DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is drafted in response to Amendment/Request for Reconsideration filed 01/20/2026. Claims 1-6, 8-11, 13, 15, 17-19, and 21-25 are pending. Claims 7, 12, 14, 16, and 20 are cancelled, and claims 21-25 are new. Claims 1-6, 8-11, 13, 15, 17-19, and 21-25 are rejected as cited below. This action is made FINAL.
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 Specification Objection
The title objection is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
Response to Claim Objections
The objection to claim 9 is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claim 2:
Claim 2 is still rendered indefinite due to the relative term. See the Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 section below.
Regarding the 35 USC 102 & 103 rejections:
With respect to claim 1:
On page 10, Applicant states “Yame Does Not Disclose "Determining the Vehicle Is in a Designated Low-Speed Navigable Path". Examiner respectfully disagrees. Yame ¶ [0017] teaches that the system determines when the vehicle is near a service station (e.g. oil change shop) or car wash. These areas are typically designated as low-speed navigable paths due to the nature of work performed at the location(s) and the proximity of pedestrians to the vehicle. Applicant specification ¶ [0016] states “A designated low-speed navigable path may be associated with situations such as school drop-off or pickup, leaving or arriving at major events (e.g., concerts or sporting events), or drive-thrus, among other things.” Portions of citation bolded for emphasis. A car wash is a type of drive-thru and a service station is among the possible “other things”. Applicant does not explicitly define who/what designates a navigable path as “low-speed”. Applicant specification ¶ [0020] states “Self-driving system 101 may determine that vehicle 110 is in an eligible designated low-speed navigable path, which may be based on maps or GPS, among other things.” Yame, in one embodiment, teaches that a determination of the vehicle being near/in a low-speed path is made based on map data (Yame ¶ [0058]). Thus, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a car wash entry lane or service station lot is analogous to the claimed “Designated Low-Speed Navigable Path”.
Secondly, on page 10, Applicant states “Yame Does Not Disclose "Transmitting a Request to Start DLAAM".” Examiner respectfully disagrees. Yame ¶ [0047] prompts the occupant of the vehicle to confirm or deny that the vehicle enters a “car wash mode”. This “car wash mode” is an example of DLAAM, which is called “low-speed maneuvering” autonomous mode in Yame. See Yame ¶ [0051].
Additionally, on page 11, Applicant states “Yame Does Not Disclose Executing DLAAM for a Designated Low-Speed Navigable Path”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Yame ¶ [0060] describes executing of the DLAAM which maneuvers the AV onto the car wash rails or into the service station. Yame ¶ [0060] states “once the vehicle has activated the low-speed maneuvering system, the vehicle autonomously maneuvers into the service station. This includes maneuvering the vehicle relative to the determined location of the rail via the CV machine-learning model. For example, the computing device can control the vehicle's propulsion system and steering system to slowly and automatically maneuver the vehicle into the service station by placing the driving wheels in-line with the rail(s).” The low-speed navigable path, in this case, is not the rail system, but rather the lane leading up to the rail docking point. This area is navigated in a low speed mode by the autonomous vehicle.
With respect to claim 17:
On page 12, Applicant states “Applicant respectfully submits that the cited portions of the applied reference are not understood to disclose or teach each and every feature of independent claim 17, particularly with regard to the features of "wherein the infotainment system accepts an order associated with a designated low-speed navigable path based on a location of the vehicle, and wherein the automated driving system activates based on the location of the vehicle proximate to the designated low-speed navigable path." The cited portions of Yame disclose proximity detection to a service station and rail alignment for car wash entry, but do not disclose accepting an order associated with a designated low-speed navigable path or activating an automated driving system based on proximity to such a designated path as recited.” Examiner respectfully disagrees with the underlined portion of the citation. Yame teaches that a human may press a button on the infotainment system or say “yes” verbally in order to have the vehicle enter car wash mode. The display is accepting an order from the human to start/enter the car wash mode. See Yame ¶ [0059]. Secondly, with regards to the activation of an automated driving system based on a location of a vehicle proximate to a low-speed navigable path, see Yame ¶ [0017] which describes activating a low-speed maneuvering system when the vehicle is near a service station or car wash.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “approximately” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximately” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Thus, the limitation of “a speed” is rendered indefinite. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret “a speed of approximately ten miles per-hour or less.” as any speed under 25 miles per-hour.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 17, 21-22, and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)2 as being anticipated by Yame et al. (US Pub. 2025/0229806 A1; hereafter Yame).
Yame was cited in the previous Office action.
Regarding claim 1, Yame teaches:
A method comprising:
receiving an indication of a location of a vehicle (At least ¶ [0018] “The system can also access the vehicle's location (e.g., via GPS or other locational systems)”);
based on the location of the vehicle, determining the vehicle is in a designated low-speed navigable path for the vehicle (At least ¶ [0017] “The system can also determine that the vehicle is near a service station or car wash. Based on the presence of a rail and the determined location being near a service station or car wash, the control system can activate a low-speed maneuvering system which maneuvers the vehicle into proper alignment based on the location of the rail(s) using the computer vision system, e.g. without human intervention.” and ¶ [0044] “The location of the vehicle may be within a parking lot, alley, or other location adjacent to the service station or within a certain defined distance from the service station in order for the computing system 200 to recognize the vehicle is at a service station.” and ¶ [0058] “the computing system determines that the vehicle is located at or near a service station, such as a car wash. This determination can also be made based on other data as explained above, such as map data indicating a nearby car wash or other service station.”);
based on the determining that the vehicle is in the designated low-speed navigable path, transmitting a request to start a designated low-speed area automated mode (DLAAM) (At least ¶ [0047] “the user interface 402 can produce a prompt 404 that can read, for example, “car wash detected”, other props can be used that indicate to the driver that a car wash or other service station is detected nearby via the computing system 200. The prompt 404 can also give the ability for the driver to either confirm or deny the vehicle to enter a “service station mode,” or “car was mode” as shown in this illustrated embodiment in which the service station is a detected car wash.”), the DLAAM comprises automated driving of the designated low-speed navigable path for the vehicle (At least ¶ [0051] “The prompts shown in FIGS. 4A-4C are embodiments of confirming to the computing system 200 that the driver desires to place the vehicle in an autonomous mode of operation (e.g., the low-speed maneuvering system is activated). For safety purposes, it may be necessary to complete at least one, but perhaps two or all three layers of prompts and instructions before the vehicle activates the low-speed maneuvering system by entering the car wash mode or service station mode.”);
receiving a response indicating authorization to use DLAAM for the designated low-speed navigable path (At least ¶ [0059] “The human can interact with the display to activate the low-speed maneuvering system, for example by pressing a button, saying “yes” verbally, or other confirmations as described above.”); and
executing DLAAM for the designated low-speed navigable path (At least ¶ [0060] “once the vehicle has activated the low-speed maneuvering system, the vehicle autonomously maneuvers into the service station. This includes maneuvering the vehicle relative to the determined location of the rail via the CV machine-learning model. For example, the computing device can control the vehicle's propulsion system and steering system to slowly and automatically maneuver the vehicle into the service station by placing the driving wheels in-line with the rail(s).”).
Regarding claim 2, Yame teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the low-speed is set at a speed of approximately ten miles per-hour or less (At least ¶ [0027] “The term “low-speed maneuvering system” can cover an operational system of the vehicle in which the vehicle is operated to maneuver to avoid objects or properly align itself while traveling at low speeds (e.g., below 20 miles per hour, as an example).” ).
Regarding claim 3, Yame teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the designated low-speed navigable path for the vehicle comprises a drive-thru (At least ¶ [0038] “The car wash includes a first rail 302 and a second rail 304. The rails 302, 304 direct and locate the vehicle's wheels onto a track that moves those wheels through the car wash” and ¶ [0051] “the vehicle activates the low-speed maneuvering system by entering the car wash mode or service station mode.” A car wash is a form of a drive-thru.).
Regarding claim 17, Yame teaches:
A vehicle (vehicle 10) comprising:
one or more sensors (a plurality of cameras 16a, 16b, 16c, and 16d);
an automated driving system communicatively connected with the one or more sensors (engine control unit 216); and
an infotainment system communicatively connected with the automated driving system (display control 208),
wherein the infotainment system accepts an order associated with a designated low-speed navigable path based on a location of the vehicle (At least ¶ [0059] “The human can interact with the display to activate the low-speed maneuvering system, for example by pressing a button, saying “yes” verbally, or other confirmations as described above.”), and
wherein the automated driving system activates based on the location of the vehicle proximate to the designated low-speed navigable path (At least ¶ [0017] “The system can also determine that the vehicle is near a service station or car wash. Based on the presence of a rail and the determined location being near a service station or car wash, the control system can activate a low-speed maneuvering system which maneuvers the vehicle into proper alignment based on the location of the rail(s) using the computer vision system, e.g. without human intervention.”).
Claim 21 describes a device which performs the method detailed in claim 1, thus is rejected on the same basis. Additionally, Yame teaches a processor (At least ¶ [0031] “one or more processors”) and a memory (memory 224).
Regarding claim 22, Yame teaches The method of claim 1, wherein executing the DLAAM comprises maintaining a predefined queue spacing or headway along the designated low-speed navigable path (At least ¶ [0027] “Other functionalities that can be controlled by a low-speed maneuvering system include: adaptive cruise control (ACC) that maintains a set distance between the vehicle 10 and another vehicle ahead …”).
Regarding claim 24, Yame teaches The method of claim 1, wherein transmitting the request comprises sending a message from an automated driving system to an infotainment system (At least ¶ [0047] “the display control 208 commands the user interface 400 to inform the driver that the vehicle has approached a service station.” Also see ¶ [0031] “The computing system 200 can also include one or more display controllers 208, which can control the vehicle display devices disclosed herein …” The computing system 200 (i.e. automated driving system) contains the display controller 208, therefore, a part (display controller 208) of the automated driving system (computing system 200) may send a message to the infotainment system.).
Regarding claim 25, Yame teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the designated low-speed navigable path is determined based on map data or navigation data (At least ¶ [0044] “the computing system can rely on map data or vehicle locational data to recognize that the vehicle is at a service station.” A service station is analogous to a designated low-speed navigable path. ¶ [0016] of Applicant specification states “A designated low-speed navigable path may be associated with situations such as school drop-off or pickup, leaving or arriving at major events (e.g., concerts or sporting events), or drive-thrus, among other things.” A service station is another thing (e.g. location) at which vehicles typically drive at low speeds.), and wherein the designated low-speed navigable path comprises at least one of a predefined route for the vehicle, a school drop-off lane, a stadium ingress or egress lane, or another event-specific low-speed lane (At least ¶ [0017] “an autonomous vehicle control system autonomously maneuvers a vehicle in and/or out of a vehicle service station and car wash.” A car wash lane is an event-specific low-speed lane, with the ”event” being the washing of the car.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 4, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yame in view of Bailey et al. (US Pub. 2025/0245761 A1, hereafter Bailey).
Bailey was cited in the previous Office Action.
Regarding claim 4, Yame teaches the method of claim 1.
Yame does not teach:
wherein the executing the DLAAM for the designated low-speed navigable path comprises receiving a menu of products or services associated with the designated low-speed navigable path.
However, Bailey, within the same filed of endeavor, teaches:
wherein the executing the DLAAM for the designated low-speed navigable path comprises receiving a menu of products or services associated with the designated low-speed navigable path (At least ¶ [0069] “The customized menu generation engine 218 takes the predictions of the AI computer model 216 and the preferences from the customer profile for presentation of the menu, and generates a customized menu of goods/services for the customer. This information is sent to the local systems 230 to control the presentation of a customized menu to the customer via a menu display 236.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yame with Bailey. This modification would have been obvious as both Yame and Bailey contain subject matter within the same field of endeavor (vehicle drive-thru) and Yame ¶ [0002] notes “The insights generated by computer vision systems empower functionalities such as adaptive cruise control and lane-keeping assistance, contributing to improved safety and efficiency in vehicles.” One of ordinary skill in the art may be motivated to combine Bailey with Yame in the hopes of increasing system efficiency. The Yame system would benefit from the customized menu of Bailey as it may allow customers to place orders more quickly. The would yield increased customer throughput, thus, increasing efficiency.
Regarding claim 10, Yame teaches the method of claim 1, Bailey further teaches:
wherein the executing the DLAAM for the designated low-speed navigable path comprises:
detecting that an ordering station is ready for ordering from the vehicle (At least ¶ [0092] “the vehicle 250 has an affixed identifier, either as a license plate, a sticker having a code, e.g., bar code, QR code, or other identifier, or a transceiver system, such as an RFID device or the like, which may be detected by sensor system 310 at an upstream location of the drive through 262 prior to the vehicle reaching a menu display 236.” Detecting a vehicle identifier prior to the vehicle 250 reaching the ordering point implies that the order station is ready for ordering from the vehicle 250.); and
based on the detecting that the ordering station is ready for ordering from the vehicle, transmitting, via a display, audio, or haptic feedback, an indication that the ordering station is ready for ordering from the vehicle (At least ¶ [0094] “the AI drive through system 200 may instruct the local computing system 230 to control the lane redirect indicator 320 to redirect the vehicle 250 path of motion along an appropriate lane of the drive through 262.” Instructing the system 230 to control the redirect indicator 320 is analogous to transmitting, via a display, an indication that an ordering station is ready for ordering.).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Yame and Bailey teaches the method of claim 10, Bailey further teaches wherein the ordering station comprises at least one of the display inside the vehicle, a microphone outside the vehicle, or an attendant outside the vehicle (At least ¶ [0096] : The customer may interact with the menu display 236 via voice communication which may be processed via NLP mechanisms, may select menu items from a touch-screen display, or even may use a mobile application on a mobile device associated with the customer to communicate between the local computing system 230 and the customer's mobile device, to thereby place an order for one or more menu items.”) and ¶ [0103] “Based on the customized menu, the customer selects one or more menu items through a suitable interface, such as a voice recognition system employing NLP, a mobile device, touch screen input,” and at least ¶ [0096] “the local computing systems 230 drive and control the display of menus via the two menu displays 236, which may include speakers and microphones as well to conduct voice communication with the customer as the customer is in their vehicle 250.”).
Claims 5-6, 8-9, 18, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yame in view of Hwang (US Pub. 2022/0101459 A1, hereafter Hwang).
Hwang was cited in the previous Office action.
Regarding claim 5, Yame teaches The method of claim 1.
Yame does not teach:
wherein the executing the DLAAM for the designated low-speed navigable path comprises:
receiving an indication that a payment has been received for an order associated with the designated low-speed navigable path; and
based on the indication that the payment has been received, navigating the vehicle to a collection station.
However, Hwang, within the same field of endeavor, teaches:
wherein the executing the DLAAM for the designated low-speed navigable path comprises:
receiving an indication that a payment has been received for an order associated with the designated low-speed navigable path (At least ¶ [0112] “The user terminal 100 may transmit order information to the food station 400 adjacent to the vehicle at step S702.”. Order information may include payment information related to the user order.); and
based on the indication that the payment has been received, navigating the vehicle to a collection station (At least ¶ [0115] “The user terminal 100 may instruct the autonomous vehicle 200 to move to the unmanned food station 400 in time for the expected food preparation completion time at step S705.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yame with Hwang. This modification would have been obvious as both Yame and Hwang contain subject matter within the same field of endeavor (AV navigation) and Yame ¶ [0002] notes “The insights generated by computer vision systems empower functionalities such as adaptive cruise control and lane-keeping assistance, contributing to improved safety and efficiency in vehicles.” One of ordinary skill in the art may be motivated to combine Hwang with Yame in order to increase efficiency. The service server 300 of Hwang performs multiple different functions, such as processing of orders as well as payments. Having a dedicated server in the Yame system may cut down on the processing power needed at local service stations, thus increasing the efficiency of the entire system.
Regarding claim 6, Yame teaches the method of claim 1, Hwang further teaches:
wherein the executing the DLAAM for the designated low-speed navigable path comprises:
receiving an indication that an order has been received associated with the designated low-speed navigable path (At least ¶ [0103] “The autonomous vehicle 200 may transmit order information together with vehicle information to the adjacent unmanned food station 400 through the service server 300 at step S602.” The unmanned food station 400 receives the transmitted order.); and
based on the indication that the order has been received, navigating the vehicle to a payment station (At least ¶ [0104] “After the food order has been placed, the autonomous vehicle 200 may be controlled to move along an optimal driving route by taking into consideration traffic conditions and/or the like at step S603.” and ¶ [0116] “The autonomous vehicle 200 may arrive at the unmanned food station 400 by moving along an optimal driving route at step S706..” The unmanned food station 400 is a form of a payment station.).
Regarding claim 8, Yame teaches the method of claim 1, Hwang further teaches wherein the executing the DLAAM for the designated low-speed navigable path comprises sending status information of the vehicle to a server associated with a business of the designated low-speed navigable path, wherein the status information comprises location information (At least ¶ [0105] “the unmanned food station 400 may determine the expected arrival time by receiving the location of the autonomous vehicle 200.” The autonomous vehicle location is received by the service server 300.).
Regarding claim 9, Yame teaches the method of claim 1, Hwang further teaches wherein the executing the DLAAM for the designated low-speed navigable path comprises receiving status information of an order associated with a business of the designated low-speed navigable path, wherein the status information comprises expected time of completion of the order (At least ¶ [0016] “the vehicle movement step may include receiving expected food preparation completion time received from the unmanned food station”).
Regarding claim 18, Yame teaches the vehicle of claim 17, Hwang further teaches wherein the infotainment system receives status information of the order, comprising an expected completion time of the order (At least ¶ [0113] “The unmanned food station 400 may determine expected food preparation completion time and transmit it to the user terminal 100 at step S703.”), and wherein the infotainment system sends status information of the vehicle comprising a location of the vehicle (At least ¶ [0112] “pieces of vehicle-related information such as the current location of the vehicle and identification information may be transmitted to the unmanned food station 400 together.”).
Regarding claim 23, Yame teaches the method of claim 1, Hwang further teaches wherein transmitting the request to start DLAAM comprises sending a message from the vehicle to infrastructure associated with the designated low-speed navigable path (At least ¶ [0103] “The autonomous vehicle 200 may transmit order information together with vehicle information to the adjacent unmanned food station 400 through the service server 300”. Transmitting vehicle information through a server is analogous to sending a message from the vehicle to infrastructure associated with the designated low-speed path. The infrastructure, in this case, is the service server 300.).
Claims 13, 15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yame in view of MacKenzie et al. (US Pub. 2024/0059310 A1, hereafter MacKenzie).
MacKenzie was cited in the previous Office action.
Regarding claim 13, Yame teaches the method of claim 1.
Yame does not teach:
wherein the executing the DLAAM for the designated low-speed navigable path comprises:
detecting that a payment station is ready for payment for an order associated with a user profile or the vehicle, and
based on the detecting that the payment station is ready for payment, transmitting, via a display, audio, or haptic feedback, an indication that the payment station is ready for payment.
However, MacKenzie, within the same field of endeavor, teaches:
wherein the executing the DLAAM for the designated low-speed navigable path comprises:
detecting that a payment station is ready for payment for an order associated with a user profile or the vehicle (At least claim 14 “…the communicator is configured to receive invoice information about the order…”. Receiving invoice information indicates that a payment station (i.e. user display) is ready for payment.); and
based on the detecting that the payment station is ready for payment, navigating the vehicle to the payment station (At least ¶ [0109] “the vehicle control method/device, and the recording medium according to the embodiments include drive-through assist logic, and autonomously starts controlling the ego vehicle start when the driver enters the drive-through assist mode [110].”, ¶ [0111] “While the vehicle moves through the vehicle queue, it is first determined whether a vehicle in front of the ego vehicle is moving, and when to move forward when a gap is formed. The logic checks if there is a pedestrian or another VRU in front of the ego vehicle, and checks if the driver is interacting with the establishment [160]. In the absence of these restrictions, the ego vehicle moves forward following the lead vehicle [190]. When there are no VRUs at risk and the driver has signaled that interaction with the establishment is complete [170], the vehicle will move forward [190].” and ¶ [0116] “The vehicle 400 may access an area 430 where a cashier is located.”) and transmitting, via a display, audio, or haptic feedback, an indication that the payment station is ready for payment (At least claim 14 “…the display is configured to display the invoice information…” Displaying the invoice information is an indication that the payment station is ready for payment.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yame with MacKenzie. This modification would have been obvious as both Yame and MacKenzie contain subject matter within the same field of endeavor (Drive-thru) and Yame ¶ [0002] notes “The insights generated by computer vision systems empower functionalities such as adaptive cruise control and lane-keeping assistance, contributing to improved safety and efficiency in vehicles.” One of ordinary skill in the art may be motivated to combine MacKenzie with Yame in order to increase efficiency. The receiving and displaying of an invoice in the vehicle cab may lead to decreased customer wait times and increased customer throughput, thus increasing efficiency. Additionally, MacKenzie ¶ [0015] notes “Another object of the present embodiments is to provide a vehicle control, order, and payment method for efficient and safe drive-through.”
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Yame and MacKenzie teaches the method of claim 13. MacKenzie further teaches wherein the payment station comprises at least one of: the display inside the vehicle, an automated repository or an attendant outside the vehicle (At least ¶ [0051] “the output unit 300 may include a speaker 310 and a display 320 as shown in FIG. 1. In this case, the display 320 may be implemented as the same device as the aforementioned control panel 120 or as a separate and independent device.” One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the display 320 may be used to process a customer payment.).
Regarding claim 19, Yame teaches the vehicle of claim 17. MacKenzie further teaches wherein the automated driving system detects a payment station or an ordering station associated with the designated low-speed navigable path (At least ¶ [0115] “When the vehicle 400 arrives in the drive-through area, the drive-through assist mode may be executed.” and ¶ [0116] “The vehicle 400 may access an area 430 where a cashier is located. The driver may order food and make payment, and may wait in a queue to receive the ordered food.”), and communicates wirelessly with at least one of the payment station or the ordering station to receive readiness indications (At least ¶ [0094] “The vehicle control method and apparatus, and the recording medium according to the embodiments may communicate wirelessly with the establishment. Also, instead of stopping at a pickup window with store staff, the vehicle may automatically park at a designated place to which the ordered food will be delivered. If the order is delayed, the vehicle may automatically park when instructed to park.” The order being delayed (i.e. readiness indication) may be wirelessly communicated to the vehicle, which causes the vehicle to park at a designated place.).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jonathan E Reinert whose telephone number is (571)272-1260. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thurs 7AM - 5PM EST.
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, James J Lee can be reached at (571) 270-5965. 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.
/J.E.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/JAMES J LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668