provide transportation services to passengers or cargo, communicating the resulting locations and times to self-driving vehicles, and causing the vehicles to deploy themselves to those certain locations at those certain times (see at least Laetz, Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the transportation system including a vehicle hub with a plurality of slots, as disclosed in Anonymous, to provide the benefit of (1) having a server, collecting passenger information related to a use of the vehicles preferred by passengers, predicting demand for vehicles belonging to the use or the category based on tendency or preference of passengers, and changing the use or the category of the vehicles such that the demands of passengers are satisfied, as disclosed in Balva, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of improving the user or passenger experience and increasing the utilization of particular vehicles (see at least Balva, [0001]).
It would also be obvious to have modified the transportation system as disclosed in Anonymous, as modified by Balva, to further provide the benefit of (1) having a plurality of sensors disposed in the connections slots and configured to collect real-time data including at least passenger flow rates and vehicle occupancy, (7) reconfiguring the modular interior components of the vehicles based on the changed category of the vehicles, as disclosed in Williams, and (6) transmitting control signals to the vehicles to reposition the vehicles into different connection slots as disclosed in Laetz, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of improving the utilization of the vehicles (see at least Williams [0064]).
Claims 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anonymous, Balva, Williams and Laetz as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication 2020/0226498 to Jiwani et al. (hereafter Jiwani).
As per claim 2, the combination of Anonymous, Balva, Williams and Laetz disclose all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. But, neither Anonymous, Balva, Williams nor Laetz explicitly teach the following limitation taught in Jiwani:
wherein the server is further configured to: match the passengers with the connection slots or the vehicles based on the passenger information; and guide the passengers to the matched connection slots or vehicles (see at least Jiwani, [0030] disclosing that the passenger device 104a receives allocation information from the transportation server 112 based on allocation of an available vehicle, such as the vehicle 106a, to the passenger 102a. The passenger device 104a may be further utilized to view the allocation information including at least one of driver information, vehicle information, route allocation information, or ride fare information; [0032] disclosing that vehicles 106a and 106b are means of transport that are deployed by the vehicle service provider to offer the on-demand vehicle or ride services to one or more passengers such as the passengers 102a and 102b. Examples of the vehicle 106a or 106b include, but are not limited to, an automobile, a bus, a car, and a bike; [0092] disclosing that the allocation information may be utilized, by the passenger 102a, to keep a track of the vehicle 106b and timely board the vehicle 106b for the share ride).
Anonymous, Balva, Williams, Laetz and Jiwani are analogous art to claim 2 because they are in the same field of transportation systems. Anonymous relates to a smart mobility solution using air and ground vehicles (see at least Anonymous, pg. 1). Balva relates to methods for selecting vehicles and optimizing routes for a combination of passenger transportation requests and cargo delivery requests (see Balva, Abstract). Williams relates to a vehicle routing system includes a vehicle routing and analytics (VRA) computing device, one or more databases, and one or more vehicles communicatively coupled to the VRA computing device that generate an optimal route for a vehicle to travel that maximizes potential revenue for operation of the vehicle (see at least Williams, Abstract). Laetz relates to methods and systems for management and anticipatory deployment of autonomously controlled vehicles including calculating the geographic locations and periods of time where self-driving vehicles might experience the greatest probability of being requested to provide transportation services to passengers or cargo, communicating the resulting locations and times to self-driving vehicles, and causing the vehicles to deploy themselves to those certain locations at those certain times (see at least Laetz, Abstract). Jiwani relates to allocating vehicles to a passenger that includes receiving a booking request for ride-sharing, identifying routes, that connect a source location to a destination location (see at least Jiwani, Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the transportation system including a vehicle hub with a plurality of slots, as disclosed in Anonymous as modified by Balva, Williams and Laetz, to provide the benefit of matching the passengers with the connection slots or the vehicles based on the passenger information, and guiding the passengers to the matched connection slots or vehicles, as disclosed in Jiwani, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of enhancing the travel experience and making the ride more interesting (see at least Jiwani, [0004]).
As per claim 5, the combination of Anonymous, Balva and Jiwani discloses all of the limitations of claim 2, as shown above. Laetz further discloses the following limitation:
wherein the server is further configured to: set a movement route of a vehicle, among the vehicles, based on a use of the vehicle matched with a passenger among the passengers; and control movement of the vehicle along the set movement route after boarding of the passengers (see at least Laetz, Claim 1, [0011] disclosing an anticipatory deployment system for self-driving vehicles by means of a computer generated matrix of anticipatory vehicle demand values calculated by probability by a computer and using a city street map and a grid pattern of some designs; [0026]; [0037] disclosing a self-deploying vehicle being deployed in one location, and then deployed to different position when a change in a data variable causes a change in the value of the potentiality of anticipated user requests. Autonomously driven vehicles can be provided with anticipatory deployment instructions so as to arrive within proximity to any zone based upon calculations that include any number of variables; [0048] further disclosing that a user enters a transportation request to the system, for example, pick-up or drop-off at a specified location, within a specified time window. "One-time preferences" are an trip specific requests or variations from user profiles that the user requests for a trip. And that the system retrieves at step 904, information pertaining to the user such as a user profile, a preference profile and the ownership groups that the user belongs to. The user profile includes the type of transportation and favorite routes).
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anonymous, Balva, Williams, Laetz and Jiwani as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2020/0217677 to Wang et al. (hereafter Wang).
As per claim 3, the combination of Anonymous, Balva, Williams, Laetz and Jiwani discloses all of the limitations of claim 2, as shown above. Jiwani further discloses the following limitation:
wherein the server is further configured to: ... for collection of the passenger information upon receiving a request for a vehicle from a terminal of each passenger among the passengers (see at least Jiwani, [0028] disclosing that each of the passenger devices 104a and 104b may include suitable logic, circuitry interfaces, and/or code, executable by the circuitry, that may be configured to perform one or more operation. The passenger device 104a schedules a ride, by initiating a booking request, utilizing a service application running on the passenger device 104a. The booking request includes other information, for example, a ride type, a vehicle type, a pick-up time, or other service-related details and preferences; and [0030] disclosing that the passenger device 104a receives receive allocation information from the transportation server 112 based on allocation of an available vehicle, such as the vehicle 106a, to the passenger 102a. The passenger device 104a is further used to view the allocation information including at least one of driver information, vehicle information, route allocation information, or ride fare information); and
collect the passenger information from the terminal in response to the consent for collection of the passenger information being obtained from the terminal (see at least Jiwani, [0028]). But, neither Anonymous, Balva, Williams, Laetz nor Jiwani explicitly teach the following limitation taught in Wang:
request consent for collection of the passenger information (see at least Wang, [0020] disclosing that the program code analyzes devices within a bounded geographic area that provide, with user permission, data describing activity and motion of the user (e.g., motion sensors, including but not limited to a gyroscope and an accelerometer) to identify physical activity patterns of the user; and [0026 ] disclosing that the program code accesses physical computing devices adjacent to the user, with the permission of the user, and computing devices proximate to the bounded geographical area (e.g., personal computing device, Internet of Things devices, sensors, personal health trackers, physical activity trackers, smart watches, sensors integrated in the vehicle, computing devices integrated into the vehicle, instruments in the vehicle, etc. ) ... .
Anonymous, Balva, Williams, Laetz, Jiwani and Wang are analogous art to claim 3 because they are in the same field of transportation systems. Anonymous relates to a smart mobility solution using air and ground vehicles (see at least Anonymous, pg. 1). Balva relates to methods for selecting vehicles and optimizing routes for a combination of passenger transportation requests and cargo delivery requests (see Balva, Abstract). Williams relates to a vehicle routing system includes a vehicle routing and analytics (VRA) computing device, one or more databases, and one or more vehicles communicatively coupled to the VRA computing device that generate an optimal route for a vehicle to travel that maximizes potential revenue for operation of the vehicle (see at least Williams, Abstract). Laetz relates to methods and systems for management and anticipatory deployment of autonomously controlled vehicles including calculating the geographic locations and periods of time where self-driving vehicles might experience the greatest probability of being requested to provide transportation services to passengers or cargo, communicating the resulting locations and times to self-driving vehicles, and causing the vehicles to deploy themselves to those certain locations at those certain times (see at least Laetz, Abstract). Jiwani relates to allocating vehicles to a passenger that includes receiving a booking request for ride-sharing, identifying routes, that connect a source location to a destination location (see at least Jiwani, Abstract). Wang relates to a method, computer program product, and system that provides route guidance to a geographic destination, and, with permission from the user, monitors authorized data sources to obtain data relevant the user (see at least Wang, Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the transportation system including a vehicle hub with a plurality of slots, as disclosed in Anonymous, as modified by Balva, Williams, Laetz and Jawani, to provide the benefit of requesting consent for collection of the passenger information, as disclosed in Wang, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of insuring a route is one that incorporates the consideration of the users health (see at least Wang, [0002]).
As per claim 4, the combination of Anonymous, Balva, Williams, Laetz and Jiwani discloses all of the limitations of claim 2, as shown above. Jiwani further discloses the following limitation:
wherein the passenger information comprises any one or any combination of any two or more of retrieval information of the terminal, location information, ... , picture information, and commodity purchase information (see at least Jiwani, [0028]; [0030]), and
wherein the server is further configured to select a use of a vehicle, among the vehicles, to be matched with each passenger based on the any one or any combination of any two or more of the retrieval information of the terminal, the location information, ... , the picture information, and the commodity purchase information (see at least Jiwani, [0032]). But, neither, Anonymous, Balva, Williams, Laetz nor Jiwani explicitly disclose health information (see at least Wang, [0034] disclosing that the program code routes users based on obtaining the user’s health related data (with the permission of the user) and environmental conditions that could impact the health of the user, en route to the destination in real-time).
Anonymous, Balva, Williams, Laetz, Jiwani and Wang are analogous art to claim 4 because they are in the same field of transportation systems. Anonymous relates to a smart mobility solution using air and ground vehicles (see at least Anonymous, pg. 1). Balva relates to methods for selecting vehicles and optimizing routes for a combination of passenger transportation requests and cargo delivery requests (see Balva, Abstract). Williams relates to a vehicle routing system includes a vehicle routing and analytics (VRA) computing device, one or more databases, and one or more vehicles communicatively coupled to the VRA computing device that generate an optimal route for a vehicle to travel that maximizes potential revenue for operation of the vehicle (see at least Williams, Abstract). Laetz relates to methods and systems for management and anticipatory deployment of autonomously controlled vehicles including calculating the geographic locations and periods of time where self-driving vehicles might experience the greatest probability of being requested to provide transportation services to passengers or cargo, communicating the resulting locations and times to self-driving vehicles, and causing the vehicles to deploy themselves to those certain locations at those certain times (see at least Laetz, Abstract). Jiwani relates to allocating vehicles to a passenger that includes receiving a booking request for ride-sharing, identifying routes, that connect a source location to a destination location (see at least Jiwani, Abstract). Wang relates to a method, computer program product, and system that provides route guidance to a geographic destination, and, with permission from the user, monitors authorized data sources to obtain data relevant the user (see at least Wang, Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the transportation system including a vehicle hub with a plurality of slots, as disclosed in Anonymous as modified by Balva, Williams, Laetz and Jawani, to provide the benefit of having the server configured to select a vehicle use, among the vehicles, and matched with each passenger based on health information, as disclosed in Wang, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of insuring a route is one that incorporates the consideration of the users health (see at least Wang, [0002]).
Claims 6, 8, 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anonymous, Balva, Williams and Laetz as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2007/0282520 to Cradick et al. (hereafter Cradick).
As per claim 6, the combination of Anonymous, Balva, Williams and Laetz discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Williams further discloses the following limitation:
wherein the vehicles are categorized by use by being classified in a category among a rest category, ... , a business category, and a taste category (see at least Williams, [0040] disclosing that the "Vehicle," refers generally to any vehicle owned, operated, and/or used by one or more vehicle users. A vehicle may include any kind of vehicle, such as, cars, trucks, all-terrain vehicles (ATVs), motorcycles, recreational vehicles (RVs) <interpreted as rest>, snowmobiles, boats, autonomous vehicles, semi-autonomous vehicles, user-driven or user-operated vehicles, industrial vehicles (e.g., construction vehicles) <interpreted as business>, "riding" lawnmowers, farm equipment, planes, helicopters, bicycles, flying cars, robo-taxis, self-driving taxis, and/or any kind of land- ,water-, or air-based vehicle; [0097])). But, neither Anonymous, Balva, Williams nor Laetz explicitly teach the following limitation taught in Cradick:
... vehicles are categorized by use by being a health care category (see at least Cradick, [0068] disclosing that path data received by an automobile may be filtered, where the filtering may be performed based on criteria relevant to the automobile and its intended path. The data requested may be compiled only from data received from similar vehicles, where the similarity of vehicles may be determined, based on vehicle size, type, and the like. Illustrative vehicle categories may include compact cars, trucks, garbage trucks, emergency vehicles <heath care category>).
Anonymous, Balva, Williams, Laetz and Cradick are analogous art to claim 6 because they are in the same field of transportation systems. Anonymous relates to a smart mobility solution using air and ground vehicles (see at least Anonymous, pg. 1). Balva relates to methods for selecting vehicles and optimizing routes for a combination of passenger transportation requests and cargo delivery requests (see Balva, Abstract). Balva relates to methods for selecting vehicles and optimizing routes for a combination of passenger transportation requests and cargo delivery requests (see Balva, Abstract). Williams relates to a vehicle routing system includes a vehicle routing and analytics (VRA) computing device, one or more databases, and one or more vehicles communicatively coupled to the VRA computing device that generate an optimal route for a vehicle to travel that maximizes potential revenue for operation of the vehicle (see at least Williams, Abstract). Laetz relates to methods and systems for management and anticipatory deployment of autonomously controlled vehicles including calculating the geographic locations and periods of time where self-driving vehicles might experience the greatest probability of being requested to provide transportation services to passengers or cargo, communicating the resulting locations and times to self-driving vehicles, and causing the vehicles to deploy themselves to those certain locations at those certain times (see at least Laetz, Abstract). Cradick relates to methods, apparatus, and systems for improving the fuel economy of an automobile and includes receiving data relating to a path traversed by the automobile from a server, and automatically adjusting the contribution of one or more components of the automobile configured to set the automobile in motion (see at least Cradick, Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the transportation system including a vehicle hub with a plurality of slots, as disclosed in Anonymous, as modified by Balva, Williams and Laetz, to provide the benefit of categorizing vehicles by use by being a health care category, as disclosed in Cradick, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of tailor the route to the passenger's needs.
As per claim 8, the combination of Anonymous, Balva, Williams, Laetz and Cradick discloses all of the limitations of claim 6, as shown above. Williams further discloses the following limitation:
wherein a vehicle classified in the health care category, among the vehicles, is equipped with a remote medical treatment module, a physical therapy module, a rehabilitation module, or a first aid module (see at least Williams, [0068] disclosing that the VRA computing device identifies tasks such as transporting persons objects to/from non-profit entities (e.g., food banks, homeless shelters), and/or transporting the elderly or handicapped, transporting or delivering medications and needed medical equipment <interpreted as medical treatment module, physical therapy module, a rehabilitation module or a first aid module>).
As per claim 9, the combination of Anonymous, Balva, Williams, Laetz and Cradick discloses all of the limitations of claim 6, as shown above. Williams further discloses the following limitation:
wherein a vehicle classified in the business category, among the vehicles, is equipped with a computer, a facsimile, a copier, or a scanner (see at least Williams, [0113] disclosing that user computing devices 202 may be computers that include a web browser or a software application to enable user computing devices 202 to access the functionality of VRA computing device 130 using the Internet or a direct connection, such as a cellular network connection. User computing devices 202 may be any device capable of accessing the Internet including, but not limited to, a desktop computer, a mobile device (e.g., a laptop computer, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a cellular phone, a smartphone, a tablet, a phablet, netbook, notebook, smart watches or bracelets, smart glasses, wearable electronics, pagers, etc.), or other web-based connectable equipment).
As per claim 11, the combination of Anonymous, Balva, Williams, Laetz and Cradick discloses all of the limitations of claim 6, as shown above. Williams further discloses the following limitation:
wherein articles provided in the vehicles are replaced depending on the use or the category (see at least Williams, [0246] disclosing that the present disclosure provides for creating a hub system of support, maintenance, and services to keep vehicles operating and creating revenue 24/7 /365, by using on board sensors to detect and track when an autonomous delivery service vehicle needs basic maintenance).
Claims 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anonymous, Balva, Williams, Laetz, and Cradick as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2021/0380022 to Kanitz.
As per claim 7, the combination of Anonymous, Balva, Williams and Cradick discloses all of the limitations of claim 6, as shown above. But, neither Anonymous, Balva, Williams, Laetz nor Cradick explicitly teaches the following limitation taught in Kanitz:
wherein a vehicle classified in the rest category, among the vehicles, is equipped with a bed or a chair, to induce sleep or meditation of the passenger (see at least Kanitz, [0159] disclosing that the interior of the autonomous vehicle can include a first seat row 708A, a second seat row 708B, and a third seat row 708C. And that one or more of the seat rows 708A-708C can be replaced with a different interior element, such as a media display terminal (e.g., an interactive tablet surface, etc.), a table, a bed, or any other autonomous vehicle interior element. <interpreting media display terminal as a movie watching module>).
Anonymous, Balva, Williams, Laetz, Cradick and Kanitz are analogous art to claim 7 because they are in the same field of transportation systems. Anonymous relates to a smart mobility solution using air and ground vehicles (see at least Anonymous, pg. 1). Balva relates to methods for selecting vehicles and optimizing routes for a combination of passenger transportation requests and cargo delivery requests (see Balva, Abstract). Williams relates to a vehicle routing system includes a vehicle routing and analytics (VRA) computing device, one or more databases, and one or more vehicles communicatively coupled to the VRA computing device that generate an optimal route for a vehicle to travel that maximizes potential revenue for operation of the vehicle (see at least Williams, Abstract). Laetz relates to methods and systems for management and anticipatory deployment of autonomously controlled vehicles including calculating the geographic locations and periods of time where self-driving vehicles might experience the greatest probability of being requested to provide transportation services to passengers or cargo, communicating the resulting locations and times to self-driving vehicles, and causing the vehicles to deploy themselves to those certain locations at those certain times (see at least Laetz, Abstract). Cradick relates to methods, apparatus, and systems for improving the fuel economy of an automobile and includes receiving data relating to a path traversed by the automobile from a server, and automatically adjusting the contribution of one or more components of the automobile configured to set the automobile in motion (see at least Cradick, Abstract). Kanitz relates to systems and methods for reconfiguring seats of an autonomous vehicle (see at least Kanitz, Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the transportation system including a vehicle hub with a plurality of slots, as disclosed in Anonymous as modified by Balva, Williams, Laetz and Cradick, to provide the benefit of a classifying the vehicle in the rest category, among the vehicles, as being equipped with a bed or a chair, to induce sleep or meditation of the passenger, as disclosed in Kanitz, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit insuring the vehicle is appropriately equipped for the needs of the passenger.
As per claim 10, the combination of Anonymous, Balva, Williams, Laetz and Cradick discloses all of the limitations of claim 6, as shown above. But, neither Anonymous, Balva, Williams, Laetz nor Cradick explicitly teaches the following limitation taught in Kanitz:
wherein a vehicle classified in the taste category, among the vehicles, is equipped with a movie watching module, a music listening module, a fitness equipment module, a food provision module, a reading module, or a game module (see at least Kanitz, [0159]).
Anonymous, Balva, Williams, Laetz, Cradick and Kanitz are analogous art to claim 10 because they are in the same field of transportation systems. Anonymous relates to a smart mobility solution using air and ground vehicles (see at least Anonymous, pg. 1). Balva relates to methods for selecting vehicles and optimizing routes for a combination of passenger transportation requests and cargo delivery requests (see Balva, Abstract). Williams relates to a vehicle routing system includes a vehicle routing and analytics (VRA) computing device, one or more databases, and one or more vehicles communicatively coupled to the VRA computing device that generate an optimal route for a vehicle to travel that maximizes potential revenue for operation of the vehicle (see at least Williams, Abstract). Laetz relates to methods and systems for management and anticipatory deployment of autonomously controlled vehicles including calculating the geographic locations and periods of time where self-driving vehicles might experience the greatest probability of being requested to provide transportation services to passengers or cargo, communicating the resulting locations and times to self-driving vehicles, and causing the vehicles to deploy themselves to those certain locations at those certain times (see at least Laetz, Abstract). Cradick relates to methods, apparatus, and systems for improving the fuel economy of an automobile and includes receiving data relating to a path traversed by the automobile from a server, and automatically adjusting the contribution of one or more components of the automobile configured to set the automobile in motion (see at least Cradick, Abstract). Kanitz relates to systems and methods for reconfiguring seats of an autonomous vehicle (see at least Kanitz, Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the transportation system including a vehicle hub with a plurality of slots, as disclosed in Anonymous as modified by Balva, Williams, Laetz and Cradick, to provide the benefit of a classifying the vehicle in the taste category, among the vehicles, being equipped with a movie watching module, a music listening module, a fitness equipment module, a food provision module, a reading module, or a game module, as disclosed in Kanitz, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit insuring the vehicle is appropriately equipped for the needs of the passenger.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anonymous, Balva, Williams, Laetz and Cradick as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2019/0137290 to Levy et al. (hereafter Levy) and U.S. Patent Publication Number 2004/0039520 Khavakh et al. (hereafter Khavakh).
As per claim 12, the combination of Anonymous, Balva, Williams, Laetz and Cradick discloses all of the limitations of claim 6, as shown above. But, neither Anonymous, Balva, Williams, Laetz nor Cradick explicitly teaches the following limitation taught in Levy:
wherein the vehicle hub further comprises a waiting area at which the passengers wait before boarding the vehicles (see at least Levy, [0090] disclosing that as the autonomous vehicle autonomously navigates streets and alleys around the pickup location according to the block-circling scheme, the autonomous vehicle can also scan the field around the autonomous vehicle for an open parking space, an open bus stop, an open length of curb, a bike lane, an open driveway, or other waiting area near the pickup location and sufficiently isolated from the flow of traffic nearby. Upon detecting such a waiting area, the autonomous vehicle can autonomously navigate into this waiting area. The autonomous vehicle can remain in this waiting area: until the user manually calls the autonomous vehicle to the pickup location; until the user's mobile computing device enters a geofenced location around the pickup location; until the user's estimated time of arrival at the pickup location falls within a threshold difference of the estimated time for the autonomous vehicle to return to the pickup location; until another entity (e.g., an operator in another vehicle, a cyclist, a bus, an emergency vehicle, or an emergency dispatcher, etc.) implicitly or explicitly triggers the autonomous vehicle to move out of this waiting area; or responsive to another displace trigger). But, neither Anonymous, Balva, Williams, Laetz, Cradick nor Levy explicitly teaches the following limitation taught in Khavakh:
wherein the connection slots are disposed closer to the waiting area in a case in which an urgency of the category in which corresponding vehicles, among the vehicles, are classified is high than in a case in which the urgency of the category in which the corresponding vehicles are classified is low (see at least Khavakh, [0154] disclosing that the rank suppression feature eliminates from consideration possible gates that are not likely to form part of a solution route. However, by suppressing the formation of these gates using rank suppression, the need to evaluate these gates, in the priority queue for example, is obviated thereby reducing processing time.).
Anonymous, Balva, Williams, Laetz, Cradick, Levy and Khavakh are analogous art to claim 12 because they are in the same field of transportation systems. Anonymous relates to a smart mobility solution using air and ground vehicles (see at least Anonymous, pg. 1). Balva relates to methods for selecting vehicles and optimizing routes for a combination of passenger transportation requests and cargo delivery requests (see Balva, Abstract). Williams relates to a vehicle routing system includes a vehicle routing and analytics (VRA) computing device, one or more databases, and one or more vehicles communicatively coupled to the VRA computing device that generate an optimal route for a vehicle to travel that maximizes potential revenue for operation of the vehicle (see at least Williams, Abstract). Laetz relates to methods and systems for management and anticipatory deployment of autonomously controlled vehicles including calculating the geographic locations and periods of time where self-driving vehicles might experience the greatest probability of being requested to provide transportation services to passengers or cargo, communicating the resulting locations and times to self-driving vehicles, and causing the vehicles to deploy themselves to those certain locations at those certain times (see at least Laetz, Abstract). Cradick relates to methods, apparatus, and systems for improving the fuel economy of an automobile and includes receiving data relating to a path traversed by the automobile from a server, and automatically adjusting the contribution of one or more components of the automobile configured to set the automobile in motion (see at least Cradick, Abstract). Levy relates to methods for executing autonomous rideshare requests includes following arrival of an autonomous vehicle proximal a pickup location specified in a rideshare request submitted by a user, setting a user arrival timer for a first duration and a depart timer for a second duration exceeding the first duration (see at least Levy, Abstract). Khavakh relates to systems and methods for route calculations in a navigation application program (see at least Khavakh, [0001]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the transportation system including a vehicle hub with a plurality of slots, as disclosed in Anonymous as modified by Balva, Williams and Cradick, to provide the benefit of having the vehicle hub further comprise a waiting area at which the passengers wait before boarding the vehicles, as disclosed in Levy, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit insuring the vehicle is appropriately equipped for the needs of the passenger.
And further modify the transportation system, as disclosed in Anonymous as modified by Balva, Williams, Laetz and Cradick, and further in view or Levy, to provide the benefit of having the connection slots be disposed closer to the waiting area in a case in which an urgency of the category in which corresponding vehicles, among the vehicles, are classified is high than in a case in which the urgency of the category in which the corresponding vehicles are classified is low, as disclose in Khavakh, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of providing the end-user with better instructions as the desired destination is approached (see at least Khavakh, [0004]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Publication Number 2012/0251276 to Rathbun et al. (hereafter Rathbun), disclosing a hub, Figs. 25, 37A, [0070] connection slots; and U.S. Patent Publication Number 2018/0222340 to Zhao et al. (hereafter Zhao), disclosing vehicle slots.
U.S. Patent Publication Number 2020/0047641 to D'Eramo et al. (hereafter D'Eramo) at [0024] disclosing that a system for configuring seats of a vehicle which can include an autonomous vehicle, a semi-autonomous vehicle, or a manually operated vehicle. The system of configuring seats can perform various functions and/or operations including effectively accommodating passengers and/or cargo through use of an adjustable vehicle interior that includes seats that can change location and/or position.
U.S. Patent Publication Number 2020/0357091 to Minakawa et al. (hereafter Minakawa) at [0051] disclosing that the demand prediction processing is processing of predicting a future movement demand on the basis of a past history of the movement demand, a given timetable, and information of various sensors relating to movement of passengers, and generating predicted demand information including movement demand information.
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 PATRICK M. BRADY III whose telephone number is (571)272-7458. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:00 am - 4;30 pm.
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 Bishop can be reached at 571-270-3713. 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.
PATRICK M. BRADY III
Examiner
Art Unit 3665
/PATRICK M BRADY/ Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/Erin D Bishop/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights