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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the amendment filed on 01/16/2026.
Claims 1, 3-4, 8-9, 12, and 15 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 1-16 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-11, filed 01/16/2026, with respect to the drawing objections have been fully considered and are mostly persuasive. The majority of the drawing objections have been withdrawn, but the objection regarding element S560 not being mentioned in the description has been maintained. Applicant has not made an amendment addressing this reference element.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 11, filed 01/16/2026, with respect to the specification objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The specification objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 11-12, filed 01/16/2026, with respect to the objections of claims 9, 11, and 15 have been fully considered and are partially persuasive. The objections of claims 9 and 15 have been withdrawn, but Applicant has not amended claim 11. Accordingly, the claim objection of claim 11 has been maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 12-13, filed 01/16/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b) rejections of claims 1-16 stemming from the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation of “optimal dispatch unit” have been fully considered but are only partially persuasive. For the reasoning discussed below, claims 1-16 still stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b) because of the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation of “optimal dispatch unit”.
Specifically, while Examiner agrees that the optimal dispatch unit comprises the dispatch calculation unit, reservation dispatch calculation unit, real-time dynamic dispatch calculation unit, and punctuality guarantee unit with various recited algorithms, Examiner notes that the algorithms presented in the specification as filed do not provide written description support for the claimed feature of “during operation of the MOD vehicle, dynamically modify at least one of a dispatch timing, a dispatch route, or a vehicle assignment by performing a re-dispatch when it is determined that the arrival time is no longer observable” (emphasis added) as amended into claim 1. An algorithm for the optimal dispatch unit dynamically modifying routes of MOD vehicles in operation is discussed in at least [0162]-[0164]. The repeated nature of optimal dispatch unit process S400 ([0166]) in combination with the vehicle selection step of [0164] provides an algorithm for dynamically modifying vehicle assignment during operation of a MOD vehicle. However, the specification as filed does not have a disclosed algorithm for dynamically modifying dispatch timing when a MOD vehicle is in operation. The specification does not recite the optimal dispatch unit, nor any of its constituent units, modifying the dispatch timing. Process S400, which has provided support for the modification of the other two potential characteristics of a re-dispatch as discussed above, does not recite the determination (or re-determination of dispatch timing of a MOD vehicle). The algorithm for the optimal dispatch unit performing this modification of dispatch timing is also not present in the rest of the specification as filed. Accordingly, claims 1-16 are still rejected under 112(a) for lacking sufficient written description and 112(b) for being indefinite. See the rejection below for additional detail.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 13, filed 01/16/2026, with respect to the antecedent basis 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 1-16 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The antecedent basis 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 1-16 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 13-15, filed 01/16/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of claims 1-16 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of claims 1-16 have been maintained.
After summarizing the rejections and limitations of amended claim 1 across pages 13 and 14, Applicant argues on pages 14-15 that the dynamic modifying of at least one of a dispatch timing, dispatch route, or vehicle assignment by performing a re-dispatch when an arrival time is no longer observable during the operation of the MOD vehicle does not recite a certain method of organizing human activity. Particularly, Applicant argues that modifying the dispatching of vehicles dynamically as a way of organizing human activity is “not feasible realistically” and thus does not recite a judicial exception. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Turning to the disclosure as filed, Examiner notes the examples discussed in [0070] and [0157]-[0166]. In these examples the dynamic dispatch is performed when an arrival time for an already boarded passenger is no longer observable if the MOD vehicle were to detour to pick up an additional passenger. In the scenario described in [0070], [0163], and [0166] the system dispatches a separate MOD vehicle from the one already carrying the passenger (i.e. a change in vehicle assignment) to pick up the requesting user. This determination to dispatch a second vehicle when the expected travel time of a first vehicle would cause a passenger(s) to miss a guaranteed arrival time is not infeasible as an abstract idea. Realizing a traffic jam will make observing the desired arrival times of the requesting/already-boarded users and sending a second vehicle to ensure arrival time compliance, as is the example used in the specification, is not impractical. Indeed, this analysis is the function of a dispatcher performing resource allocation of a fleet to meet transportation needs. It is a certain method of organizing human activity because the organization and dispatching of MOD vehicles is part of the commercial interaction between a MOD organization and its customers to get a customer to an arrival location by an ETA. Applicant’s arguments that the claims do not recite an abstract idea are not persuasive.
Next, Applicant argues on page 15 that the additional elements of the claims integrate the claim into a practical application because the “efficiency/efficacy” of the MOD system is being improved such that there is an increased likelihood that users will reach their destination by a desired time. Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP 2106.05(a) II. recites “However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology.” Additionally MPEP 2106.05(f)(1) recites “The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".” While the claimed invention may increase the likelihood the users of the MOD service reach their destinations by their desired arrival times, this improvement is not an improvement to technology but instead an improvement to the assignment/use of resources in the MOD system. An improvement to the assignment/use of resources is an improvement to the abstract idea (i.e. a better/more efficient use of available resources to provide a better service to a customer) and not a technical improvement that would integrate the claim into a practical application. Furthermore, the dynamic dispatching process in the claims covers any modification to any of a dispatch timing, dispatch route, or vehicle assignment with no description of how the modification(s) are made and how they result in the argued improvement of increasing the likelihood a user will arrive at their destination by their desired arrival time. Accordingly, the additional elements of the claimed invention, considered as a whole, align with the “apply it” analysis of MPEP 2106.05(f) and not the “technical improvement” analysis of MPEP 2106.05(a) as Applicant appears to be arguing. Applicant’s arguments that the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application are not persuasive.
Examiner finally notes that, while Step 2B is not explicitly argued by Applicant, mere instructions to apply an exception also do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, Applicant’s arguments that the claims are patent eligible are not persuasive, and the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of claims 1-16 have been maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 15-17, filed 01/16/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejections of claims 1-2, 4-8, and 13-16 and 35 U.S.C.103 rejections of claims 3 and 9-12, have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejections of claims 1-2, 4-8, and 13-16 and 35 U.S.C.103 rejections of claims 3 and 9-12 have been maintained.
After summarizing the rejections and the amended claim language across pages 15 and 16, Applicant argues on page 17 that Marueli does not teach the amended limitations “during operation of the MOD vehicle, dynamically modify at least one of a dispatch timing, a dispatch route, or a vehicle assignment by performing a re-dispatch when it is determined that the arrival time is no longer observable” and “wherein the MOD vehicle is operated according to the modified dispatch timing, dispatch route, or vehicle assignment resulting from the re-dispatch” of claim 1. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As is shown in the rejection below. Marueli [0095]-[0096] teaches that, after a user has selected their initial multimodal route that satisfies the absolute constraint of a required estimated arrival time at the destination and has begun the route on the primary transportation means, the system of Marueli evaluates progress along the route as well as the scheduling/operation of a transportation method onto which the user will transfer to meet the desired ETA. Marueli teaches in these paragraphs that, if it is determined that the user currently riding in the primary transportation vehicle will no longer be able to make the scheduled connection onto the secondary mode of transportation, the system will modify the route of the vehicle the user is currently riding in (i.e. to another stop of the secondary transportation mode or a different secondary transportation mode) in order for the user to still meet their required ETA. The driver of the primary transportation vehicle will be rerouted to the modified route, so the MOD vehicle will be operated according to the modified dispatch route to get the user to the new intermediate transfer point. Examiner notes that “at least one of” a dispatch timing, dispatch route, or vehicle assignment is modified in claim 1, and accordingly only one of the timing, route, or vehicle assignment needs to be modified to read on the limitations. Marueli explicitly teaches the modification of a route of the MOD vehicle being modified when the ETA can no longer be met by the current route due to a future missed connection, so Marueli teaches the amended limitations argued by Applicant.
After further review of the amended limitations not specifically argued by Applicant, Marueli teaches all of the limitations of amended claim 1. Accordingly the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 1 in view of Marueli has been maintained.
Applicant’s arguments that the other cited references fail to teach the limitations of amended claim 1 are moot because Marueli teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. After further review of the dependent claims, their respective 35 U.S.C 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections from the 09/18/2025 Office Action have been maintained.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: S560. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11 recites “wherein the amount of carbon emission is calculated based on the emission coefficient calculated by Equation 1 below:(Equation 1) Emission coefficient (y)=A * V^(B) (where A and B are constants according to transportation means, and V is speed)” when it appears it should recite “wherein the amount of carbon emission is calculated based on the emission coefficient calculated by:
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
“a mobility service unit” in claims 1, 13, and 14
“an optimal dispatch unit” in claim 1
“a travel calculation unit” in claims 1, 7, and 13-15
“a multiple transportation linkage unit” in claim 2
“an optimal stopover point creation unit” in claim 2
“a multiple transportation means linkage unit” in claims 3-5
“an optimal arrival time calculation unit” in claim 3
“an optimal transfer means calculation unit” in claim 5
Regarding the corresponding physical structure in the specification, paragraph [0054] recites that “each component of the MOD system described above may be software running on a processor, hardware, a software module running on a processor, a hardware module, or a combination of software and hardware. In particular, each component. They may each be implemented as individual servers or server groups, or may be software modules all implemented within one server”.
As the above limitations are computer-based limitations, corresponding structure under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) must also include algorithms for performing the claimed functions (see MPEP 2181 II.B.). Examiner notes that a sufficient algorithm for performing all of the steps of “an optimal dispatch unit” is not present in Applicant’s specification. See the corresponding 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b) rejections below for more details.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
In addition, this application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the generic placeholder is not modified by functional language. Such claim limitations are:
“at least one transfer transportation means” in claims 1, 10, 12
“the linkage transportation means” in claim 2
“a transfer means schedule” in claim 3
“the linked transportation means” in claims 3, 4, 5, and 7-9
“transfer means” in claims 10 and 12
“other MOD means” in claims 13 and 14
Because these claim limitations are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) they are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain 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, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Per MPEP 2163.03 VI. “A claim limitation expressed in means- (or step-) plus-function language "shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof." 35 U.S.C. 112(f)…If the specification fails to disclose sufficient corresponding structure, materials, or acts that perform the entire claimed function, then the claim limitation is indefinite because the applicant has in effect failed to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b)…Such a limitation also lacks an adequate written description as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(a)…because an indefinite, unbounded functional limitation would cover all ways of performing a function and indicate that the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention”.
As will be discussed in greater detail below, claim 1 recites the limitation “an optimal dispatch unit”, interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), that does not have sufficient corresponding structure disclosed in the specification. Namely, the specification describes functions of “an optimal dispatch unit”, but fails to recite an algorithm for the claimed function of dynamically modifying a dispatch timing during operation of a MOD vehicle. As “an optimal dispatch unit” lacks sufficient structural support, “an optimal dispatch unit” fails to comply with the written description requirement per MPEP 2163.03 VI above.
Claims 2-16 do not comply with the written description requirement by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
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.
Claim 1 limitation “an optimal dispatch unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Particularly, Fig. 9 and paragraphs [0157]-[0166] recite the dynamic dispatch process performed by the optimal dispatch unit. These paragraphs provide an algorithm for the performance of the two other characteristics that are claimed as being dynamically modified, a dispatch route and a vehicle assignment. The dynamic dispatch process is recited in [0166] as being performed while a MOD vehicle is in operation and on its way to a boarding point. Paragraph [0162]-[0164] recite the modification of MOD vehicle routes that are in operation based on whether the arrival times of the existing passengers on the MOD vehicle can still be observed with a route change to pick up a requesting passenger. Paragraph [0164] recites the selection of a vehicle with the lowest ETA and remaining seats, and the process S400 being performed again if a dispatched vehicle’s ETA changes beyond the reference based on changing traffic as discussed in [0166] provides an algorithm for dynamically modifying the vehicle assignment (i.e. to a vehicle that might still be able to meet a reference ETA). However, process S400, nor any of the other process recited as being performed by the optimal dispatch unit, or its constituent units of a dispatch calculation unit, reservation dispatch calculation unit, real-time dynamic dispatch calculation unit, or punctuality guarantee unit, recite an algorithm for dynamically modifying dispatch timing while a MOD vehicle is in operation. Paragraph [0070] recites additional support for the real-time dynamic dispatch unit dynamically modifying vehicle assignment, but is silent on dispatch timing modification. Process S300 performed by the reservation dispatch unit discussed in Fig. 8B and [0151]-[0155] similarly lacks discussion of modifying dispatch timing. Finally, while [0078] recites that the schedule matching calculation unit (a component of the punctuality guarantee unit) dispatches MOD buses in accordance with the departure or arrival time of linkage transportation means, the dynamic modification of dispatch timing while a MOD vehicle is in operation is not recited. In the process S400 providing algorithmic support for the modification of the other two characteristics, the punctuality guarantee unit, instead of dynamically modifying dispatch timing, calculates the probability of candidate vehicles being able to observe a rider’s ETA. This lack of an algorithm for the procedure of dynamically modifying a dispatch timing during operation of a MOD vehicle causes the limitation to lack sufficient structural support in the specification. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f);
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 2-16 are rejected as being indefinite by virtue of their dependence on indefinite claim 1.
For the purposes of examination, Examiner is interpreting a computer or processor performing the determination of a route based on inputs and constraints as teaching the functionality of “an optimal dispatch unit”.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite determining an optimal route from a departure point to a destination point for a user with a transfer from a mobility on demand service to another transportation service.
As an initial matter, claims 1-16 fall into at least the machine category of statutory subject matter. Therefore, all claims fall into at least one of the statutory categories. Eligibility analysis proceeds to Step 2A.
In claim 1, the limitation of “receive, from a user terminal, a boarding request including a departure point and a destination point”, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a mobility on demand (MOD) system”, “a mobility service unit”, and “a user terminal,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. Similarly, the limitations of “a travel calculation unit configured to: determine whether the departure point and the destination point belong to different service areas: calculate a plurality of candidate linkage travel routes including at least one transfer transportation means; calculate, for each candidate linkage travel route, an estimated time of arrival (ETA), a transfer schedule of the transfer transportation means, and a walking time between transfer points; determine whether an arrival time is observable based on the ETA, the transfer schedule, and the walking time; and generate dispatch-related information based on a determination of whether the arrival time is observable; and an optimal dispatch unit configured to: generate a dispatch for a MOD vehicle based on the dispatch-related information and during operation of the MOD vehicle, dynamically modify at least one of a dispatch timing, a dispatch route, or a vehicle assignment by performing a re-dispatch when it is determined that the arrival time is no longer observable; wherein the MOD vehicle is operated according to the modified dispatch timing, dispatch route, or vehicle assignment resulting from the re-dispatch”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Additionally, claim 1 recites the concept of updating an optimal transportation plan for a user of a mobility on demand service to observe a desired arrival time which is a certain method of organizing human activity including commercial interactions. Receive, from a user, a boarding request including a departure point and a destination point; determine whether the departure point and the destination point belong to different service areas: calculate a plurality of candidate linkage travel routes including at least one transfer transportation means; calculate, for each candidate linkage travel route, an estimated time of arrival (ETA), a transfer schedule of the transfer transportation means, and a walking time between transfer points; determine whether an arrival time is observable based on the ETA, the transfer schedule, and the walking time; and generate dispatch-related information based on a determination of whether the arrival time is observable; and generate a dispatch for a MOD vehicle based on the dispatch-related information and during operation of the MOD vehicle, dynamically modify at least one of a dispatch timing, a dispatch route, or a vehicle assignment by performing a re-dispatch when it is determined that the arrival time is no longer observable; wherein the MOD vehicle is operated according to the modified dispatch timing, dispatch route, or vehicle assignment resulting from the re-dispatch all, as a whole, fall under the category of commercial interactions. The claim falls into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Mere recitation of generic computer components does not remove the claim from this grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a mobility on demand (MOD) system, a mobility service unit, a user terminal, a travel calculation unit, and an optimal dispatch unit. The recited additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The combination of these additional elements is also no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a mobility on demand (MOD) system, a mobility service unit, a user terminal, a travel calculation unit, and an optimal dispatch unit amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The combination of these additional elements is also no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 further limits the abstract idea of claim 1 while introducing the additional elements of a multiple transportation linkage unit and an optimal stopover point creation unit. The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the elements of a multiple transportation linkage unit and an optimal stopover point creation unit are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Adding these new additional elements into the additional elements from claim 1 still amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The claim also does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 3 further limits the abstract idea of claim 1 while introducing the additional elements of a multiple transportation means linkage unit and an optimal arrival time calculation unit. The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the elements of a multiple transportation means linkage unit and an optimal arrival time calculation unit are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Adding these new additional elements into the additional elements from claim 1 still amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The claim also does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 4 further limits the abstract idea of claim 1 while introducing the additional element of a multiple transportation means linkage unit. The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the element of a multiple transportation means linkage unit are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Adding this new additional element into the additional elements from claim 1 still amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The claim also does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 5 further limits the abstract idea of claim 1 while introducing the additional elements of a multiple transportation means linkage unit and an optimal transfer means calculation unit. The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the elements of a multiple transportation means linkage unit and an optimal transfer means calculation unit are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Adding these new additional elements into the additional elements from claim 1 still amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The claim also does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 6 further limits the abstract idea of claim 5 without adding any new additional elements. Therefore, by the analysis of claim 5 above this claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 7-12 further limit the abstract idea of claim 5 without adding any new additional elements. Therefore, by the analysis of claim 5 above these claims, individually and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 13 further limits the abstract idea of claim 1 while introducing the additional element of a multiple transportation means selection interface. The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the element of a multiple transportation means selection interface is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Adding this new additional elements into the additional element from claim 1 still amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The claim also does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 14 further limits the abstract idea of claim 13 while introducing the additional element of a multiple transportation means selection interface. The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the element of a multiple transportation means selection interface is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Adding this new additional elements into the additional element from claim 13 still amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The claim also does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 15-16 further limit the abstract idea of claim 14 without adding any new additional elements. Therefore, by the analysis of claim 14 above these claims, individually and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-8, and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Marueli et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2017/0191845, hereafter known as Marueli).
Regarding claim 1, Marueli teaches:
A mobility on demand (MOD) system comprising: a mobility service unit configured to receive, from a user terminal, a boarding request including a departure point and a destination point (see Fig. 1 and [0011] for overall system. See backend server processor 308, communication interface 312, and [0052]-[0055] for a mobility service unit. See [0017] and [0080] "The backend server 302 may receive a transportation request specifying a pickup location and a destination location and associate the request with a route comprising segments serviced by the primary transportation service and at least one secondary transportation service" for receiving a transportation request with a departure point and destination point)
a travel calculation unit configured to: (Processor 308 is also the travel calculation unit)
determine whether the departure point and the destination point belong to different service areas (see [0074] "Backend server 302 may generate routes each having any suitable number of segments that may be serviced by any number of the transportation services. In general, the primary transportation service sends a driver to service at least one of the segments in each route. As just one example, a route may consist of three segments: 1) a segment from the passenger's home to a first terminal (such as a bus stop or subway terminal) associated with a secondary transportation service (this segment may be serviced by a first driver of the primary transportation service), 2) a segment from the first terminal to a second terminal of the secondary transportation service (this segment may be serviced by the secondary transportation service), and 3) a segment from the second terminal to the passenger's workplace (this segment may be serviced by a second driver of the primary transportation service)" and [0012] "the primary transportation service may design a route in which a passenger is picked up by a first driver associated with the primary transportation service at the passenger's home and dropped off at an airport terminal, takes a flight to another city, and is then picked up by a second driver associated with the primary transportation service and transported to the passenger's hotel" for planning a route linked with a transfer means including public/metropolitan transportation in a case that the departure and destination points are in different areas (cities or home/workplace))
calculate a plurality of candidate linkage travel routes including at least one transfer transportation means (see [0103]-[0105] for routes particularly including primary and secondary transportation means ([0103]), and calculating routes and determining that one or more routes that meet absolute constraints remain ([0104]-[0105]))
calculate, for each candidate linkage travel route, an estimated time of arrival (ETA), a transfer schedule of the transfer transportation means, and a walking time between transfer points (see [0092] "When one or more routes are presented to the passenger, any suitable information associated with the routes may be presented, such as...an arrival time associated with the destination location of the route,...a required walking distance, , any other information associated with the route or a segment thereof (e.g., any of the information described above which may be used in constraint), or any suitable combination thereof" and [0094] "During the selection of routes, the backend server 302 may determine the degree of probability that a passenger may safely make a transfer from one transportation vehicle to another transportation vehicle and disregard routes that have an unacceptably high probability that the passenger will miss the connection. In particular embodiments, during such determinations, the backend server 302 may factor in any time that may be associated with the transfer, such as a time for walking from a drop-off point to a pickup location for the next vehicle" and [0089] "Any suitable secondary transportation service information may be stored by the electronic data source and used in the generation of the various routes...schedules for particular transport vehicles used by the secondary transport service (e.g., the schedules may indicate the times at which a particular transportation vehicle is scheduled to stop at any number of terminals)" for ETAs, transfer schedules of the secondary transport service, and walking time between transfer points calculated for each route to at least one of be shown to the user or to check the route against constraints)
determine whether an arrival time is observable based on the ETA, the transfer schedule, and the walking time (see [0083] "one or more of the constraints may be absolute constraints. If a route does not match the applicable absolute constraints, the route is not presented to the passenger as a prospective route. Any suitable absolute constraint may be specified by the passenger and/or primary transportation service and applied to a route search to filter out non-desirable routes" and [0085] "Other examples of absolute constraints include an arrival time associated with the destination location (e.g., a constraint that the route must deliver the passenger to the destination location at or before the arrival time)" for an arrival time being an absolute constraint when searching for a route and [0104] "routes that are not compliant with the absolute constraints are filtered out (e.g., from a set of prospective routes) at 410. At 412, it is determined whether prospective routes remain. If no prospective routes remain, the subscriber is notified and the method ends. The subscriber may then relax the specified absolute constraints or select a different route that does not meet the absolute constraints" and [0105] "At step 416, one or more routes are generated based on optimization constraints. For example, the routes that remain after step 410 may be ordered based on their compatibility with one or more optimization constraints selected by the subscriber or the primary transportation service" for displaying routes in which the absolute constraint of an arrival time is observable (if any routes can observe the absolute constraint of arrival time))
and generate dispatch-related information based on a determination of whether the arrival time is observable (see [0106] "At 422, the fulfillment of one or more segments of the route is facilitated. For example, for each segment to be serviced by the primary transportation service, backend server 302 may navigate a driver to pick up the subscriber at the pickup location for the segment and transport the driver to the destination location for the segment" for generating navigation information for a driver for a user-selected route. See steps 410-416 for the route being selected from a group of routes that meet the absolute constraint of estimated arrival time at the destination)
and an optimal dispatch unit configured to: (see Processor 308 is also the "optimal dispatch unit")
generate a dispatch for a MOD vehicle based on the dispatch-related information (see [0068] and [0070] for the selecting and dispatching of a driver. Also see [0106] "At 422, the fulfillment of one or more segments of the route is facilitated. For example, for each segment to be serviced by the primary transportation service, backend server 302 may navigate a driver to pick up the subscriber at the pickup location for the segment and transport the driver to the destination location for the segment")
and during operation of the MOD vehicle, dynamically modify at least one of a dispatch timing, a dispatch route, or a vehicle assignment by performing a re-dispatch when it is determined that the arrival time is no longer observable (see [0095] "During the servicing of the transportation request, backend server 302 may monitor conditions associated with the transportation request at suitable intervals (e.g., periodic) and update any suitable information presented to the drivers and/or passenger, such as expected pickup and drop-off times for each segment, an expected destination arrival time, an expected total cost of the trip or one or more segments, remaining travel time, or other suitable information" and [0096] "if the conditions indicate that a transfer from a vehicle of the primary transportation service to a vehicle of the secondary transportation service has been or is likely to be missed, the route may be reconfigured to select an alternative route and the appropriate parties are notified of such. The constraints may also be taken into account in selecting the reconfigured route. As one example, if the first segment of the transportation request is serviced by a car of the primary transportation service and the second segment of the transportation request is serviced by a bus and a determination is made that a bus has already driven past the pickup location of the second segment (or will drive past the pickup location of the second segment before the car can arrive at the pickup location of the second segment), the driver of the car may be rerouted to a different bus stop for that particular bus (or another bus) at which a transfer can be made" for dynamically modifying the dispatch route of a MOD vehicle during operation of the vehicle to service the request. The dynamic modification takes into account the absolute constraint of a desired arrival time and is made when it is determined that the in-progress route no longer satisfies the constraint because a connection in the route will be missed)
wherein the MOD vehicle is operated according to the modified dispatch timing, dispatch route, or vehicle assignment resulting from the re-dispatch (see [0096] "if the conditions indicate that a transfer from a vehicle of the primary transportation service to a vehicle of the secondary transportation service has been or is likely to be missed, the route may be reconfigured to select an alternative route and the appropriate parties are notified of such. The constraints may also be taken into account in selecting the reconfigured route. As one example, if the first segment of the transportation request is serviced by a car of the primary transportation service and the second segment of the transportation request is serviced by a bus and a determination is made that a bus has already driven past the pickup location of the second segment (or will drive past the pickup location of the second segment before the car can arrive at the pickup location of the second segment), the driver of the car may be rerouted to a different bus stop for that particular bus (or another bus) at which a transfer can be made" for the MOD vehicle being operated according to the modified route from the re-dispatch)
Regarding claim 2, Marueli teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Marueli further teaches:
wherein the MOD system further includes a multiple transportation linkage unit, and the multiple transportation linkage unit includes an optimal stopover point creation unit for adding a transfer linkage stopover point for transfer to the linkage transportation means at the departure point and destination point (see [0086] "Examples of optimization constraints include preferences for... minimum number of transfers, and a minimum waiting time at transfers", [0103] "the subscriber may specify, in association with a transportation request for travel from the pickup location to the destination location, that the subscriber would like to ride a particular transportation vehicle (e.g., a particular bus or train) associated with a secondary transportation service. If the subscriber has explicitly specified one or more segments of the route, then at 406, one or more segments of the route are set based on the segment(s) specified by the subscriber", and [0074] " Any segment may be serviced by any of the transportation services...The segments of a route may be serviced by the transportation services in any suitable order. For example, the primary transportation service may service the first segment of a route and a secondary transportation service may service the second segment of a route or vice versa" for adding linkage stopover points based on user specification and optimization constraints regarding transfers. As [0074] indicates, the transfers to the secondary transport modes can occur at the beginning and/or end of the route)
Regarding claim 4, Marueli teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Marueli further teaches:
wherein the MOD system further includes a multiple transportation means linkage unit, the multiple transportation means linkage unit dispatches buses according to the arrival time of the transfer stopover of the MOD vehicle based on the departure time of the linked transportation means or according to the departure time of the MOD vehicle based on the arrival time of the linked transportation means (see [0096] "if the first segment of the transportation request is serviced by a car of the primary transportation service and the second segment of the transportation request is serviced by a bus and a determination is made that a bus has already driven past the pickup location of the second segment (or will drive past the pickup location of the second segment before the car can arrive at the pickup location of the second segment), the driver of the car may be rerouted to a different bus stop for that particular bus (or another bus) at which a transfer can be made" for dispatching the primary service to a different transfer location based on the arrival time of the primary service being after the departure time of the linked bus service. See [0100] "when the primary transportation service is to service a next segment of the route, the backend server 302 monitors the current location of the passenger (e.g., via GPS) and calculates an expected time remaining until the passenger will arrive at the destination location of the current segment (i.e., the transfer location)...the backend server 302 will select a time to notify the driver that will result in the driver arriving simultaneously with (or slightly before) the passenger at the transfer location" for dispatching a driver of the primary service according to the arrival time of the passenger riding the linked transportation service)
Regarding claim 5, Marueli teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Marueli further teaches:
wherein the MOD system further includes a multiple transportation means linkage unit, and the multiple transportation means linkage unit includes an optimal transfer means calculation unit for recommending a linked transportation means according to the user's preferred travel condition (see [0081] "backend server 302 may determine from previous routes...that the passenger has a preference for...certain type of transportation vehicle or an actual transportation vehicle (e.g., a train on the green line that departs a particular location at 8:00 AM)" and [0084]-[0086] for user preferences/constraints on the linked transportation means. See [0090] for generated routes with secondary transportation services based on the absolute constraints and user preferences)
Regarding claim 6, Marueli teaches all of the limitations of claim 5 above. Marueli further teaches:
wherein the user's preferred travel condition includes at least one of travel time, transfer convenience, travel convenience, in-vehicle congestion, and the amount of carbon emission reduction (see [0085] "Other examples of absolute constraints include...a maximum amount of travel time...a maximum amount of walking distance required by the route (e.g., a total maximum walking distance for the entire route or a maximum walking distance between intermediate locations of the route), a maximum number of transfers between transportation vehicles, and a maximum waiting time at transfers (e.g., at a particular transfer or in aggregate)")
Regarding claim 7, Marueli teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Marueli further teaches:
wherein the travel calculation unit recommends a linked travel schedule based on whether to guarantee punctuality, the convenience of transferring with linked transportation means, or the amount of carbon emission reduction (see [0085] "Other examples of absolute constraints include an arrival time associated with the destination location (e.g., a constraint that the route must deliver the passenger to the destination location at or before the arrival time)...a maximum amount of walking distance required by the route (e.g., a total maximum walking distance for the entire route or a maximum walking distance between intermediate locations of the route), a maximum number of transfers between transportation vehicles, and a maximum waiting time at transfers (e.g., at a particular transfer or in aggregate)" for absolute constraints on generated routes including guaranteeing punctuality and convenience of transferring. See [0086] for optimization constraints including walking distance, number of transfers)
Regarding claim 8, Marueli teaches all of the limitations of claim 7 above. Marueli further teaches:
wherein the convenience of transfer with the above linked transportation means is determined depending on the walking distance or time (see [0085] "Other examples of absolute constraints include...a maximum amount of walking distance required by the route (e.g., a total maximum walking distance for the entire route or a maximum walking distance between intermediate locations of the route)" and [0065] "Secondary transportation service data 327 may include any suitable information, such as...walking distances between automobile drop off points and locations at the terminals at which vehicles can be boarded" and [0089] for the walking time maximum preference being reflective of the convenience of transfer from rideshare drop off to secondary transport)
Regarding claim 13, Marueli teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Marueli further teaches:
wherein the mobility service unit further includes a multiple transportation means selection interface, and the travel calculation unit can recommend at least some of public transportation, metropolitan transportation, or other MOD means through the multiple transportation means selection interface (see [0092] "When one or more routes are presented to the passenger, any suitable information associated with the routes may be presented, such as an identification of which transportation service will be servicing the various segments...The presentation of the routes may be presented to the passenger in an order based on the routes' conformity to the constraints (and ranking/ordering if provided)" for presenting routes including the transportation means providing each segment of the routes, suggested in order of compliance with user preferences. See [0074] for the routes including rideshare means and public/metropolitan transport means. See [0014] "Each computing device can include at least one graphical display and user interface allowing a user to view and interact with applications and other programs of the computing device" for the selection interface)
Regarding claim 14, Marueli teaches all of the limitations of claim 13 above. Marueli further teaches:
wherein the mobility service unit includes a multiple transportation means selection interface, and the travel calculation unit recommends at least some of public transportation, metropolitan transportation, or other MOD means as a linked travel schedule through the multiple transportation means selection interface (see [0092] "When one or more routes are presented to the passenger, any suitable information associated with the routes may be presented, such as an identification of which transportation service will be servicing the various segments, a pickup location and destination location of each segment,...an estimated travel time of each segment, an estimated total travel time...an arrival time associated with the destination location of the route...any other information associated with the route or a segment thereof (e.g., any of the information described above which may be used in constraint), or any suitable combination thereof" and [0081] "backend server 302 may determine...that the passenger has a preference for routes with...a certain type of transportation vehicle or an actual transportation vehicle (e.g., a train on the green line that departs a particular location at 8:00 AM)" and [0084] for the recommendation of a multimodal route, including a public/metropolitan transport means per [0074], through presenting a linked travel schedule for the segments of the route including a particularly scheduled segment imposed as a constraint by the user. See [0014] for the selection interface)
Regarding claim 15, Marueli teaches all of the limitations of claim 14 above. Marueli further teaches:
wherein the travel calculation unit recommends the linked travel schedule in order based on at least part of whether to guarantee punctuality, the convenience of transfer or the amount of carbon emission reduction (see [0092] "When one or more routes are presented to the passenger, any suitable information associated with the routes may be presented...The presentation of the routes may be presented to the passenger in an order based on the routes' conformity to the constraints (and ranking/ordering if provided)" for presenting the routes/schedules in ranked order based on conformity to constraints. See [0085] "Other examples of absolute constraints include an arrival time associated with the destination location (e.g., a constraint that the route must deliver the passenger to the destination location at or before the arrival time)...a maximum amount of walking distance required by the route (e.g., a total maximum walking distance for the entire route or a maximum walking distance between intermediate locations of the route), a maximum number of transfers between transportation vehicles, and a maximum waiting time at transfers (e.g., at a particular transfer or in aggregate)" for absolute constraints on generated routes including guaranteeing punctuality and convenience of transferring. See [0086] for optimization constraints including walking distance, number of transfers)
Regarding claim 16, Marueli teaches all of the limitations of claim 15 above. Marueli further teaches:
wherein the convenience of transfer may include walking travel distance or time, wheelchair accessibility or walkability (see [0085] "Other examples of absolute constraints include...a maximum amount of walking distance required by the route (e.g., a total maximum walking distance for the entire route or a maximum walking distance between intermediate locations of the route)" and [0065] "Secondary transportation service data 327 may include any suitable information, such as...walking distances between automobile drop off points and locations at the terminals at which vehicles can be boarded" and [0089] for the walking time maximum preference being reflective of the convenience of transfer from rideshare drop off to secondary transport)
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marueli in view of Lee et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2013/0085665, hereafter known as Lee).
Regarding claim 3, Marueli teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Marueli further teaches in [0065] "Secondary transportation service data 327 may include any suitable information, such as...schedules for particular transport vehicles used by the other transport services (e.g., the schedules may indicate the times at which a particular transportation vehicle is scheduled to stop at any number of terminals)" and in [0094] that the time at which a user in a user will at a stopover point is in time for a user to make a connection to the next transportation vehicle. However, while Marueli implies calculating the arrival time at a stopover point of a route, Marueli does not explicitly teach calculating the detour or stopover arrival time for stopover point of the MOD bus based on the arrival time and waiting time of the linked transportation means and the arrival time at the destination during detouring or stopover of the transfer linkage stopover point. Lee teaches:
wherein the MOD system further includes a multiple transportation means linkage unit, wherein the multiple transportation means linkage unit may include an optimal arrival time calculation unit based on a transfer means schedule for calculating the detour or stopover arrival time for stopover point of the MOD vehicle based on the arrival time and waiting time of the linked transportation means and the arrival time at the destination during detouring or stopover of the transfer linkage stopover point (see [0018] "the calculating module 15 estimates that the user should arrive at the destination for the appointment at 17:50 according to the time of the appointment and the period of time for arriving in advance. At the second step, the calculating module 15 estimates that the user should arrive at the station D at 17:39 based on the time when the user should arrive at the destination and the period of time likely required from the station D to the destination. At the third step, the calculating module 15 makes calculations based on the bus leaving from the stop or station C at 17:19 according to the time when the user arrives at the stop or station D and how long the bus will take to arrive at the stop or station D from the stop or station C. At the fourth step, the calculating module 15 estimates that the user should arrive at the stop or station C at 17:15 according to the time when the bus leaves from the stop or station C. At the fifth step, the calculating module 15 estimates that the user should arrive at the stop or station B at 17:09 according to the time of the user arriving at the stop or station C and the period taken for the user to arrive at the stop or station C from the stop or station B on foot. At the sixth step, the calculating module 15 makes calculations based on the subway leaving from the station A at 17:01 according to the arrival time of the user at the station B and the journey time between the station A and the station B. At the seventh step, the calculating module 15 calculates that the user should arrive at the station A at 16:58 according to the departure time of the subway from the station A" for calculating stopover arrival times based on bus and subway schedules for the secondary transportation services to meet n needed arrival time at the destination. In combination with Marueli, the schedules including waiting times at the stations of the linked transportation means are used to determine the station arrival times of the user)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of determining stopover point arrival times based on the linked transportation means schedules of Lee to system of Marueli would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Lee to the teaching of Marueli would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such determining stopover point arrival times based on the linked transportation means schedules. Further, applying determining stopover point arrival times based on the linked transportation means schedules to Marueli would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more efficient route planning to ensure that a user arrives at their final destination by a required arrival time. Specifically, as Marueli teaches that an absolute constraint on the multimodal route is a final destination arrival time, the calculation of stopover point arrival times necessary to adhere to the final arrival time constraint of Lee allows the combined system to more accurately determine routes to suggest to a user by working backwards from the necessary arrival time through the legs of the route to get back to the user departure location.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marueli in view of Beaurepaire et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2020/0167702, hereafter known as Beaurepaire) and Zhong et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2018/0350237, hereafter known as Zhong).
Regarding claim 9, Marueli teaches all of the limitations of claim 7 above. Marueli further teaches:
wherein whether to guarantee the punctuality is determined by whether the probability calculated (see [0094] "During the selection of routes, the backend server 302 may determine the degree of probability that a passenger may safely make a transfer from one transportation vehicle to another transportation vehicle and disregard routes that have an unacceptably high probability that the passenger will miss the connection. In particular embodiments, during such determinations, the backend server 302 may factor in any time that may be associated with the transfer, such as a time for walking from a drop-off point to a pickup location for the next vehicle" for determining the probability that a user would make a connection to linked transport based on a walking time from rideshare drop off to the pickup location for the linked transport and only considering routes that have low probability of a missed connection (high on-time probability). See [0085] for an absolute constraint of a route being that the user arrives at the destination by a required time and [0065] for using secondary transport information including the scheduled times that secondary transport means are to be stopped at stations/terminals to construct and evaluate routes)
While Marueli teaches the probability that a user will make their connection to a linked transportation means of a route that satisfies the arrival time at the final destination must be at an acceptable level, Marueli does not explicitly teach that the probability of punctuality must be greater than a reference probability nor that the probability value itself is calculated based on a probability density function. Beaurepaire teaches determining that a probability that a user will make a connection to another transport vehicle is greater than a threshold probability of making a connection to determine that a route is acceptable (see [0076]-[0077] "when the probability that the user will reach the vehicle to travel the segment before an end of the expiration period meets or exceeds a threshold value (e.g., 75%), the processing module 207 continues monitoring the expiration period of the vehicle reservation and the user location as well as calculating the probability that the user will reach the vehicle before the end of the expiration period...when the probability that the user will reach the vehicle to travel the segment before an end of the expiration period gets below the threshold value, the processing module 207 generates at least one route option, such as an extension the vehicle reservation, a creation of another vehicle reservation for another vehicle, etc., to minimize the cost function to travel to the user destination" for a threshold reference probability that the user will make their connection to a next vehicle segment, above which a route is allowed to proceed and below which a route is altered. In combination with Marueli, any route with greater than a 75% chance of the user making a connection that meets the arrival time constraint is allowed to proceed and be monitored, while routes that have less than 75% chance of a user making the connection are altered or changed)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of establishing a threshold on time arrival probability below which a transportation route is to no longer be considered of Beaurepaire to the system of Marueli would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Beaurepaire to the teaching of Marueli would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such establishing a threshold on time arrival probability below which a transportation route is to no longer be considered. Further, applying establishing a threshold on time arrival probability below which a transportation route is to no longer be considered to Marueli would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more predictable inclusion and exclusion of potential routes to be suggested to the user. Although Marueli states that any routes having “an unacceptably high” probability that a user will miss a connection will be excluded, incorporating the threshold probability of having at least a 75% chance a connection can be made to allow a route to proceed into the system would allow the combined system to function more predictably. By having a threshold probability number, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that any ambiguity over what constitutes “unacceptably high” can be avoided with a clear threshold demarcating what missed connection risk is acceptable and what is not.
Beaurepaire further teaches that the probability that a user makes their connection falls within a discrete set of values in [0075]. However, the combination of Marueli and Beaurepaire does not explicitly teach that the probability of a user boarding a linked transport means is calculated based on a probability density function. Zhong teaches calculating the time a leg of transportation will take using a probability density function (see Figs. 3a and 3b and [0055] "The probability density function of the travel time rate of the road section under each operation state and each running state and the occurrence probability of each Markov path are calculated; and then the total path travel time under each operation state can be calculated according to the constructed model, as shown in FIG. 4 and FIG. 5. It can be seen from the figure that: in the state of no passenger, the position of the peak of the distribution curve of the probability density function is quite different from the position of the peak in the state of passenger service" for a probability density function representing the travel time for a travel path. In combination with Marueli and Beaurepaire, the probability density function can be applied in place of the discrete probability calculations of Beaurepaire to determine the chance that the user will arrive at a stopover point (i.e. complete a leg of transportation) in time for a connection. In other words, the 75 quantile time of the distribution is used as the reference for determining whether to change the route or not)
Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. That is in the substitution of calculating probability based on a probability density function of an arrival time at a stopover point of Zhong for the calculation of probability matrix of the combination of Marueli and Beaurepaire in Beaurepaire [0075]-[0076].
Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marueli in view of Baig (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2021/0404832, hereafter known as Baig).
Regarding claim 10, Marueli teaches all of the limitations of claim 7 above. Marueli further teaches tracking the history of user travel in [0078] and [0080]-[0081]. However, Marueli does not explicitly teach recommending a linked travel schedule based on the amount of carbon emissions reduction calculated based on the difference between the amount of carbon emissions of the secondary transportation means and the amount of carbon emissions of a passenger vehicle. Baig teaches:
wherein the amount of carbon emission reduction is calculated based on the difference between the amount of carbon emission of transfer means compared to the amount of the carbon emission of passenger vehicles (see [0017] "the insight generation system can determine that a particular user is primarily interested in reducing the carbon emissions produced while traveling. The insight generation system can calculate the amount of carbon produced by the user on the actual route and compare it to a calculated amount of carbon produced by the user while following the recommended route. If the difference between the carbon produced in the actual route and the estimated amount of carbon produced in the recommended route exceeds a difference threshold, the insight generation system can transmit a message to a computing device associated with a user for display. The message can include information detailing the amount of carbon production reduction that would occur as a result of following the recommended route...if the user travels a specific route using an automobile on their daily commute and the insight generation system determines that traveling by a public transportation system would result in significant carbon emission savings, the insight generation system can notify the user that following a recommended route generated by the navigation system will result in significant saving with respect to carbon emission" for determining a user preference for reducing carbon emissions and calculating a recommended route based on emission savings of public transit compared to travel by automobile)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the recommendation of routes based on the difference in carbon emissions of the route using public transportation compared to the route using a passenger vehicle of Baig into the system of Marueli. Marueli teaches, as discussed above, the generation and suggestion of multimodal routes based on a variety of user preferences. As Baig states in [0062] “some users are more interested in reducing their carbon footprint than in saving extra time” and [0017] “the insight generation system can determine that a particular user is primarily interested in reducing the carbon emissions produced while traveling”. By adding carbon footprint reduction as a user preference to the variety of user preferences in Marueli and suggesting a route based on carbon footprint reduction, the combined system would satisfy the desires of users who want to reduce their carbon footprints better than the system of Marueli alone. Accordingly, the combined system would be able to cater to a wider user base than Marueli alone.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marueli in view of Baig and Ang et al. (“Quantitative of Real-Driving Emission Factor Based on Vehicle Specific Power from A Selected Diesel Truck in Malaysia”, published October 2022, hereafter known as Ang).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Marueli and Baig teaches all of the limitations of claim 10 above. However, the combination of Marueli and Baig does not explicitly teach calculating the amount of carbon emissions based on the emission coefficient calculated per the equation of claim 11. Ang teaches:
wherein the amount of carbon emission is calculated based on the emission coefficient calculated by Equation 1 below:(Equation 1) Emission coefficient (y)=A * V^(B) (where A and B are constants according to transportation means, and V is speed) (see Page 3 Section 2.4 and Equations (2) and (3), particularly "distance-based emission factors (EFgas,d) using Equations 2 and 3. The term ugas used can be referred to molar mass ratio of exhaust gas of B7 Diesel, which CO = 0.966, HC = 0.482, and CO2 = 1.517 [21]. Other than that, cgas referred to concentration of exhaust gas component (ppm or vol%), Qgas referred to exhaust gas flow rate (kg/s), v referred to instantaneous vehicle speed (m/s)" and "EFgas,d = (qgas . 3600 ) ⁄ v" Examiner notes that qgas comprises constants based on the particular gas emission being considered, and Examiner notes that dividing the constant by the vehicle velocity is equivalent to raising the velocity to the power of -1)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include using the emission factor calculation equations as taught by Ang in the combination of Marueli and Baig, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Particularly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the carbon footprint calculations of Baig would need to be performed using some kind of mathematical formula or equation to produce the carbon footprint measurements required as part of Baig’s disclosure. One of ordinary skill in the art would have further recognized that the emission factor calculations used in Ang as part of determining the emissions of vehicles would have been usable to calculate the carbon emissions of the rideshare vehicles and secondary transportation means like buses in Marueli. Therefore, the use of the equations in Ang would still be used to determine emission factors for vehicles in the combination, and the combination would have had predictable results in the calculation of the carbon footprints of the multimodal routes compared to the carbon footprints of passenger vehicle routes.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marueli in view of Baig and Lin et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0335520, hereafter known as Lin).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Marueli and Baig teaches all of the limitations of claim 10 above. While the combination of Marueli and Baig teaches determining the amount of carbon emissions from a secondary transfer means including public transportation, the combination of Marueli and Baig does not explicitly teach calculating the emissions of public transportation by dividing the total amount of carbon emission based on the transit time of the transfer section by the average number of passengers in the transfer section. Lin teaches:
wherein if the transfer means is a MOD vehicle, bus, or subway, the amount of carbon emission of the transfer means is calculated by dividing the total amount of carbon emission based on the transit time of the transfer section by the average number of passengers in the transfer section (see [0044] "the segmental standard emission amount of the segment between 1.5 km and 4.5 km is calculated by dividing the carbon emission of a bus by an average number of passengers on the bus, e.g., 20" and [0056] " the plurality of predefined carbon-emission coefficients, which correspond respectively to different types of traveling means and which are stored in the storage medium 13, each include multiple values that correspond respectively to different speeds. In sub-step S23, the processor 14 calculates an average speed of the portable electronic device 1 while traveling through the segment based on the locations determined by the satellite navigation module 12 while the portable electronic device 1 traveled through the segment, and multiplies the traveled distance determined in sub-step S22 by a target value of the predefined carbon-emission coefficient which corresponds to the type of traveling means obtained in sub-step S21 to obtain the segmental carbon emission amount, wherein the target value is one of the multiple values that corresponds to the average speed of the portable electronic device 1" for the amount of carbon emission of the secondary transport/bus is calculated based on the distance and average speed of the transit segment, and divided by the average number of passengers on the bus)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of determining the carbon emissions of a user riding public transit by dividing the carbon emissions of the vehicle as a whole by the number of passengers on the vehicle of Lin to the combination of Marueli and Baig would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Lin to the teaching of the combination of Marueli and Baig would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such determining the carbon emissions of a user riding public transit by dividing the carbon emissions of the vehicle as a whole by the number of passengers on the vehicle. Further, applying determining the carbon emissions of a user riding public transit by dividing the carbon emissions of the vehicle as a whole by the number of passengers on the vehicle to the combination of Marueli and Baig would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more accurate emissions calculation for the linked transportation segment(s) of a multimodal route. Particularly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that a more crowded bus/public transit vehicle is more carbon efficient on a per-person basis than a less crowded vehicle, as there are more people being served by a vehicle with a relatively stable carbon emission rate. By splitting up the carbon emissions by person on the public transit means, the combined system would more fairly split up the carbon footprint of the segment among the riders of the public transit means. Furthermore, by recognizing the carbon efficiencies of more crowded public transit when calculating carbon footprints, the combined system would also likely promote more carbon efficient usage of the public transportation means.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Scofield et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2013/0046456) teaches assessing intermodal travel options for a passenger based on mass transit schedules
Kobori et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2020/0279195) teaches considering routes including transfers between on-demand transportation vehicles and regularly running vehicles and eliminating routes that do not meet an arrival time
Gibson et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2013/0262222) teaches generating multimodal public transportation routes based on user preferences regarding walking segments and carbon footprints
Tomiyama et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2018/0150774) teaches evaluating the ease of transfer based on walking distance
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL C MORONEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4403. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5:30.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at (571) 270-3445. 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.
/M.C.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/JESSICA LEMIEUX/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights