DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
This action is in response to the filing of the RCE on 10/27/2025.
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 .
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, 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.
The recitation of “a second value metric for an alternative walk-enabled driving route with at least one alternate waypoint within a predetermined walking range of one of the initial waypoints; comparing the first and second value metrics to determine a fulfillment value difference…” is not supported by the specification. The Applicant cited p0043, p0044 of the specification for support. However p0043 discusses the prompt for or include a walk if the walk would improve the metrics by a minimum amount, it is unclear what the second value metric is. Additionally, p0044 discusses the display with a map in which the requestor and the system can use for the transportation.
The Examiner will use Fig 12 of the instant application to examine what the unclear recitation of “second value metric” and “comparing…” means.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 16, 20, 6 - 9, 11, 13, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colijn (US 20160370194) in view of Tolkin (US 20170169535A1).
Claim 1, as best understood, see 112 above, Colijn discloses a computer-implemented
method comprising: receiving, by a dynamic transportation matching system, a request for transportation between initial waypoints; [see p0021 - an autonomous vehicle service for maneuvering a user or passenger to a destination, for example taking a trip, autonomously. In order to do so, the user may provide a pickup location and one or more destination locations (initial waypoints) for the trip to a centralized dispatching system via a client computing device, such as a mobile phone];
calculating, by the dynamic transportation matching system, a first value metric for an initial driving route between the initial waypoints [see p0052 – the pickup location at 426 is requested by the user, the one or more server computing devices may determine that the received location is in fact reachable. For example, as shown in example 500 of FIG. 5, the location of map marker 426 on map 426 corresponds to the location of map marker 526 in FIG. 5. This location also at least partially overlaps with or is the same as the location of point 326. In this regard, the location of map marker 426 (and the finger tap of FIG. 4A) corresponds to the predetermined location of point 326];
determining that the fulfillment value difference satisfies a walking-value threshold, the walking value threshold indicating a minimum difference in value between the first value metric and the second value metric; and [see p0006, p0026, p0058 – p0061 – teaching when the received location does not correspond to one of the predetermined locations, the one or more server computing devices may use the detailed map information to identify a set of predetermined locations within a threshold distance of the received location. The threshold distance may be defined as a predetermined radial or walking distance from the received location and may also be adjusted by a user. For example, a default threshold distance may be 500 feet, or more or less, radially or in walking distance from a particular location.
selecting, the alternative walk-enabled driving route for fulfilling the request for transportation based on the determination [see p0061, Figs 8 – 9 and as shown in FIG. 9, points having locations within the set of suggested locations are shown as darkened circles and those not included have only a dark outline. Thus, while radius 820 and circle 830 identify a plurality of points, points 322 and 324 are not ones of the 3 closest to the map marker 810. In this regard, the locations of points 322 and 324 may be filtered from or not included in the set of suggested locations. At the same time, the location of point 326 is one of the 3 closest points to map marker 810. Thus, the location of point 326 may be included in the set of suggested locations].
Colijn does not specifically teach and a second value metric for an alternative walk-enabled driving route with at least one alternate waypoint within a predetermined walking range of one of the initial waypoints, wherein the calculation accounts for at least one of:
a side of street of one or more of the initial waypoints; or a side of street of the alternate waypoint; and comparing the first and second value metrics to determine a fulfillment value difference.
The Examiner interprets a second value metric to be the location where the vehicle system or dispatch system needs to pickup/drop the user, based on a variety of factors (time, distance, one-way streets, road conditions); this the control system determines by comparing the first value metric (or pickup location as identified by the user) to the second value metric (selected by the central system) when the vehicle is unable to or a time constraint puts the first value metric out of reach. When comparing the initial (first value metric), user chosen, and the second value metric (alternative spot from central system), it is required that the walking distance of the second value metric be in a threshold walking distance as defined by the user.
However, Tolkin discloses travel coordination system 130 identifies a provider to provide the on-demand trip for the client. Typically, to provide a trip, a selected provider operates a car or other vehicle (e.g., bus, boat, etc.) and picks the client up from the pickup location of the client and takes the client to the destination. Further teaching, a provider is en route (e.g., traveling) to an initially-selected pick up location, the travel coordination system may evaluate alternative eligible pickup locations and suggest an alternate pickup location before the pickup occurs. Information about the alternate pickup location and associated information can be provided to the rider's device, so as to inform the rider about the option to change pickup locations and to educate the rider about the potential results of changing pickup locations [see Summary of Inv].
Tolkin discloses as opposed to specifying an exact pickup location, the client can specify a pickup region (e.g., defined by a predetermined radius from a specified location inputted by the user or corresponding to the current location of the client device 100) and/or a destination location for the trip. Tolkin teaches the client may indicate the client's willingness to walk a maximum distance by opting in or agreeing to an option via a user interface of the client application (e.g., before, after, or during trip request) [see p0016].
FIGS. 6A-6H, the client device 100 provides a user interface to the client for selecting a pickup location or region, inputting or selecting a destination location, viewing potential pickup locations, and/or viewing directions to the pickup location. Similarly, the provider device 110 may display an interface to a provider to provide invitations for providing trips and/or instructions to the provider for the trip. The provider device 110 may display directions to the pickup location and directions from the pickup location to the destination location. In addition, the provider may indicate to the travel coordination system 130 via the provider device 110 whether the provider is available or unavailable to provide on-demand trips at a given point in time [see p0015].
Figure 6D shows that when a user makes a request to be picked-up, the user device, from the client device indicates a region where the best locations can be found (see circle 610 – Fig 6A) around the pickup location. After a pickup location and/or the provider is selected for the user, the walking directions are received by the client device 100 and displayed to the user, such as shown in the example of FIG. 6E [see p0055 – p0056].
Tolkin teaches that the region around the initial point of pickup as defined by the user may not be the best based on the location. By comparing the initial pickup point as stated by the user and optimal pickup locations; Tolkin calculates a score to select the best score (e.g., shortest trip time). Further the scores can be based on cost for the provider to reach the pickup location, cost to the user for a provider to reach a certain pickup point, and identifying points so that travel time, thus the cost may be reduced or minimized [see p0027 – p0028].
Tolkin, by way of providing the radius region which teaches that several alternate locations may benefit the user and the provider, such as on one of alternate location on a side of street of one or more of the initial waypoints; or a side of street of the alternate waypoint, the user can accept these other locations or ignore the suggestion and even suggest a different one [see p0048 - After scoring the eligible pickup locations for each provider, the lowest-cost pickup location may be determined for each provider, and the provider with the lowest cost is selected 340. After selection, in some embodiments the provider and/or client confirm 345 whether to accept the trip and/or pickup location]. Further Tolkin teaches that the original pickup location of the trip may be maintained until the client and/or provider confirm (and/or reject) the alternate pickup location. In one example, the alternate pickup location is sent to the client and displayed for the client to accept the alternate pickup location. Any reduced time or cost (or an updated time of arrival, for example) for the trip relative to the alternate pickup location may also be displayed to the client. When the client accepts the alternate pickup location, the alternate pickup location is sent to the provider to update the provider's route to the alternate pickup location].
It would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in Colijn to include, and a second value metric for an alternative walk-enabled driving route with at least one alternate waypoint within a predetermined walking range of one of the initial waypoints, wherein the calculation accounts for at least one of: a side of street of one or more of the initial waypoints; or a side of street of the alternate waypoint; and comparing the first and second value metrics to determine a fulfillment value difference, as suggested and taught by Tolkin, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing pickup locations to users that yield optimization for actual road conditions, that are complete in real time, pick up time or total trip time are reduced or minimized. Users will not need an extra step to contact the provider to adjust a pick up location, for example to cross the street, or because the initially-proposed pickup location may not be suitable for the pickup. In addition, any need for an additional step in the user's request for trip services is eliminated.
Claim 16 is similarly rejected as Claim 1, see above.
Claim 20 is similarly rejected as Claim 1, see above.
Claim 6, Colijn discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein receiving the request for transportation between the initial waypoints comprises: identifying a requestor device on which the request for transportation initiated [see at least Figs 1, 4A, 4B and 4C, p0002, p0050 – p0051- a user may download an application for requesting a vehicle to a client computing device. For example, users 122 and 132 may download the application via a link in an email, directly from a website, or an application store to client computing devices 120 and 130]; and directing the requestor device to display, via a graphical user interface, a toggle that enables a transportation requestor to opt in to having the request for transportation fulfilled via the walk-enabled driving route [see at least p0025 – p0028 and p0059 – p0062 - The user may then approve or select the returned suggested location as a pick up or destination location and initiate (or continue as the case may be) a trip. If the location is a pickup location, the server may then dispatch a vehicle to the selected location to pick up the user for a trip. When the received location does not correspond to one of the predetermined locations, the one or more server computing devices may use the detailed map information to identify a set of predetermined locations within a threshold distance of the received location. The threshold distance may be defined as a predetermined radial or walking distance from the received location and may also be adjusted by a user. For example, a default threshold distance may be 500 feet, or more or less, radially or in walking distance from a particular location. A user may then use his or her client computing device to adjust this value up or down and any adjustments may be provided to the one or more server computing devices by the user's client computing device].
Claim 7, Colijn discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein receiving the request for transportation between the initial waypoints comprises determining that a transportation requestor device, of a transportation requestor, that originated the request for transportation previously opted in to having requests for transportation fulfilled via walk-enabled driving routes [see at least p0026 - the threshold distance may be defined as a predetermined radial or walking distance from the received location and may also be adjusted by a user. For example, a default threshold distance may be 500 feet, or more or less, radially or in walking distance from a particular location. A user may then use his or her client computing device to adjust this value up or down and any adjustments may be provided to the one or more server computing devices by the user's client computing device].
Claim 8, Colijn discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein calculating the value metric for the walk-enabled driving route comprises determining a level of complexity of the walk-enabled driving route for a transportation provider traversing the walk-enabled driving route [see at least p0023, p0067 - In order to provide suggestion in response, the one or more server computing devices may access detailed map information. The detailed map information may include information about roads, buildings, elevations, fire hydrants, construction zones, real time traffic conditions, etc. from various sources such as governmental institutions, paid informational services, manually entered information, information gathered and provided in real time by autonomous vehicles, etc. The detailed map information may also include information identifying predetermined locations where an autonomous vehicle can stop to pick up or drop off a passenger. These predetermined locations may include reasonable locations where a vehicle could stop selected manually or through some analysis of the characteristics of each location].
Claim 9, Coljin discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein calculating the value metric for the walk-enabled driving route comprises: identifying a current location of a transportation provider matched with the request for transportation; and selecting the at least one alternate waypoint for the walk-enabled driving route based at least in part on the current location of the transportation provider [see at least p0061 - The set of suggested locations may include all of the predetermined locations within the threshold distance, as shown in FIGS. 7 and 8. Alternatively, the set may include one or more predetermined locations that are closest to the received location, up to some maximum value, such as 3 or more or less, within the threshold distance].
Claim 11, Colijn discloses computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the predetermined walking range comprises at least one of: a length of a walking route between the alternate waypoint and the initial waypoint; an expected traversal time of a walking route between the alternate waypoint and the initial waypoint; or a level of complexity of a walking route between the alternate waypoint and the initial waypoint [see at least p0065 – p0069 and Fig 11 - the scoring may be especially useful situations in which a predetermined location very close to the received location is somehow less desirable than another predetermined location farther away. For example, if a predetermined location on one side of a highway is closer in distance to a received location, but because of the difficulty involved in walking there from the received location, the scoring may identify another predetermined location that is farther away from the received location but easier to reach by walking. In one example, although point 1122 is farther away from the location of map marker 1130 than point 1120, point 1122 may have a higher score than point 1120. For instance, point 1120 may require a person to cross road 1160 which may be a highway or typically busy area in terms of traffic, whereas point 1122, though farther away from map marker 1130 does not require a person to cross any roads and is on the same side of road 1162 as the location of map marker 1130].
Claim 13, Colijn discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the predetermined walking range comprises a walking range preference set by a transportation requestor who initiated the request for transportation [see at least p0026 -the threshold distance may be defined as a predetermined radial or walking distance from the received location and may also be adjusted by a user. For example, a default threshold distance may be 500 feet, or more or less, radially or in walking distance from a particular location. A user may then use his or her client computing device to adjust this value up or down and any adjustments may be provided to the one or more server computing devices by the user's client computing device].
Claim 14, Colijn discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, but is silent to wherein the calculation accounts for one or more waypoints for a particular route being located on a far side of a street from the transportation provider using the particular route.
However, Tolkin discloses the pickup location module 145 determines eligible pickup locations from the predetermined location data points, and then scores the eligible pickup locations to determine which, if any, to suggest to the user. The scoring may be based on a cost for a provider to reach the eligible pickup location and the cost for the provider to reach the destination from the eligible pickup location, so that the total travel time for a provider (and thus the trip) may be reduced or minimized. Using the client location or the specified location, a circular distance 610 around the location is displayed around the location to display the range of predetermined eligible pickup locations near the user. In one embodiment, the circular distance 610 does not extend beyond the furthest eligible pickup location [see Fig 6A and p0054].
In Tolkin, the alternate location for one or more waypoints are scored regardless of the location, that is, one location may be down the street from the user, located on a far side of a street, located across the street, pickup locations that are suggested to the user may be several blocks away. Tolkin teaches that the user based by scoring is offered a number of different routes, such as walk 5 minutes and vehicle will pick you up 6 minutes faster [see Fig 6F – 6H, p0056 – p0059]. These alternate waypoints and routes may be accepted by the user, that is, the original pickup location of the trip may be maintained until the client and/or provider confirm (and/or reject) the alternate pickup location. In one example, the alternate pickup location is sent to the client and displayed for the client to accept the alternate pickup location [see p0055].
It would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in Colijn to include, wherein the calculation accounts for one or more waypoints for a particular route being located on a far side of a street from the transportation provider using the particular route, as suggested and taught by Tolkin, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing pickup locations to users that yield optimization for actual road conditions, that are complete in real time, pick up time or total trip time are reduced or minimized. Users will not need an extra step to contact the provider to adjust a pick up location, for example to cross the street, or because the initially-proposed pickup location may not be not suitable for the pickup. In addition, any need for an additional step in the user's request for trip services is eliminated.
Claim 15, Colijn discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: identifying a provider device associated with a transportation provider matched with the request for transportation; and directing the provider device to display, via a graphical user interface that comprises a map, directions for: meeting a transportation requestor at a waypoint within the walk-enabled driving route; traversing a portion of the walk-enabled driving route that does not comprise walking; and dropping off the transportation requestor at a waypoint within the walk-enabled driving route [see at least p0021 – p0024, p0026 Once a pickup or destination location is received, the one or more server computing devices may access the detailed map information to determine whether the received location corresponds to one of the predetermined locations. If so, the one or more server computing devices may determine that the received location is in fact reachable; the threshold distance may be defined as a predetermined radial or walking distance from the received location and may also be adjusted by a user. For example, a default threshold distance may be 500 feet, or more or less, radially or in walking distance from a particular location].
Claim(s) 2, 3, 4, 17, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colijn (US 20160370194) in view of Tolkin (US 20170169535A1) and Nesbitt (US 7133771).
Claims 2 and 17, Colijn as modified discloses the computer-implemented method and system of claim 1 and Claim 16, but does not specifically teach wherein calculating the value metric for the walk-enabled driving route comprises: creating a graph where each node represents a waypoint and a weight of each edge represents a traversal cost between two waypoints connected by the edge; and calculating the value metric for the walk-enabled driving route based in part on a total traversal cost of traversing a set of waypoints and edges that comprise the walk-enabled driving route.
However, Nesbitt discloses a preferred route from an origin location to a destination location. The preferred route a voids a particular maneuver or maneuvers identified by a user. In general, the routing determination is made by processing directed links (e.g., one-way edges) in a graph that includes one or more links and two or more nodes. The determination of a preferred route may include an estimate of the waiting time required at one or more intersections along alternative routes and/or an estimate of the time required to travel the alternative routes based on the day of the week or the day of the year that travel is to occur [see Col 2, ll. 34 – 45]. Also, see Fig 3, the routing graph 300 includes a collection of directed links (e.g., one-way edges) and nodes. A node on the routing graph 300 is represented by a point and is labeled by an uppercase alphabetic character (e.g., A, B, or C). A directed link on the routing graph 300 is represented by a line (or edge) that connects two nodes. Additionally, FIG. 3A (below) illustrates an exemplary process to determine a preferred route from an origin location ("origin") to a destination location ("destination") on a routing graph 300A. A process to determine a preferred route from Springfield to Redding begins by determining which of the directed links 310A and 330A that are adjacent to the origin, Springfield, should be examined first. The directed link 330A is examined first because directed link 310A has a lower cost here, 6) than directed link 330A that has a cost of 16 [see at least Col 5 line 20 – Col 6, line 48].
PNG
media_image1.png
366
470
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Nesbitt is capable of providing a cost analysis between two waypoints. FIG. 5 illustrates the results of determining a preferred route using directed links. A preferred route is determined from node B 315N to node M 375N in routing graph 300 of FIG. 3. Data 500 includes an adjacency set 510 that includes one or more directed links that have been identified by the routing system as adjacent (or otherwise near) a particular portion of the route graph 300 (e.g., adjacent to an end node of a particular directed link). The adjacency set also may be referred to as a priority set [see Col 11, ll. 41 – 53].
Nesbitt teaches that a preferred route may be the least cost route only after a destination is found, thereby teaching calculating the value metric for the walk-enabled driving route, which in Nesbitt is can be any route between two points (including a walking distance route) [see at least Fig 4, Col 6, ll. 29 – 48].
It would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in Colijn as modified to include, wherein calculating the value metric for the walk-enabled driving route comprises: creating a graph where each node represents a waypoint and a weight of each edge represents a traversal cost between two waypoints connected by the edge; and calculating the value metric for the walk-enabled driving route based in part on a total traversal cost of traversing a set of waypoints and edges that comprise the walk-enabled driving route, as suggested and taught by Nesbitt, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing that a preferred route between an origin location and a destination location may be determined by a computer system. A computer system may be used to search for an optimal path through a directed graph (e.g., a collection of nodes and edges) that represents a network of roads and intersections. Each edge (or line) of the graph may represent a road in a map, and each node of the graph may represent an intersection of two or more roads or a terminal point of a road, such as a dead end road. The path that requires the least distance or time may be determined.
Claims 3 and 18, Colijn as modified discloses the computer-implemented method/system of claim 2 and Claim 17, yet it does not specifically teach wherein creating the graph comprises: identifying a set of waypoints that comprises the initial waypoints and the at least one alternate waypoint; creating an initial graph that comprises a set of vertices that represent the set of waypoints and a set of edges that comprises an edge between each pair of vertices that represent geographically adjacent waypoints in the set of waypoints; and creating a directed acyclic graph by pruning from the initial graph at least one edge with a traversal cost that exceeds a threshold for traversal cost.
However, Nesbitt teaches the routing graph 300 includes a collection of directed links (e.g., one-way edges) and nodes. A node on the routing graph 300 is represented by a point and is labeled by an uppercase alphabetic character (e.g., A, B, or C). A directed link on the routing graph 300 is represented by a line (or edge) that connects two nodes. A directed link may be referenced using an ordered pair of nodes where the order of the nodes corresponds to the direction of travel. For example, a line between two nodes B and C includes two directed links, namely a directed link from B to C that may be referred to as directed link BC, and another directed link from C to B that may be referred to as directed link CB.
Further for the teaching of and creating a directed acyclic graph by pruning from the initial graph at least one edge with a traversal cost that exceeds a threshold for traversal cost, Nesbitt teaches for each directed link identified, the routing system determines a cost associated with the directed link and adds the directed link and its associated cost to the set of directed links. The routing system continues by selecting a directed link from the set and identifying one or more directed links that arc adjacent (e.g., expanding the search set) until the destination has been reached or found. The destination has been reached, for example, when one or more identified directed links that include the destination as an end node [see at least Figs 3, 3A, Col 5, ll. 20 – 60].
It would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in Colijn as modified to include, wherein creating the graph comprises: identifying a set of waypoints that comprises the initial waypoints and the at least one alternate waypoint; creating an initial graph that comprises a set of vertices that represent the set of waypoints and a set of edges that comprises an edge between each pair of vertices that represent geographically adjacent waypoints in the set of waypoints; and creating a directed acyclic graph by pruning from the initial graph at least one edge with a traversal cost that exceeds a threshold for traversal cost, as suggested and taught by Nesbitt, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing, when the routing system determines that the destination has been found or identified, the routing system determines the least-cost route. The routing system may determine the least-cost route by tracing back through the adjacent directed links that comprise the route. For example, the routing system may trace back through the adjacent directed links that comprise the route through the use of information that identifies the previous directed link for each directed link in the adjacency set. Other software engineering methods, processes or techniques may also be used to determine the least-cost route after the destination has been found. The least-cost route also may be referred to as a preferred route.
Claims 4 and 19, Colijn as modified discloses the computer-implemented method/system of claim 2 and claim 17, but does not specifically disclose wherein determining that the difference between the value metric of the walk-enabled driving route and the value metric of the initial driving route satisfies a walking-value threshold comprises: identifying at least two routes through the graph from a set of vertices representing potential starting waypoints to a set of vertices representing potential destination waypoints, where the at least two routes comprise at least the initial driving route between the initial waypoints and the walk-enabled driving route; and
providing the at least two routes as input to an objective function that produces, as output, a value metric for each route.
However, Nesbitt discloses the routing determination is made by processing directed links (e.g., one-way edges) in a graph that includes one or more links and two or more nodes. The determination of a preferred route may include an estimate of the waiting time required at one or more intersections along alternative routes and/or an estimate of the time required to travel the alternative routes based on the day of the week or the day of the year that travel is to occur [see Col 2, ll. 34 – 45]. Also, see Fig 3, the routing graph 300 includes a collection of directed links (e.g., one-way edges) and nodes. A node on the routing graph 300 is represented by a point and is labeled by an uppercase alphabetic character (e.g., A, B, or C). A directed link on the routing graph 300 is represented by a line (or edge) that connects two nodes. Additionally, FIG. 3A illustrates an exemplary process to determine a preferred route from an origin location ("origin") to a destination location ("destination") on a routing graph 300A. A process to determine a preferred route from Springfield to Redding begins by determining which of the directed links 310A and 330A that are adjacent to the origin, Springfield, should be examined first. The directed link 330A is examined first because directed link 310A has a lower cost here, 6) than directed link 330A that has a cost of 16 [see at least Col 5 line 20 – Col 6, line 48].
Nesbitt is capable of providing a cost analysis between two waypoints. FIG. 5 illustrates the results of determining a preferred route using directed links. A preferred route is determined from node B 315N to node M 375N in routing graph 300 of FIG. 3. Data 500 includes an adjacency set 510 that includes one or more directed links that have been identified by the routing system as adjacent (or otherwise near) a particular portion of the route graph 300 (e.g., adjacent to an end node of a particular directed link). The adjacency set also may be referred to as a priority set [see Col 11, ll. 41 – 53].
Nesbitt teaches that a preferred route may be the least cost route only after a destination is found, thereby teaching calculating the value metric for the walk-enabled driving route, which in Nesbitt is can be any route between two points (including a walking distance route) [see at least Fig 4, Col 6, ll. 29 – 48].
It would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in Colijn as modified to include, determining that the difference between the value metric of the walk-enabled driving route and the value metric of the initial driving route satisfies a walking-value threshold comprises: identifying at least two routes through the graph from a set of vertices representing potential starting waypoints to a set of vertices representing potential destination waypoints, where the at least two routes comprise at least the initial driving route between the initial waypoints and the walk-enabled driving route; and providing the at least two routes as input to an objective function that produces, as output, a value metric for each route, as suggested and taught by Nesbitt, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing that a preferred route between an origin location and a destination location may be determined by a computer system. A computer system may be used to search for an optimal path through a directed graph (e.g., a collection of nodes and edges) that represents a network of roads and intersections. Each edge (or line) of the graph may represent a road in a map, and each node of the graph may represent an intersection of two or more roads or a terminal point of a road, such as a dead end road. The path that requires the least distance or time may be determined.
Claim(s) 5, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colijn(US 20160370194) in view of Tolkin (US 20170169535A1) and Chachra (US 20180328748).
Claim 5, Colijn as modified discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, but does not specifically teach wherein determining that the difference between the value metric of the walk-enabled driving route and the value metric of the initial driving route satisfies the walking-value threshold comprises determining that, compared to the initial driving route, the walk-enabled driving route reduces an estimated time a transportation provider spends traveling to meet a transportation requestor associated with the request for transportation.
However, Chachra discloses systems and methods, for determining alternate request locations based on a pickup location score (PLoS) of a location associated with transportation request information. An estimated time to destination (ETD) of a provider matched to a transport request is determined. The ETD may include an ETA to the request location, as described herein, or may be determined between the request location and a destination of the request, or a combination. An ETT for the requestor to move to each of a number of alternate request locations is determined; for example, how long would it take for the particular requestor to walk to the new location (e.g., taking into account various factors such as average walking rate, elevation, number of intersections to be crossed, road data, etc.). A new ETD to the destination from each of the alternate request locations is determined, taking into account the ETT, and a determination is made whether the travel to one of the alternate destination locations would save time on the journey; for example, the time taken to walk to the new request location (e.g., ETT) would be compensated for by a reduction in the time to the destination based on the new request location as compared to the original request location [see at least p0025].
Also disclosing, the pickup location scores may be compared to a threshold pickup location score value and as long as they meet that threshold value, the locations may be sufficiently fit as an alternate pickup location for the request. As such, a pickup location score threshold may be used to filter potential alternate request locations that may be used in optimizing a pickup location for travel time or arrival time to a destination but the pickup location score values may not be compared to one another to identify the best possible location [see at least p0043].
It would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in Colijn as modified to include, wherein determining that the difference between the value metric of the walk-enabled driving route and the value metric of the initial driving route satisfies the walking-value threshold comprises determining that, compared to the initial driving route, the walk-enabled driving route reduces an estimated time a transportation provider spends traveling to meet a transportation requestor associated with the request for transportation, as suggested and taught by Chachra, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing accurate matching between providers and requestors and efficient use of system resources while attempting to find requestors. Also, to improve the identification of interaction locations and improve interactions between providers and requestors for overall travel time determinations, efficient use of system and processor resources, and overall improved experiences between providers and requestors [see Chachra p0003].
Claim 10, Colijn as modified discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, but does not specifically teach wherein calculating the value metric for the walk-enabled driving route comprises: identifying a potential waypoint for a future request for transportation associated with a transportation provider matched with the request for transportation; and
selecting the at least one alternate waypoint for the walk-enabled driving route based at least in part on a location of the potential waypoint for the future request for transportation.
However, Chachra discloses systems and methods, for determining alternate request locations based on a pickup location score (PLoS) of a location associated with transportation request information. This dynamic transportation matching system may maintain data indicating a default distance from a request location 302 that will be used for every request. This data may apply to all or a subset of requestors; for example, a user may set a default distance in an application, which is then sent to the dynamic transportation matching system and stored in relation to the requestor's account and used for future requests [see at least p0048]. Further teaching, a threshold distance 304 from the request location 302 may be determined along with a number of alternate request locations 306 within the threshold distance 304. For example, the dynamic transportation matching system may maintain data indicating a default distance from a request location 302 that will be used for every request. This data may apply to all or a subset of requestors; for example, a user may set a default distance in an application, which is then sent to the dynamic transportation matching system and stored in relation to the requestor's account and used for future requests. In an embodiment, the distance may be automatically determined based on a requirement that a minimum and/or maximum number of alternate request locations 306 be provided in response to the request.
A user may have a setting in the application indicating a maximum walking distance they are willing to accept in order to travel to an alternate request location 306. Data on the device, such as accumulated and stored by a motion detection component, may allow the dynamic transportation matching system to determine that the user walks an above-average amount (e.g., compared to other users), and therefore may be more inclined to walk a longer threshold distance 304 [see at least Fig 3, p0048].
It would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in Colijn as modified to include, wherein calculating the value metric for the walk-enabled driving route comprises: identifying a potential waypoint for a future request for transportation associated with a transportation provider matched with the request for transportation; and selecting the at least one alternate waypoint for the walk-enabled driving route based at least in part on a location of the potential waypoint for the future request for transportation, as suggested and taught by Chachra, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing accurate matching between providers and requestors and efficient use of system resources while attempting to find requestors. Also, to improve the identification of interaction locations and improve interactions between providers and requestors for overall travel time determinations, efficient use of system and processor resources, and overall improved experiences between providers and requestors [see Chachra p0003].
Claim 12, Colijn as modified discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, but does not specifically teach wherein the predetermined walking range comprises a ratio of an expected traversal time of a walking route between the alternate waypoint and the initial waypoint to an expected trip time of fulfilling the request for transportation.
However, Chachra discloses an estimated time to destination (ETD) of a provider matched to a transport request is determined. The ETD may include an ETA to the request location, as described herein, or may be determined between the request location and a destination of the request, or a combination. An ETT for the requestor to move to each of a number of alternate request locations is determined; for example, how long would it take for the particular requestor to walk to the new location (e.g., taking into account various factors such as average walking rate, elevation, number of intersections to be crossed, road data, etc.). A new ETD to the destination from each of the alternate request locations is determined, taking into account the ETT, and a determination is made whether the travel to one of the alternate destination locations would save time on the journey; for example, the time taken to walk to the new request location (e.g., ETT) would be compensated for by a reduction in the time to the destination based on the new request location as compared to the original request location [see at least p0025].
It would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in Colijn as modified to include, wherein the predetermined walking range comprises a ratio of an expected traversal time of a walking route between the alternate waypoint and the initial waypoint to an expected trip time of fulfilling the request for transportation, as suggested and taught by Chachra, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing accurate matching between providers and requestors and efficient use of system resources while attempting to find requestors. Also, to improve the identification of interaction locations and improve interactions between providers and requestors for overall travel time determinations, efficient use of system and processor resources, and overall improved experiences between providers and requestors [see Chachra p0003].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to all claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Additionally, the Applicant failed to remark on the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), that was stated in the Final Action, dated 06/26/2025, therefore the same rejection remains. The Amendments submitted have overcome the non-statutory double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RENEE LAROSE whose telephone number is (313)446-4856. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8:30am - 5:00pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abby Lin can be reached on (571) 270-3976. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Renee LaRose/Examiner, Art Unit 3657