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 .
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants’ definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim recites “setting, as the transportation means change location, a road shoulder where the precedingly used vehicle can stop existing within a range travelable by the precedingly used vehicle” in which the examiner recommends a comma be placed after the word “stop”. This resolves the ambiguity in which the claim may be read to claim “a road shoulder where the precedingly used vehicle can stop existing”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The claim states that “when it is impossible to extract the maintenance location within a range travelable by the precedingly used vehicle” to set as an option for the transportation change location “a facility existing within a range travelable by the precedingly used vehicle, stored by the database, and where the maintenance can be performed”. This is self-contradictory, to state that if there is no maintenance facility within travelable range to set the location as a maintenance facility within travelable rang- the claim just stated that this determination takes place when there is no maintenance facility in range.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 6, and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beaurepaire (US 20220169287), herein after referred to as Beaurepaire.
Regarding Claim 1, Beaurepaire discloses:
determining whether or not a component included in a precedingly used vehicle, the precedingly used vehicle being an autonomous driving vehicle, has deteriorated performance; (see at least [0089] “ the evaluation module 303 can determine a status (e.g., normal, malfunctioning, damaged, etc.) of one or more sensors, one or more systems, or a combination thereof of a vehicle. ”)
detecting, with respect to the component determined to have deteriorated performance, a detail of performance deterioration; (see at least [0090] “ In order to properly evaluate whether it is safe for the vehicle to drive with malfunction(s) or after an accident, the evaluation module 303 can proceed to an assessment of all the vehicle's sensors, especially the critical ones. While each sensor can conduct specific post-accident tests and report its status individually, the evaluation module 303 can carry out additional tests and ways to report possible issues.”)
changing, in accordance with the extracted maintenance location, a travel route from a present location of the precedingly used vehicle to a destination to a travel route from the present location to the maintenance location; (see at least [0103] “the evaluation module 303 can determine at recommended action for the vehicle based on the probability, the degraded state, or a combination thereof. By way of examples, the recommended action includes at least one of: ... (2) continuing the operation of the vehicle without passengers until the vehicle reaches a next location or destination; and (3) continuing the operation of the vehicle with at least one passenger until the vehicle reaches the next location or destination. For instance, the next location or destination is a vehicle repair facility.”)
and setting ... a transportation means change location, the transportation means change location being a point at which a user on board the precedingly used vehicle alights from the precedingly used vehicle and changes a transportation means to another transportation means. (see at least [0104] “the general context may include safer for the vehicle passengers to keep riding in a malfunctioning/damaged vehicle or to wait for a replacement vehicle along the highway? When the answer is yes, then the vehicle should take the passengers to the next safe place (e.g., at the next highway exit) and leave them there. In the meantime, the request for a new vehicle will secure a safe vehicle already waiting for them at the next highway exit.”)
Beaurepaire does not explicitly disclose:
extracting, in accordance with the detected detail, a maintenance location, the maintenance location being a point at which a facility where maintenance of the component determined to have deteriorated performance can be performed exists;
and setting, on the changed travel route, a transportation means change location,
However, to a person having ordinary skill, Beaurepaire makes obvious:
extracting, in accordance with the detected detail, a maintenance location, the maintenance location being a point at which a facility where maintenance of the component determined to have deteriorated performance can be performed exists; (see at least [0080] “one or more stored map features (e.g., a vehicle repair shop),” [0110] “By way of examples, the degraded operational state may be... continue driving without passenger(s) until a repair facility,”)
Examiner considers that to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of thew applicant’s claimed invention, that while the Beaurepaire reference does not discuss the specifics of how the data is processed from storage to be used to find a maintenance facility, it would be obvious that when the system drives to a repair shop it has “extracted” that information otherwise it would no know where to go. This is further bolstered by the lack of any tracking that an external system directs the vehicle to a certain repair shop, and the fact that the locations of the repair shops are stored in a map layer saved to the vehicle as cited in paragraph [0080] above.
and setting, on the changed travel route, a transportation means change location, (see at least [0103] “By way of examples, the recommended action includes at least one of: (1) stopping an operation of the vehicle; (2) continuing the operation of the vehicle without passengers until the vehicle reaches a next location or destination; and (3) continuing the operation of the vehicle with at least one passenger until the vehicle reaches the next location or destination. For instance, the next location or destination is a vehicle repair facility.”)
While the Beaurepaire reference does not explicitly disclose setting a transportation means change location on the changed travel route specifically, this would be an obvious modification for a person having ordinary skill in her art at the time of the applicant’s claimed invention. The system does disclose both traveling to the maintenance facility in [0103] and setting a transportation means change location either there at the vehicle or in a location ahead in paragraph [0104], and given these both being discloses one paragraph apart it would be an obvious modification on “(2) continuing the operation of the vehicle without passengers until the vehicle reaches a next location or destination;” to include performing the transportation means change on the way to the destination that is the repair shop, as Beaurepaire already discloses driving to the maintenance facility without the passengers, as well as facilitating passenger transfer to a new transportation means at a transportation means change location that is either the current location or a further ahead location.
Regarding Claim 6, modified Beaurepaire discloses the limitations of Claim 1, and Beaurepaire further discloses:
wherein the transportation means change location is a point at which a user on board the precedingly used vehicle makes a connection from the precedingly used vehicle to one of a connection vehicle, the connection vehicle being a manual driving vehicle or another autonomous driving vehicle, a public transportation, and a bicycle used as a rental bicycle. (see at least [0104] “the general context may include safer for the vehicle passengers to keep riding in a malfunctioning/damaged vehicle or to wait for a replacement vehicle along the highway? When the answer is yes, then the vehicle should take the passengers to the next safe place (e.g., at the next highway exit) and leave them there. In the meantime, the request for a new vehicle will secure a safe vehicle already waiting for them at the next highway exit.”)
Regarding Claim 10, modified Beaurepaire discloses the limitations of Claim 1, and Beaurepaire further discloses:
wherein when it is impossible to detect the detail of performance deterioration, the computer causes an external control facility to perform processing including detecting the detail of performance deterioration. (see at least [0090] “For example, the evaluation module 303 can process the V2X communication information 205 from nearby vehicles, drones, and/or traffic cameras, to inspect the vehicle 101 and report to the vehicle 101, the system 100, the central server, and/or the cloud the results of its assessment. Such report may identify issues that the vehicle 101 itself might not be able to detect.”)
Regarding Claim 11, modified Beaurepaire discloses the limitations of Claim 1, and Beaurepaire further discloses:
wherein a component targeted in determination of whether or not the component has deteriorated performance is a sensor configured to detect a surrounding environment of the precedingly used vehicle. (see at least [0114] “ the evaluation module 303 can determine a sensor range of one or more sensors of the vehicle based on the degraded operational state,”)
Regarding Claim 12, Beaurepaire discloses:
determining whether or not a component included in a precedingly used vehicle, the precedingly used vehicle being an autonomous driving vehicle, has deteriorated performance; (see at least [0089] “ the evaluation module 303 can determine a status (e.g., normal, malfunctioning, damaged, etc.) of one or more sensors, one or more systems, or a combination thereof of a vehicle. ”)
detecting, with respect to the component determined to have deteriorated performance, a detail of performance deterioration; (see at least [0090] “ In order to properly evaluate whether it is safe for the vehicle to drive with malfunction(s) or after an accident, the evaluation module 303 can proceed to an assessment of all the vehicle's sensors, especially the critical ones. While each sensor can conduct specific post-accident tests and report its status individually, the evaluation module 303 can carry out additional tests and ways to report possible issues.”)
changing, in accordance with the extracted maintenance location, a travel route from a present location of the precedingly used vehicle to a destination to a travel route from the present location to the maintenance location; (see at least [0103] “the evaluation module 303 can determine at recommended action for the vehicle based on the probability, the degraded state, or a combination thereof. By way of examples, the recommended action includes at least one of: ... (2) continuing the operation of the vehicle without passengers until the vehicle reaches a next location or destination; and (3) continuing the operation of the vehicle with at least one passenger until the vehicle reaches the next location or destination. For instance, the next location or destination is a vehicle repair facility.”)
and setting ... a transportation means change location, the transportation means change location being a point at which a user on board the precedingly used vehicle alights from the precedingly used vehicle and changes a transportation means to another transportation means. (see at least [0104] “the general context may include safer for the vehicle passengers to keep riding in a malfunctioning/damaged vehicle or to wait for a replacement vehicle along the highway? When the answer is yes, then the vehicle should take the passengers to the next safe place (e.g., at the next highway exit) and leave them there. In the meantime, the request for a new vehicle will secure a safe vehicle already waiting for them at the next highway exit.”)
Beaurepaire does not explicitly disclose:
extracting, in accordance with the detected detail, a maintenance location, the maintenance location being a point at which a facility where maintenance of the component determined to have deteriorated performance can be performed exists;
and setting, on the changed travel route, a transportation means change location,
However, to a person having ordinary skill, Beaurepaire makes obvious:
extracting, in accordance with the detected detail, a maintenance location, the maintenance location being a point at which a facility where maintenance of the component determined to have deteriorated performance can be performed exists; (see at least [0080] “one or more stored map features (e.g., a vehicle repair shop),” [0110] “By way of examples, the degraded operational state may be... continue driving without passenger(s) until a repair facility,”)
Examiner considers that to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of thew applicant’s claimed invention, that while the Beaurepaire reference does not discuss the specifics of how the data is processed from storage to be used to find a maintenance facility, it would be obvious that when the system drives to a repair shop it has “extracted” that information otherwise it would no know where to go. This is further bolstered by the lack of any teaching that an external system directs the vehicle to a certain repair shop, and the fact that the locations of the repair shops are stored in a map layer saved to the vehicle as cited in paragraph [0080] above.
and setting, on the changed travel route, a transportation means change location, (see at least [0103] “By way of examples, the recommended action includes at least one of: (1) stopping an operation of the vehicle; (2) continuing the operation of the vehicle without passengers until the vehicle reaches a next location or destination; and (3) continuing the operation of the vehicle with at least one passenger until the vehicle reaches the next location or destination. For instance, the next location or destination is a vehicle repair facility.”)
While the Beaurepaire reference does not explicitly disclose setting a transportation means change location on the changed travel route specifically, this would be an obvious modification for a person having ordinary skill in her art at the time of the applicant’s claimed invention. The system does disclose both traveling to the maintenance facility in [0103] and setting a transportation means change location either there at the vehicle or in a location ahead in paragraph [0104], and given these both being discloses one paragraph apart it would be an obvious modification on “(2) continuing the operation of the vehicle without passengers until the vehicle reaches a next location or destination;” to include performing the transportation means change on the way to the destination that is the repair shop, as Beaurepaire already discloses driving to the maintenance facility without the passengers, as well as facilitating passenger transfer to a new transportation means at a transportation means change location that is either the current location or a further ahead location.
Regarding Claim 13, Beaurepaire discloses:
determine whether or not a component included in a precedingly used vehicle, the precedingly used vehicle being an autonomous driving vehicle, has deteriorated performance; (see at least [0089] “ the evaluation module 303 can determine a status (e.g., normal, malfunctioning, damaged, etc.) of one or more sensors, one or more systems, or a combination thereof of a vehicle. ”)
and detecting a detail of performance deterioration with respect to the component determined to have deteriorated; (see at least [0090] “ In order to properly evaluate whether it is safe for the vehicle to drive with malfunction(s) or after an accident, the evaluation module 303 can proceed to an assessment of all the vehicle's sensors, especially the critical ones. While each sensor can conduct specific post-accident tests and report its status individually, the evaluation module 303 can carry out additional tests and ways to report possible issues.”)
the vehicle route planning system comprising a control device that receives the detected detail, wherein the control device performs processing including: (see at least [0167] “Computer system 1000 is programmed (e.g., via computer program code or instructions) to evaluate, report, and handle an autonomous vehicle involving an accident and/or malfunction ”)
changing, in accordance with the extracted maintenance location, a travel route from a present location of the precedingly used vehicle to a destination to a travel route from the present location to the maintenance location; (see at least [0103] “the evaluation module 303 can determine at recommended action for the vehicle based on the probability, the degraded state, or a combination thereof. By way of examples, the recommended action includes at least one of: ... (2) continuing the operation of the vehicle without passengers until the vehicle reaches a next location or destination; and (3) continuing the operation of the vehicle with at least one passenger until the vehicle reaches the next location or destination. For instance, the next location or destination is a vehicle repair facility.”)
and setting ... a transportation means change location, the transportation means change location being a point at which a user on board the precedingly used vehicle alights from the precedingly used vehicle and changes a transportation means to another transportation means. (see at least [0104] “the general context may include safer for the vehicle passengers to keep riding in a malfunctioning/damaged vehicle or to wait for a replacement vehicle along the highway? When the answer is yes, then the vehicle should take the passengers to the next safe place (e.g., at the next highway exit) and leave them there. In the meantime, the request for a new vehicle will secure a safe vehicle already waiting for them at the next highway exit.”)
Beaurepaire does not explicitly disclose:
extracting, in accordance with the detected detail, a maintenance location, the maintenance location being a point at which a facility where maintenance of the component determined to have deteriorated performance can be performed exists;
and setting, on the changed travel route, a transportation means change location,
However, to a person having ordinary skill, Beaurepaire makes obvious:
extracting, in accordance with the detected detail, a maintenance location, the maintenance location being a point at which a facility where maintenance of the component determined to have deteriorated performance can be performed exists; (see at least [0080] “one or more stored map features (e.g., a vehicle repair shop),” [0110] “By way of examples, the degraded operational state may be... continue driving without passenger(s) until a repair facility,”)
Examiner considers that to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of thew applicant’s claimed invention, that while the Beaurepaire reference does not discuss the specifics of how the data is processed from storage to be used to find a maintenance facility, it would be obvious that when the system drives to a repair shop it has “extracted” that information otherwise it would no know where to go. This is further bolstered by the lack of any teaching that an external system directs the vehicle to a certain repair shop, and the fact that the locations of the repair shops are stored in a map layer saved to the vehicle as cited in paragraph [0080] above.
and setting, on the changed travel route, a transportation means change location, (see at least [0103] “By way of examples, the recommended action includes at least one of: (1) stopping an operation of the vehicle; (2) continuing the operation of the vehicle without passengers until the vehicle reaches a next location or destination; and (3) continuing the operation of the vehicle with at least one passenger until the vehicle reaches the next location or destination. For instance, the next location or destination is a vehicle repair facility.”)
While the Beaurepaire reference does not explicitly disclose setting a transportation means change location on the changed travel route specifically, this would be an obvious modification for a person having ordinary skill in her art at the time of the applicant’s claimed invention. The system does disclose both traveling to the maintenance facility in [0103] and setting a transportation means change location either there at the vehicle or in a location ahead in paragraph [0104], and given these both being discloses one paragraph apart it would be an obvious modification on “(2) continuing the operation of the vehicle without passengers until the vehicle reaches a next location or destination;” to include performing the transportation means change on the way to the destination that is the repair shop, as Beaurepaire already discloses driving to the maintenance facility without the passengers, as well as facilitating passenger transfer to a new transportation means at a transportation means change location that is either the current location or a further ahead location.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beaurepaire (US 20220169287), herein after referred to as Beaurepaire, in view of Johnson (US 20210012297), herein after referred to as Johnson.
Regarding Claim 2, modified Beaurepaire discloses the limitations of Claim 1, however Beaurepaire does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the computer performs processing including extracting the maintenance location with reference to a database, the database storing the detected detail of performance deterioration and the maintenance location in association with each other
In the same field of endeavor, Johnson discloses:
wherein the computer performs processing including extracting the maintenance location with reference to a database, the database storing the detected detail of performance deterioration and the maintenance location in association with each other. (see at least [0044] “ the system 100 may identify one or more maintenance facilities that are capable of performing the one or more maintenance tasks. The maintenance facilities capable of performing the tasks may be determined by accessing a database that indicates the particular task to be performed and identifies the facilities listed as capable of performing the task.”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle control field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Beaurepaire to extract the maintenance location with reference to a database, the database storing the detected detail of performance deterioration and the maintenance location in association with each other, as taught by Johnson to identify facilities capable of performing the current needed maintenance [0044].
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beaurepaire (US 20220169287), herein after referred to as Beaurepaire, in view of Johnson (US 20210012297), herein after referred to as Johnson, and Wang (US 20220236729), herein after referred to as Wang.
Regarding Claim 3, modified Beaurepaire discloses the limitations of Claim 2, however Beaurepaire does not explicitly disclose:
when having extracted a plurality of the maintenance locations, acquiring a degree of congestion of a facility where the maintenance can be performed, the facility existing at each of the plurality of extracted maintenance locations;
and setting the maintenance location at which the facility having the lowest acquired degree of congestion exists as the maintenance location of the travel route to be changed.
In the same field of endeavor, Johnson discloses:
when having extracted a plurality of the maintenance locations, acquiring a degree of congestion of a facility where the maintenance can be performed, the facility existing at each of the plurality of extracted maintenance locations; (see at least [0049] “For example, maintenance service 222 can take into consideration the current load at maintenance facilities 218. The total number of charging ports, for example, can be known for a given facility, as well as how many are actually available vs. used.”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle control field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Beaurepaire to acquire a degree of congestion of a facility where the maintenance can be performed, the facility existing at each of the plurality of extracted maintenance locations, as taught by Nagata to take into consideration the current load at maintenance facilities when selecting one [0049].
In the same field of endeavor, Johnson discloses:
and setting the maintenance location at which the facility having the lowest acquired degree of congestion exists as the maintenance location of the travel route to be changed. (see at least [0035] “Example selection criteria may include, but are not limited to, the capability to perform one or more maintenance items, the wait time at a particular maintenance facility,”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle control field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Beaurepaire to set the maintenance location at which the facility having the lowest acquired degree of congestion exists as the maintenance location of the travel route to be changed, as taught by Johnson to select a maintenance facility based on wait time [0035].
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beaurepaire (US 20220169287), herein after referred to as Beaurepaire, in view of Johnson (US 20210012297), herein after referred to as Johnson, and Nagata (20220319256), herein after referred to as Nagata.
Regarding Claim 4, modified Beaurepaire discloses the limitations of Claim 2, however Beaurepaire does not explicitly disclose:
calculating a distance travelable by the precedingly used vehicle including a component determined to have deteriorated performance;
and extracting, according to the calculated distance, the maintenance location within a range travelable by the precedingly used vehicle.
In the same field of endeavor, Nagata discloses:
calculating a distance travelable by the precedingly used vehicle including a component determined to have deteriorated performance; (see at least [0042] “The positional information for the repair shop may be used to determine whether the repair shop is within a travelable range of a vehicle 20 in which a failure has occurred, in a case in which the vehicle 20 has a limited travelable distance.”)(*Examiner interprets a system which determines if a shop is within travelable range of a damaged vehicle as having calculated that range in order to do so)
and extracting, according to the calculated distance, the maintenance location within a range travelable by the precedingly used vehicle. (see at least [0064] “service may be selected from among services for repairing vehicles 20 at repair shops located within ranges that the vehicles 20 can travel in the emergency driving mode.”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle control field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Nagata to calculate a distance travelable by the precedingly used vehicle including a component determined to have deteriorated performance, and extract according to the calculated distance, the maintenance location within a range travelable by the precedingly used vehicle, as taught by Nagata to select a repair shop within distance travelable by a vehicle in emergency driving mode [0064].
Regarding Claim 5, modified Beaurepaire discloses the limitations of Claim 4, and Beaurepaire further discloses:
when it is impossible to extract the maintenance location within a range travelable by the precedingly used vehicle, (see at least [0104] “By way of example, the evaluation module 303 can consider general and/or specific context/factors to decide whether the vehicle should stop or continue driving.”)
setting, as the transportation means change location, a road shoulder where the precedingly used vehicle can stop existing within a range travelable by the precedingly used vehicle or a facility existing within a range travelable by the precedingly used vehicle, stored by the database, and where the maintenance can be performed. (see at least [0104] “For instance, the general context may include safer for the vehicle passengers to keep riding in a malfunctioning/damaged vehicle or to wait for a replacement vehicle along the highway? When the answer is yes, then the vehicle should take the passengers to the next safe place (e.g., at the next highway exit) and leave them there.”) (*Examiner interprets that as a “yes” results in taking the passengers to a safe place at the next exit, a “no” results in waiting in place on the shoulder)
Claims 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beaurepaire (US 20220169287), herein after referred to as Beaurepaire, in view of Johnson (US 20210012297), herein after referred to as Johnson, and Chi (US 20200094850), herein after referred to as Chi.
Regarding Claim 7, modified Beaurepaire discloses the limitations of Claim 6, however Beaurepaire does not explicitly disclose:
when a plurality of transportation means changeable at the transportation means change location exist, setting a transportation means change location corresponding to, among the plurality of transportation means, a transportation means predicted to arrive earliest at the destination.
In the same field of endeavor, Chi discloses:
when a plurality of transportation means changeable at the transportation means change location exist, setting a transportation means change location corresponding to, among the plurality of transportation means, a transportation means predicted to arrive earliest at the destination. (see at least [0060] “ For example, a vehicle may be selected as the second vehicle when the vehicle is available for the trip, has the vehicle requirements for the trip, and is relatively close to the pullover spot 502 in comparison to other available vehicles.”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle control field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Beaurepaire to set among the plurality of transportation means, a transportation means predicted to arrive earliest at the destination, as taught by Chi to select the replacement vehicle which will arrive first to pick up the user, ergo arriving first to the destination [0060].
Regarding Claim 9, modified Beaurepaire discloses the limitations of Claim 6, however Beaurepaire does not explicitly disclose:
when the precedingly used vehicle is predicted to arrive at the transportation means change location behind the connection vehicle, setting the transportation means change location to a space in which a plurality of vehicles can stop.
In the same field of endeavor, Chi discloses:
when the precedingly used vehicle is predicted to arrive at the transportation means change location behind the connection vehicle, (see at least [Fig. 5] [0052] “the location 502 may be determined to be the pullover spot for the vehicle 100 experiencing the local failure described above with respect to block 402 because there is a first area 504 for the vehicle 100 to park that is adjacent to a second area 506 where a second vehicle may park.") FOR BOVIOUSNESS [0056] " a wait time for the second vehicle"”)
setting the transportation means change location to a space in which a plurality of vehicles can stop. (see at least [0052] “As shown in FIG. 5, the location 502 may be determined to be the pullover spot for the vehicle 100 experiencing the local failure described above with respect to block 402 because there is a first area 504 for the vehicle 100 to park that is adjacent to a second area 506 where a second vehicle may park.”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle control field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Beaurepaire to set the transportation means change location to a space in which a plurality of vehicles can stop, as taught by Chi to select a place to stop where the damaged vehicle and second vehicle can park together [0060]. The Chi reference also makes it obvious to do this “when the precedingly used vehicle is predicted to arrive at the transportation means change location behind the connection vehicle” as this reference discusses stopping in a space where a plurality of vehicles can stop based on the assumption that the precedingly used vehicle arrives first and waits for the connection vehicle. Therefore, any person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s claimed invention would find it obvious to do the same when the connecting vehicle arrives first and waits for the precedingly used vehicle.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beaurepaire (US 20220169287), herein after referred to as Beaurepaire, in view of Gu (US 20220101208, herein after referred to as Gu.
Regarding Claim 8, modified Beaurepaire discloses the limitations of Claim 6, however Beaurepaire does not explicitly disclose:
when a plurality of transportation means with which the user can make a connection at the transportation means change location exist, presenting, to the user, a time at which each of the plurality of transportation means is predicted to arrive at the destination.
In the same field of endeavor, Gu discloses:
when a plurality of transportation means with which the user can make a connection at the transportation means change location exist, presenting, to the user, a time at which each of the plurality of transportation means is predicted to arrive at the destination. (see at least [Fig 5G] [0140] “Providing the ephemeral-transportation option can further include providing the ephemeral-transportation option within a graphical user interface including an estimated time of arrival of the transportation vehicle at the drop-off location of the first requestor and a price for transporting the first requestor from the pickup location to the drop-off location”)
The above pieces of prior art are considered analogous as they both represent inventions in the vehicle control field. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Beaurepaire to present to the user a time at which each of the plurality of transportation means is predicted to arrive at the destination, as taught by Gu to provide arrival times for a plurality of transport options to the user [0140].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB D UNDERBAKKE whose telephone number is (571)272-6657. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at 571-270-3969. 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.
/JACOB DANIEL UNDERBAKKE/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/MAHMOUD S ISMAIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights