DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Introduction
The following is a non-final Office Action in response to Applicant’s preliminarily amended submission filed on 2/14/2024. Currently claims 1-10 and 12-16 are pending and claims 1, 8, 10 are independent.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application 371 of PCT/JP2021/033931, filed on 9/15/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 2/14/2024 and 1/14/2025 appear to be in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the Examiner.
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 1-10 and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea), specifically an abstract idea, without significantly more. With respect to claims 1-10 and 12-16, following the guidance contained within MPEP 2106, the inquiry for patent eligibility follows two steps: Step 1: Does the claimed invention fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention? Step 2A (Prong 1): Is the claim “directed to” an abstract idea? Step 2A (Prong 2): Is the claim integrated into a practical application? Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea?
In accordance with these steps, the Examiner finds the following:
Step 1: Claim 1 and its dependent claims (claims 2-7, 12-16) are directed to a statutory category, namely a system/machine. Claim 8 and its dependent claims (claim 9) are directed to a statutory category, namely a system/machine. Claim 10 is directed to a statutory category, namely an article of manufacture.
Step 2A (Prong 1): Claims 1, 8, 10, which are substantially similar claims to one another, are directed to the abstract idea of “Certain methods of organizing human activity”, or more particularly, “Concepts relating to commercial or legal interactions (including: advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) (See MPEP 2106).” In this application that refers to using a computer system to manage and organize rideshare ride requests where the vehicle waits for the passenger while they are at a stop. To clarify this further, the Applicant’s disclosed invention is a conceptual system meant to perform the same function that dispatcher at a taxi company might perform. The abstract elements of claims 1, 8, 10, recite in part “Create plan…instruct vehicle…Propose details…Create plan…”. Dependent claims 2-7, 9, 12-16, add to the abstract idea the following limitations which recite in part “Monitor state of vehicle…Determine if charging is necessary…Charge vehicle…Determine if maintenance is necessary…Perform service…Propose details…Present candidates…Calculate time……”. All of these additional limitations, however, only serve to further limit the abstract idea, and hence are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent claims 1, 8, 10.
Step 2A (Prong 2): Independent claims 1, 8, 10, which are substantially similar claims to one another, do not contain additional elements, either considered individually or in combination, that effectively integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. These claims do include the limitation that recites in part “Operation management device…Processing circuitry…Vehicle controller…Communication device…non-transitory computer readable storage medium…” which limits the claims to a networked/computer based environment, but this is insufficient with respect to integration into a practical application because it is merely applying the abstract idea to a general computer (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Additionally, dependent claims 2-7, 9, 12-16 do not include any additional elements to conduct a further Step 2A (Prong 2) analysis.
Step 2B: Independent claims 1, 8, 10, which are substantially similar claims to one another, include additional elements, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, which are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements of these claims recite in part “Operation management device…Processing circuitry…Vehicle controller…Communication device…non-transitory computer readable storage medium…”. These items are not significantly more because these are merely the software and/or hardware components used to implement the abstract idea (manage and organize rideshare ride requests where the vehicle waits for the passenger while they are at a stop) on a general purpose computer (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). This is exemplified in the Applicant’s specification in [0088] – “The processor 52 is a central processing unit (CPU). The processor 52 may be an arithmetic unit, a microprocessor, a microcomputer, or a digital signal processor (DSP).”
Additionally, dependent claims 2-7, 9, 12-16 do not include any additional elements to conduct a further 2B analysis.
Accordingly, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination claims 1-10 and 12-16 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception, an abstract idea, without significantly more.
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 1-10 and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gerrese et al. (US 20230081186 A1)
Regarding claims 1, 8, 10, Gerrese discloses a vehicle operation management device that manages operation of a vehicle, the vehicle operation management device comprising: processing to create an operation plan of the vehicle on the basis of a schedule for getting in and out of the vehicle of a user who wants to ride the vehicle; and to instruct the vehicle to travel according to the operation plan, wherein when the user of the vehicle is scheduled to get in the same vehicle again after getting out of the vehicle, the processing circuitry proposes, to the user, operation details of the vehicle during a period of time from when the user gets out of the vehicle to when the user gets in the vehicle next, and creates the operation plan including the operation details proposed (Geresse ¶4 - Systems and methods are provided for supervised stopping points on a route. In particular, systems and methods are provided for allowing a primary passenger who is accompanied by one or more other passengers, to pause a ride, exit the autonomous vehicle, and request supervision of the one or more other passengers while the primary passenger is away from the vehicle. In some examples, the primary passenger may exit the vehicle to run an errand. While the ride is paused, the autonomous vehicle provides supervision for the other passengers, including one or more of monitoring vehicle temperature, making sure the other passengers remain safely inside the vehicle, preventing strangers from accessing the vehicle, providing any requested feedback regarding the other passengers to the primary passenger, enabling communication between the first passenger and the other passengers, and continuing in-vehicle entertainment. The autonomous vehicle picks up the primary passenger after the stop and continues along the route to another stop and/or to the final destination).
Regarding claims 2, Gerrese discloses the processing circuitry monitors a state of the vehicle and output monitored state information indicating a monitoring result, and proposes the operation details created on the basis of the monitored state information to the user (Geresse Fig. 4 - Geresse ¶66 - In particular, the autonomous vehicle may use data from sensors in the sensor suite (such as sensor suite 102 of FIG. 1) {i.e. monitor} to evaluate whether there are any nearby parking spaces and/or stopping spaces. This may include a space in a parking lot and/or street parking… In various implementations, the autonomous vehicle may perform either or both of steps 406a and 406b while waiting to pick up the primary passenger).
Regarding claims 3, Gerrese discloses processing circuitry determines whether or not charging is necessary on the basis of a remaining battery level of the vehicle (Geresse ¶87 - Some examples of routing goals include… fuel status (e.g., how charged a battery is, how much gas is in the tank), and outputs the monitored state information indicating a determination result, and proposes the operation details including charging of the vehicle to the user on the basis of the monitored state information indicating that charging is necessary (Geresse ¶85 - According to various implementations, a set of parameters can be established that determine which metrics are considered (and to what extent) in determining routes or route modifications. In some examples, the route includes autonomous vehicle routing during a supervised stopping interval, as described in greater detail with respect to FIG. 4. Generally, a routing goal refers to, but is not limited to, one or more desired attributes of a routing plan indicated by at least one of an administrator of a routing server and a user of the autonomous vehicle), and creates the operation plan including travel from a drop-off location to a spot where charging is performed and travel from the spot to a next pick-up location (Geresse ¶68 - In some examples, the autonomous vehicle may charge its battery during a supervised stop if there is a parking space with a charging station available close to the stop location).
Regarding claims 4, Gerrese discloses processing circuitry determines whether or not maintenance is necessary on the basis of a state of each part of the vehicle, and outputs the monitored state information indicating a determination result, and proposes the operation details including maintenance of the vehicle to the user on the basis of the monitored state information indicating that maintenance is necessary, and creates the operation plan including travel from a drop-off location to a spot where maintenance is performed and travel from the spot to a next pick-up location (Geresse ¶99 - As discussed above, each vehicle in a fleet of vehicles communicates with a routing coordinator. When a vehicle is flagged for service, the routing coordinator schedules the vehicle for service and routes the vehicle to the service center. When the vehicle is flagged for maintenance {i.e. monitored}, a level of importance or immediacy of the service can be included).
Regarding claims 5, Gerrese discloses processing circuitry proposes, to the user, the operation details including parking of the vehicle in a parking lot in a period of time from when the user gets out of the vehicle to when the user gets in the vehicle next, and creates the operation plan including travel from a drop-off location to the parking lot and travel from the parking lot to a next pick-up location (Geresse ¶76 - After adding a supervised stop, the user is prompted to adjust a geofenced area for the autonomous vehicle during the stop, and can also request that the autonomous vehicle park during the stop. FIG. 5C shows an example 540 of the device 502 showing an interface 542 having a map 544 showing the stop location 546 and a geofenced area 548 around the stop location 546. In various examples, the geofenced area 548 can be any selected shape and, in some examples, can follow selected streets around the stop location 546. The user can request that the vehicle remain within the geofenced area 548 by selecting the button 550. Alternatively, the user can request that the vehicle park during the stop by selecting the button 552. In some examples, a parking space is not available, and the park button 552 is grayed out. In some examples, a parking space is available for an additional fee (e.g., a parking lot, and/or metered parking), and the user may be given the option to agree to pay for the parking spot after selecting the park button 552, or the user is given the option to choose to allow the vehicle to continue driving within the geofenced area 548).
Regarding claims 6, Gerrese discloses processing circuitry presents a plurality of candidates for the parking lot to the user, and accepts selection of the parking lot from among the plurality of candidates (Geresse ¶76 - After adding a supervised stop, the user is prompted to adjust a geofenced area for the autonomous vehicle during the stop, and can also request that the autonomous vehicle park during the stop. FIG. 5C shows an example 540 of the device 502 showing an interface 542 having a map 544 showing the stop location 546 and a geofenced area 548 around the stop location 546. In various examples, the geofenced area 548 can be any selected shape and, in some examples, can follow selected streets around the stop location 546. The user can request that the vehicle remain within the geofenced area 548 by selecting the button 550. Alternatively, the user can request that the vehicle park during the stop by selecting the button 552. In some examples, a parking space is not available, and the park button 552 is grayed out. In some examples, a parking space is available for an additional fee (e.g., a parking lot, and/or metered parking), and the user may be given the option to agree to pay for the parking spot after selecting the park button 552, or the user is given the option to choose to allow the vehicle to continue driving within the geofenced area 548).
Regarding claims 9, Gerrese discloses the communication unit device receives schedule information, which indicates the schedule for getting in and getting out of the vehicle of the user, from a terminal that can communicate with the vehicle operation management device (Geresse ¶75 - After adding a stop, the user is optionally prompted to indicate the duration of the selected stop. FIG. 5B shows an example 520 of the device 502 showing an interface 522 having duration selections. In the example shown in FIG. 5B, the user can select a stop duration of “1 minute” 524a, “2 minutes” 524b, “5 minutes” 524c, “10 minutes” 524c, or “other” 524e. In some examples, if the user selects “other” 524e, the user is then prompted to set the stop duration. In other examples, if the user selects “other” 524e, the user is prompted to enter a stop duration. In various implementations, the specific durations of the duration selections 524a-524e depends on the type of store at the stop destination. In some examples, the specific durations are based on stop duration predictions based on stops at the selected location made by the same and/or other users), and the operation plan creation unit processing circuitry creates the operation plan on the basis of the schedule information received (Geresse ¶81 - The generated route also includes instructions for autonomous vehicle behavior during the stopping interval. In various examples, the generated route includes instructions for a parking location during the supervised stopping interval and/or the generated route includes a route within a geofenced area for driving around during the stopping interval. Autonomous vehicle behavior during the supervised stopping interval may depend on the stop duration as described above with respect to FIG. 4).
Regarding claims 7, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, Gerrese discloses the processing circuitry calculates a time from when the user gets out of the vehicle to when the user gets in the vehicle next (Geresse ¶38 - The supervised stop request includes a stop location, a stop duration), and proposes the operation details that can fit within the calculated time to the user (Geresse ¶81 - The generated route also includes instructions for autonomous vehicle behavior during the stopping interval. In various examples, the generated route includes instructions for a parking location during the supervised stopping interval and/or the generated route includes a route within a geofenced area for driving around during the stopping interval. Autonomous vehicle behavior during the supervised stopping interval may depend on the stop duration as described above with respect to FIG. 4).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Penilla et al. (US 20150210287 A1)
MUKOYAMA (JP 2015219811 A)
Penilla et al. (US 20200249822 A1)
and
Y. Yuan, et al. “p^2Charging: Proactive Partial Charging for Electric Taxi Systems," 2019 IEEE 39th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS), Dallas, TX, USA, 2019, pp. 688-699 [online], [retrieved on 2026-01-10]. Retrieved from the Internet <https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8885097?source=IQplus>
The pieces of prior art are cited because they all disclose variations on analyzing ride-share operations and managing idle time between rides.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael R Koester whose telephone number is (313)446-4837. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8:00AM-5:00 PM 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, Jerry O'Connor can be reached at (571) 272-6787. 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.
/MICHAEL R KOESTER/Examiner, Art Unit 3624
/Jerry O'Connor/Supervisory Patent Examiner,Group Art Unit 3624