Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed on 10/14/2025, with respect to the claim interpretation (i.e. 112(f)) and 112(b) rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the claim interpretation and the rejection of the claims under 112(b) has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the amendments.
Applicant’s arguments, filed on 10/14/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of the claims under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4, 8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 4, 8, and 11 recite “the position of the service staff or the service vehicle is a position where the service staff is located after providing the service or a position where the service vehicle is located after the service”. This claim is considered indefinite because it is unclear what this claim intends to disclose about the position of the service staff or service vehicle. In other words, it is unclear how the service staff can be located after providing the service, for example. Accordingly, the claim is considered vague and ill-defined. For examination purposes, the claims are broadly interpreted in view of the teachings of the prior art cited herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The 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.
Claims 1, 4, 7, 8, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Penilla (US-20170169648-A1) in view of Sweeney (US-20180342035-A1).
Regarding claims 1, 7, and 10 Penilla discloses:
a server apparatus comprising: A first controller; and a communication interface configured to communicate with a terminal apparatus comprising a second controller configured to request a location in which a user vehicle is parked an energy source is applied ([0028]-[0032]), wherein
the first controller is configured to: select a location as the parking location ([0079]; [0085]; [0086]); and
transmit, via the communication interface to the terminal apparatus, notification data prompting a user of the terminal apparatus and the user vehicle to park the user vehicle in the selected parking location ([0023]; [0033]; [0049]; [0072]-[0077]).
However, Penilla does not explicitly state a request a service to dispatch a service staff or a service vehicle to a location in which a user vehicle is parked and supply an energy source to the user vehicle, nor selecting a location for which a difference between a first distance from a position of the user vehicle to the location and a second distance from a position of the service staff or the service vehicle to the location is equal to or less than a threshold.
On the other hand, Sweeney teaches a request a service to dispatch a service staff or a service vehicle to a location in which a user vehicle is parked and supply an energy source to the user vehicle, nor selecting a location for which a difference between a first distance from a position of the user vehicle to the location and a second distance from a position of the service staff or the service vehicle to the location is equal to or less than a threshold ([0011]-[0012]: “The matching operation can comprise identifying a set of candidate vehicles based on the user's current location—or a pick-up location indicated in the transport request—and ultimately selecting a most optimal vehicle to service the transport request. In doing so, the transport system can select a human driver that is within the closest distance or shortest ETA to the requesting user. If the requesting user is within a certain walking distance from the autonomy grid, the transport system may select an AV to service the transport request. In certain variations, the transport system can perform a cost optimization between the set of candidate vehicles to identify a lowest cost vehicle, human-driven or AV, to service the transport request. In such variations, the transport system can make the selection based on the pick-up location, an inputted drop-off location, and a projected cost to the requesting user for each of the set of candidate vehicles. Accordingly, the transport system can determine a cost savings and/or time savings for the requesting user for rendezvousing with an AV along the autonomy grid.”; [0013]).
It would have been obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the Penilla reference and include features from the Sweeney reference with a reasonable expectation of success. Considering distance closeness for fuel delivery provides a more efficient and dedicated fuel transport methodology for user vehicles requesting energy supply.
Regarding claims 4, 8, and 11, Penilla does not explicitly state the position of the service staff or the service vehicle is a position where the service staff is located after providing the service or a position where the service vehicle is located after the service.
On the other hand, Sweeney teaches the position of the service staff or the service vehicle is a position in which a service staff who is in operation should be after a service provision or a position in which a service vehicle that is in operation should be after a service provision ([0010]-[0013]: See 112(b) rejection above)
It would have been obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the Penilla reference and include features from the Sweeney reference with a reasonable expectation of success. Considering distance closeness for fuel delivery provides a more efficient and dedicated fuel transport methodology for user vehicles requesting energy supply.
Claim 6, 9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Penilla and Sweeney in further view of DeLizio (US20180202822A1).
Regarding claims 6, 9, and 12, Penilla does not explicitly state the selected parking location is a location midway between the position of the user vehicle and the position of the service staff or the service vehicle.
On the other hand, Delizio teaches the selected parking location is a location midway between the position of the user vehicle and the position of the service staff or the service vehicle ([0174]: “some embodiments can dynamically determine a rendezvous point based on factors such as ease of access, convenience related to changing vehicles, an approximate midpoint between two vehicles, a location that will take each vehicle approximately the same time to reach, or any other suitable factor”).
It would have been obvious for someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to modify the teachings of the Penilla reference and include features from the DeLizio reference with a reasonable expectation of success. Considering distance closeness for fuel delivery provides a more efficient and dedicated fuel transport methodology for user vehicles requesting energy supply.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAHIRA BAAJOUR whose telephone number is (313)446-6602. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 6:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, SCOTT BROWNE can be reached at (571) 270-0151. 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.
/S.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/SCOTT A BROWNE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666