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 1/28/2026.
Claims 1, 3-4, 10, 14-15, 17-18, and 20 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 2, 13, 19, and 21 have been canceled.
Claims 1, 3-12, 14-18, and 20 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
International Priority
The ADS filed on 9/12/2024 claims priority to JP 2023148322 (filed 9/13/2023). JP 2023148322 supports all claims as presently drafted; therefore, all claims as presently drafted are granted an effective filing date of 9/13/2023.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Claim Interpretation
Applicant argues against the 112(f) interpretations set forth in the previous Office Action, asserting that (1) “the alleged invocation…was unintentional, as Applicant’s claims were not intended to include any means-plus-function limitations,” (2) “Applicant notes that the phrase ‘means for’ was not included in the previously presented claims,” and (3) “respectfully submits that each of the terms noted by the Examiner connote structure to one of ordinary skill in the relevant arts.” Examiner disagrees with each of these contentions.
Regarding (1), Applicant’s subjective intent is irrelevant regarding the invocation of 112(f) interpretation. Rather, this occurs when merited by the claim drafting itself. Regarding (2), the lack of “means for” is not dispositive as to whether 112(f) is invoked, and indeed, the previous 112(f) interpretations themselves state that “[t]his 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because…” Regarding (3), Applicant presents no supporting evidence to illustrate a specific understood in the art structural makeup of any of the seven terms requiring interpretation under 112(f), rendering this a conclusory statement and improper argument. Further, Examiner finds this statement to be untrue, as each of the listed terms constitutes a generic placeholder (or “nonce term”) which in fact is not a term of art having generally understood structure in the relevant art. Indeed, given the particularity of some of these terms to the present application, e.g., “a falling-into-water detector,” Examiner is at a loss as to how Applicant could reasonably reach this conclusion. Applicant may wish to review MPEP 2181 to better understand the standards of interpretation under 112(f).
As per the above, Applicant’s arguments here are unpersuasive and these terms remain interpreted under 112(f). Examiner reminds Applicant that interpretation under 112(f) is neither an objection nor rejection, and does not in and of itself preclude patentability.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 101 analysis have been considered and are unpersuasive.
Before addressing the specific merits of Applicant’s 101 arguments, Examiner notes a misapprehension of 101 standards found in Applicant’s summary of the previous 101 rejections and repeated in the arguments themselves, said misapprehension causing foundational failings in these arguments. Particularly, Applicant asserts that the previous 101 rejections found, in relevant part, that “Applicant’s claims (1) are directed to commercial or legal interactions and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (2) cover mental processes such as observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions.” This statement mischaracterizes the content of the previous 101 rejections, and improperly conflates the standards of Step 2A, Prong One (whether the claims recite judicial exceptions, e.g., abstract ideas) and Step 2A, Prong Two (whether any recited judicial exceptions are integrated into a practical application, or what the claims are “directed to”).
Rather, the previous and present 101 rejections state that the claims recite (Step 2A, Prong One) abstract ideas in the particular categories of certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes (and, in the case of one dependent claim, mathematical concepts as well), and that the claims are (Step 2A, Prong Two and Step 2B) “directed to an abstract idea without significantly more,” “is not integrated into a practical application,” and “do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.” These rejections do not state that the claims are “directed to” a specific category of abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong Two, nor would such a finding be in keeping with the performance of the 101 subject matter eligibility analysis. Instead, under the Prong Two analysis, these abstract ideas were not parsed as in the above-quoted summary statement, but rather were taken together as a collective, singular abstract idea as per the standards of Prong Two, with the result of the Prong Two analysis being that the claims were directed to the collective abstract idea recited in the claims. See, e.g., MPEP 2106.04(II)(B), entitled “Evaluating Claims Reciting Multiple Judicial Exceptions,” for more information on these standards.
Consequently, Applicant’s argument that the claims are not “directed to, as a whole, any alleged commercial/legal transaction or mental process” (Applicant’s emphasis), in the alternative, is foundationally flawed in that the claims need not be directed to particular abstract categories in the alternative. Additionally and relatedly, this argument also improperly conflates Prong One and Prong Two standards in that recitation of judicial exceptions (ie: where the specific categories of certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes are relevant) is performed on a limitation-by-limitation basis rather than “as a whole” ( see, e.g., the myriad examples of individual claim limitations which recite various categories of abstract idea in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) and the subsections thereof, as well as the various Prong One analyses of the Examples of and carried forward by the most recent PEG Update), whereas Step 2A, Prong Two and Step 2B are performed in relation to the claim as a whole. Steps 2A, Prong One and Prong Two are distinct steps of the 101 subject matter eligibility analysis having distinct standards, and should not be conflated as Applicant does presently. Applicant may wish to review MPEP 2106.04 and 2106.05, as well as the various subsections of each, for more information on these distinct steps and standards.
Regarding the substance of Applicant’s 101 arguments, these arguments not only improperly conflate different steps and standards as discussed above, but appear to bounce between these steps (particularly regarding recitation of abstract ideas under Prong One and what a claim is directed to under Prong Two) seemingly without rhyme or reason. Examiner does his best to parse these arguments based on the particular step to which they relate, and address them below in the order of the steps of the 101 subject matter eligibility analysis for clarity rather than in the order they are presented.
Regarding the argument that “none of Applicant's claims are directed to, as a whole, any alleged commercial/legal transaction or mental process. Instead, Applicant's claims are clearly directed to systems, methods, and ferries that are each able to enhance the usability of the ferries in marinas where one or more watercraft are moored and stored” (Applicant’s emphasis), Applicant appears to now improperly conflate the standards of Step 1 (statutory category) with those of Step 2A, Prong Two (what a claim is “directed to”). That the subject of the various independent claims are “systems, methods, and ferries” (ie: the statutory category to which the claim relates) does not mean that those claims are “directed to” those systems, methods, and ferries within the meaning of “directed to” within the 101 subject matter eligibility analysis. As with the other conflated steps and standards already discussed above, Steps 1 and 2A, Prong Two are distinct steps of the 101 subject matter eligibility analysis having distinct standards, and should not be conflated as Applicant does presently. Here, a finding that a claim falls within one of the enumerated statutory categories under Step 1 does not necessitate a finding that the claims are not “directed to” any recited judicial exceptions under Step 2A, Prong Two. The evaluation of the claims under Step 2A, Prong Two is addressed below in sequential order.
Regarding Step 2A, Prong One, Applicant argues that “as explained in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A), mental processes are concepts performed in the human mind, and a step or limitation that recites a function performed by a processor that requires action by the processor that cannot be practically applied in the human mind does not recite a mental process. In other words, a processor function that is not practically performed in the human mind is not a mental process” (Applicant’s emphasis). Applicant is mistaken, and Applicant’s contention here flies in the face of the seminal Alice, to say nothing of the wealth of subsequent caselaw which as applied the Alice-Mayo subject matter eligibility test to find any number of computer-performed functions which nonetheless recite abstract ideas. See, e.g., FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir. 2016), Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2017), SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 127 U.S.P.Q.2d 1597 (Fed. Cir. 2018), Univ. of Fla. Rsch. Found., Inc. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 916 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2019), Beteiro, LLC v. DraftKings, Inc., 104 F.4th 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2024), etc. Indeed, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) (entitled “A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process”) is entirely devoted to refuting Applicant’s erroneous contention.
Regarding Applicant’s cited MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A), nothing therein states that the claiming of a mentally performable step as being performed by a processor prevents the recitation of a mental process as Applicant contends. Rather, that section specifies that processes which cannot be practically performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper do not constitute mental processes. As is clear from the content of this section, a process cannot practically be performed thusly when the human mind is not equipped to understand or analyze/manipulate variables in the manner claimed. For example, that section lists “a claim to a method for calculating an absolute position of a GPS receiver and an absolute time of reception of satellite signals, where the claimed GPS receiver calculated pseudoranges that estimated the distance from the GPS receiver to a plurality of satellites,” SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 601 F.3d 1319, 1331-33, 94 USPQ2d 1607, 1616-17 (Fed. Cir. 2010) as not reciting a mental process. By contrast, this section lists “a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016)” as reciting mental processes, despite these steps claimed as being executed by way of computer elements. This cited section of the MPEP simply does not support Applicant’s arguments in the way Applicant seemingly believes.
While the argument “it is not all apparent how any of Applicant’s claims are directed to a commercial or legal transaction as no transaction whatsoever takes place between any two people” (Applicant’s emphasis) is nominally a Prong Two argument due to the language “directed to,” Examiner addresses this in relation to Prong One standards given the reference to the particular abstract category of certain methods of organizing human activity. Firstly, as noted in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) regarding recitation of the abstract category of certain methods of organizing human activity, “[i]t s noted that the number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping. Instead, the determination should be based on whether the activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings.” As such, Applicant’s reference to two people is irrelevant. Additionally, even with no exchange of funds for compensation explicitly recited in the claims, it would be abundantly clear to any person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that such ferrying activity in a marina is commercial in nature, either via direct payment for ferrying services or as part of a larger contract wherein a boat’s operator pays for the right to moor their boat at said marina and the ferry service is provided as part of this mooring right. This context regarding the standard operation of marinas is ubiquitous in the extreme, if not entirely universal, as of Applicant’s effective filing date, and as such would be apparent to anyone of ordinary skill in the art. For at least these reasons, the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activity.
Regarding what the claims are “directed to” under Step 2A, Prong Two, Applicant argues that the claims embody an improvement to a technology, particularly that the claims reflect “enhancing the usability of ferries in marinas.” Applicant provides no supporting explanation as to precisely how this purported enhancement is accomplished or why it would constitute an improvement to a technology. Examiner disagrees, finding that this argument attempts to cloak a broader, abstract improvement in technological language. Regarding improvements to a technology, MPEP 2106.05(a) states that such improvements are “a technological solution to a technological problem,” and further that “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.” Rather, the claims recite a sequence of abstract data analyses to determine the context of a boat owner’s presence/need for transportation to or from their boat, and determine the timing of providing such transportation services based thereon. That these steps are at a high level claimed as occurring by and via various computer elements and communications therebetween does not transform this into a technological problem or solution, but rather merely recites the use of such computer elements as tools to perform this abstract improvement (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). None of the recited computer elements themselves, nor the technological function thereof, are improved in the present invention, which merely uses these elements to perform the most basic and ubiquitous of computer functions (ie: storage, transmission/receipt, and processing of data). Similarly, the effectuation of the transportation services at a high level by way of an autonomously controlled ferry neither changes the nature of the abstract problem and solution to technological ones, nor evidence an improvement to autonomous ferries themselves. For example, the claims do not improve such autonomous vehicles themselves or the manner in which they technologically function, merely claiming their normal and customary usage (ie: moving from one location to another based on commands and, in one dependent claim, switching from autonomous to manual control). As such, the claims do not embody an improvement to a technology within the meaning of this standard in the 101 subject matter eligibility analysis.
For completeness, Examiner addresses Applicant’s referencing of Ex Parte Desjardins, noting that Ex Parte Desjardins and the sections of the MPEP amended to reference it did not change the 101 subject matter eligibility analysis, but rather merely stressed the long-recognized notion (see, e.g., long-standing references to cases such as Enfish and McRO in the MPEP well-prior to Ex Parte Desjardins and Applicant’s referenced amendments to the MPEP) that improvements to a technology could take the form of software-based improvements. In Ex Parte Desjardins particularly, the claims were found to embody an improvement to the technology of artificial intelligence. Applicant cannot say that their invention does the same for the reasons discussed above.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 103 analysis have been considered and are unpersuasive.
As a preliminary matter, Examiner notes that Applicant’s statement that “[t]he Examiner alleged that Hicok teaches all of the features and method steps recited in Applicant’s independent claims with the exception of the shuttle being a ferry and the vehicles being watercraft on the water” is not entirely accurate. Specifically, Senchuk was also cited against the independent claims as previously drafted as disclosing specificities of the claimed first and second locations.
The present Remarks argue that “Applicant has been able to provide systems, methods, and ferries that are each able to enhance the usability of the ferries in marinas where one or more watercraft are moored and stored (see, for example, paragraphs [0004] to [0011] of Applicant's specification),” yet this argument fails to explain these purported enhancements or how they might differ from the functionality of the cited references. As such, this argument is an unsupported conclusory statement and an improper argument.
Applicant next argues that the present invention is distinct from the primary Hicok reference in that “merely relays the GPS coordinates of wherever the mobile device is currently located without confirming that the mobile device (user) is at a predetermined location where a watercraft of the user is previously known to be moored and stored (see, for example, paragraph [0229] of Hicok). This distinction is important because it prevents a ferry or shuttle from being sent to a location that is not previously known and stored (see, for example, paragraphs [0041] and [0042] of Applicant's specification). Hicok fails to teach or suggest this unique feature of Applicant's claimed invention, or that any advantages or benefits would or could have been obtained thereby.” Examiner disagrees. While Hicok does disclose embodiments wherein the user is picked up purely based on the GPS location of their personal communication devices, Hicok also discloses embodiments wherein this is not the case. For example, and as clearly noted in the explanatory language of the previously provided citations, Hicok discloses embodiments where shuttles particularly service satellite parking lots of an airport or train station, campus, etc. (see, e.g., Paragraphs 0112-0114, 0117; Figs. 1A-C, 54A-C). Hicok also discloses embodiments wherein the user is picked up or dropped off by the shuttle (1) at the location of the particular parking space within the satellite lot where the user has parked (see, e.g., Paragraph 0229) or (2) at a shuttle bus stop in the satellite parking lot (see, e.g., Paragraphs 0112, 0137, 0167, 0231). Both embodiments read upon Applicant’s argued distinction, as either (1) the location of the parking space (modified by Senchuk to be a boat mooring) or (2) the pre-determined shuttle stop (likewise modified by Senchuk to be a mooring) read upon the user’s location not at any GPS position, but rather a fixed, pre-known location for pickup or drop-off.
As per the above, Examiner maintains the sufficiency of the previous citations against the independent claims. Further, as the independent claims as presently amended merely roll up the limitations of dependent Claim 13, Examiner maintains the sufficiency of the previous citations against Claim 13 and updates the 103 rejections of the independent claims below accordingly.
Applicant makes conclusory statements that the previous citations of the various dependent claims fail to render said claims obvious purely based on the above-refuted arguments regarding the independent claims. As those arguments were unpersuasive, these arguments regarding the dependent claims are unpersuasive by extension.
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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 limitation(s) is/are:
“a controller…the controller configured or programmed to…” of Claims 1, 17, and 20;
“a location detector to detect…” of Claims 5 and 10;
“a speech detector to recognize…” of Claim 6;
“a detector to detect…” of Claim 7;
“a falling-into-water detector to detect…” of Claim 9;
“a notifier to output…” of Claim 9; and
“an obstruction detector… operable to detect an obstruction…” of Claim 12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Theses terms are interpreted in light of Paragraphs 0026-0027, 0033-0035, 0047, 0053, and 0055-0056 of the original disclosure.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Claims 1, 27, 18, and 20, the limitations of storing identification information identifying the user, first location information regarding a first location where the ferry is docked/undocked, and second location information regarding a second location on the water where the watercraft of the user is moored and stored; allowing driving of the ferry upon receiving the identification information; setting the second location as a destination of the ferry based on the second location information; determine whether a communication terminal used by the user is in the second location based on terminal location information of the communication terminal upon receiving the terminal location information from the communication terminal; and set the second location as the destination of the ferry based on the second location information, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover certain methods of organizing human activity. For example, these limitations fall at least within the enumerated categories of commercial or legal interactions and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)).
Additionally, the limitations of storing identification information identifying the user, first location information regarding a first location where the ferry is docked/undocked, and second location information regarding a second location on the water where the watercraft of the user is moored and stored; allowing driving of the ferry upon receiving the identification information; setting the second location as a destination of the ferry based on the second location information; determine whether a communication terminal used by the user is in the second location based on terminal location information of the communication terminal upon receiving the terminal location information from the communication terminal; and set the second location as the destination of the ferry based on the second location information, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes. For example, these limitations recite activity comprising observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships, or managing interactions between people, it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper but for recitation of generic computer components, it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical relationships, mathematical formulae or equations, or mathematical calculations, it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a ferry in a marina, a watercraft, a controller, a storage, a communication terminal used by the user, and execute an automated control to automatically move the ferry from the first location to the second location when it is determined that the communication terminal is in the second location. A controller, a storage, and a communication terminal used by the user, in the context of the claims as a whole, amount to no more than mere instructions to apply a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). A ferry in a marina, a watercraft, and execute an automated control to automatically move the ferry from the first location to the second location when it is determined that the communication terminal is in the second location, in the context of the claims as a whole, amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because they do not, individually or in combination, impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas. The claims are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do 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 judicial exception into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply a judicial exception, and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use for the same reasons as discussed above in relation to integration into a practical application. These cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, when considering the additional elements alone and in combination, there is no inventive concept in the claims, and thus the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 3-12 and 14-16, describing various additional limitations to the system of Claim 1, amount to substantially the same unintegrated abstract idea as Claim 1 (upon which these claims depend, directly or indirectly) and are rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Claim 3 discloses determine whether a predetermined condition is satisfied after moving the ferry from the first location to the second location (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process); set the first location as the destination of the ferry based on the first location information (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process); and execute the automated control to automatically move the ferry to the first location when it is determined that the predetermined condition is satisfied (generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use), which do not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 4 discloses wherein the controller is configured or programmed to determine that the predetermined condition is satisfied upon receiving a predetermined notification from the communication terminal (mere instructions to apply a judicial exception) used by the user (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process), which does not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 5 discloses a location detector to detect location information of the ferry (mere instructions to apply a judicial exception); determine whether the ferry is remote from the second location by a predetermined distance or greater based on a result of detection by the location detector (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity, a mental process, and a mathematical concept); and determine that the predetermined condition is satisfied when it is determined that the ferry is remote from the second location by the predetermined distance or greater (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity, a mental process, and a mathematical concept), which do not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 6 discloses a speech detector to recognize speech spoken by the user (mere instructions to apply a judicial exception); and wherein the controller is configured or programmed to determine whether the predetermined condition is satisfied based on a result of detection by the speech detector (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process), which do not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 7 discloses a detector to detect leaving of the watercraft from the second location (mere instructions to apply a judicial exception); wherein the controller is configured or programmed to set the first location as the destination of the ferry based on the first location information (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process); and execute an automated control to automatically move the ferry to the first location when it is determined that the watercraft is away from the second location based on a result of detection by the detector while the ferry is in the second location (generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use), which do not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 8 discloses a mooring including a buoy to moor the watercraft and a connector to connect the buoy to the watercraft (generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use); wherein the detector is operable to detect separation of the connector from the watercraft (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process); and the controller is configured or programmed to determine that the watercraft is away from the second location when the detector detects the separation of the connector from the watercraft (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process), which do not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 9 discloses a camera to generate image data by taking a picture of the ferry (generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use); a falling-into-water detector (mere instructions to apply a judicial exception) to detect falling of a person on board the ferry into the water based on the image data generated by the camera (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process); and a notifier (mere instructions to apply a judicial exception) to output an alert when the falling-into-water detector detects the falling of the person on board the ferry into the water (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process), which do not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 10 discloses a location detector to detect location information of the ferry (mere instructions to apply a judicial exception); determine whether the ferry has been moved from the first location to the second location based on a result of detection by the location detector (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process); and switch the automated control into a manual control when it is determined that the ferry has been moved from the first location to the second location (generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use), which do not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 11 discloses wherein the second location information includes location information of a buoy usable to moor the watercraft (further narrows the abstract idea already set forth in Claim 1), which does not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 12 discloses an obstruction detector (mere instructions to apply a judicial exception); wherein the storage is operable to store a plurality of routes from the first location to the second location (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process); the obstruction detector is operable to detect an obstruction along each of the plurality of routes (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process); and the controller is configured or programmed to select one of the plurality of routes based on a result of detection by the obstruction detector upon receiving the identification information (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process), which do not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 14 discloses output information to the communication terminal regarding a length of time required for the ferry to arrive at the second location when it is determined that the communication terminal is in the second location based on the terminal location information (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process), which does not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 15 discloses output present location information of the ferry and destination information of the ferry to the communication terminal when it is determined that the communication terminal is in the second location based on the terminal location information (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process), which does not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 16 discloses a battery on the ferry (generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use); and a charger to supply electricity to the battery when the ferry is at the first location (generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use), which do not integrate the claim into a practical application.
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, 3-4, 12, 14-15, 17-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hicok et al (PGPub 20190265703) (hereafter, “Hicok”) in view of Senchuk (PGPub 20150360752) (hereafter, “Senchuk”).
Regarding Claims 1, 17, 18, and 20, Hicok discloses a controller (¶ 0292-0295; Fig. 27; the vehicle includes controllers; each controller comprises one or more onboard supercomputers; virtual machines hosted by the common high-performance processor(s); controllers provide autonomous self-driving capabilities).
Hicok additionally discloses a storage to store identification information identifying the user, first location information regarding a first location where the shuttle performs drop-offs, and second location information regarding a second location where the vehicle of the user is parked and stored (¶ 0024, 0031, 0037-0039, 0112, 0142-0144, 0172, 0225, 0229; Fig. 1A; Claims 1, 10; an autonomous shuttle comprising a computer, said computer comprising on-chip memory; shuttle brings users to an airport or train station; vehicle such as a shuttle bus that serves a satellite parking area for an airport, said shuttle picking passengers up from said satellite parking area and transporting them to an airport terminal; the vehicle comprises a controller that identifies a passenger to ride in the vehicle and controls the vehicle to take the identified passenger to a destination; the identifying may be based on the passenger operating a mobile user device; the system may identify the user by phone number, device ID, by facial recognition, biometrics, or by other means; the system may identify any person in the system’s registry; a mobile application on a mobile device that allows a passenger to summon the vehicle so that the vehicle can transport the passenger to a desired location; the mobile application may include a GPS or other geolocator that transmits the coordinates or other identifying information corresponding to the current location of the passenger; the mobile application may also provide facility for permitting the passenger to transmit her desired destination in the form of an address, GPS coordinates, building or structure name, or other geolocation information, e.g., an airport or train station). Hicok does not explicitly disclose but Senchuk does disclose wherein the shuttle is the ferry; wherein the vehicle is the watercraft; wherein the first location is a location where the ferry is docked/undocked; wherein the second location is on the water; wherein the second location where the vehicle of the user is parked and stored is where the watercraft of the user is moored and stored (¶ 0073; the anchoring device of FIG. 18 can be used to provide a plurality of deployable anchoring points within the harbor, permitting boats to be attached to the anchoring points; the harbor authorities can, for example, operate a small shuttle boat to bring people to and from the anchored boats).
Hicok additionally discloses wherein the controller is configured or programmed to allow driving of the shuttle upon receiving the identification information, and set the second location as a destination of the shuttle based on the second location information (Abstract; ¶ 0229, 0292-0295; Fig. 27; the vehicle includes controllers; controllers provide autonomous self-driving capabilities; a mobile application on a mobile device that allows a passenger to summon the vehicle so that the vehicle can transport the passenger to a desired location; the mobile application may include a GPS or other geolocator that transmits the coordinates or other identifying information corresponding to the current location of the passenger; the mobile application may also provide facility for permitting the passenger to transmit her desired destination in the form of an address, GPS coordinates, building or structure name, or other geolocation information, e.g., an airport or train station; optimization can be performed based on various criteria such as minimizing wait time and prioritizing certain passengers and/or certain routes (e.g., so that a professor is delivered in front of her classroom before a student is delivered to his car in the student parking lot)). Hicok does not explicitly disclose but Senchuk does disclose wherein the shuttle is the ferry (¶ 0073; the anchoring device of FIG. 18 can be used to provide a plurality of deployable anchoring points within the harbor, permitting boats to be attached to the anchoring points; the harbor authorities can, for example, operate a small shuttle boat to bring people to and from the anchored boats).
Hicok additionally discloses the controller is configured or programmed to: determine whether a communication terminal used by the user is in the second location based on terminal location information of the communication terminal upon receiving the terminal location information from the communication terminal (¶ 0035, 0196, 0207, 0212, 0229-0230, 0301, 0362, 0389, 0430; Fig. 28; a mobile application on a mobile device that allows a passenger to summon the vehicle so that the vehicle can transport the passenger to a desired location; the mobile application may include a GPS or other geolocator that transmits the coordinates or other identifying information corresponding to the current location of the passenger; the mobile application may also provide facility for permitting the passenger to transmit her desired destination in the form of an address, GPS coordinates, building or structure name, or other geolocation information, e.g., an airport or train station; the pickup location may be the user's current location).
Hicok additionally discloses set the second location as the destination of the shuttle based on the second location information and execute the automated control to automatically move the shuttle from the first location to the second location when it is determined that the communication terminal is in the second location (Abstract; ¶ 0229, 0292-0295, 0430; Fig. 27; the vehicle includes controllers; controllers provide autonomous self-driving capabilities; a mobile application on a mobile device that allows a passenger to summon the vehicle so that the vehicle can transport the passenger to a desired location; the mobile application may include a GPS or other geolocator that transmits the coordinates or other identifying information corresponding to the current location of the passenger; the mobile application may also provide facility for permitting the passenger to transmit her desired destination in the form of an address, GPS coordinates, building or structure name, or other geolocation information, e.g., an airport or train station; optimization can be performed based on various criteria such as minimizing wait time and prioritizing certain passengers and/or certain routes (e.g., so that a professor is delivered in front of her classroom before a student is delivered to his car in the student parking lot); the pickup location may be the user's current location). Hicok does not explicitly disclose but Senchuk does disclose wherein the shuttle is the ferry (¶ 0073; the anchoring device of FIG. 18 can be used to provide a plurality of deployable anchoring points within the harbor, permitting boats to be attached to the anchoring points; the harbor authorities can, for example, operate a small shuttle boat to bring people to and from the anchored boats).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to include the water-based vehicle transportation context of Senchuk with the on-demand autonomous vehicle transportation system and method of Hicok because the combination merely constitutes simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (see KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421 (2007) and MPEP 2143). The known context and techniques of Senchuk are applicable to the base device (Hicok), the technical ability existed to improve the base device in the same way, and the results of the combination are predictable because the function of each piece (as well as the problems in the art which they address) are unchanged when combined.
Regarding Claim 3, Hicok in view of Senchuk discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Hicok additionally discloses determine whether a predetermined condition is satisfied after moving the shuttle from the first location to the second location (¶ 0127-0130, 0142, 0148, 0225, 0252; inward facing cameras may then detect that one or more passengers have entered the vehicle and are safely within it; once all passengers are on board, the vehicle may begin to move). Hicok does not explicitly disclose but Senchuk does disclose wherein the shuttle is the ferry (¶ 0073; the anchoring device of FIG. 18 can be used to provide a plurality of deployable anchoring points within the harbor, permitting boats to be attached to the anchoring points; the harbor authorities can, for example, operate a small shuttle boat to bring people to and from the anchored boats).
Hicok additionally discloses set the first location as the destination of the shuttle based on the first location information and execute the automated control to automatically move the shuttle to the first location when it is determined that the predetermined condition is satisfied (¶ 0127-0130, 0142, 0148, 0225, 0229, 0252, 0292-0295; inward facing cameras may then detect that one or more passengers have entered the vehicle and are safely within it; once all passengers are on board, the vehicle may begin to move; the vehicle includes controllers; controllers provide autonomous self-driving capabilities; a mobile application on a mobile device that allows a passenger to summon the vehicle so that the vehicle can transport the passenger to a desired location; the mobile application may include a GPS or other geolocator that transmits the coordinates or other identifying information corresponding to the current location of the passenger; the mobile application may also provide facility for permitting the passenger to transmit her desired destination in the form of an address, GPS coordinates, building or structure name, or other geolocation information, e.g., an airport or train station). Hicok does not explicitly disclose but Senchuk does disclose wherein the shuttle is the ferry (¶ 0073; the anchoring device of FIG. 18 can be used to provide a plurality of deployable anchoring points within the harbor, permitting boats to be attached to the anchoring points; the harbor authorities can, for example, operate a small shuttle boat to bring people to and from the anchored boats).
The rationale to combine remains the same as for Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 4, Hicok in view of Senchuk discloses the limitations of Claim 3. Hicok additionally discloses wherein the controller is configured or programmed to determine that the predetermined condition is satisfied upon receiving a predetermined notification from the communication terminal used by the user (¶ 0225; Shuttle 1 may use facial recognition technology to identify the presence and arrival at Shuttle 1 of the requesting passenger; alternatively, shuttle may include a badge reader, at the door frame, such as an RFID device that allows persons eligible to use the system to confirm their identity and entitlement or authorization to use the system; Shuttle 1 confirms the arrival and boarding of the passenger (“Bill”) requesting shuttle service through Client 1, closes doors, and prepares to proceed to location B).
Regarding Claim 12, Hicok in view of Senchuk discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Hicok additionally discloses:
an obstruction detector (¶ 0293-0295, 0301; Figs. 27-28; the shuttle comprises a variety of camera types and locations, including front-facing cameras to help identify forward facing paths and obstacles and provide information critical to making an occupancy grid and determining the preferred vehicle paths);
wherein the storage is operable to store a plurality of routes from the first location to the second location (¶ 0035, 0196, 0207, 0212, 0229-0230, 0301, 0362, 0389; Fig. 28; a mobile application on a mobile device that allows a passenger to summon the vehicle so that the vehicle can transport the passenger to a desired location; the mobile application may include a GPS or other geolocator that transmits the coordinates or other identifying information corresponding to the current location of the passenger; the mobile application may also provide facility for permitting the passenger to transmit her desired destination in the form of an address, GPS coordinates, building or structure name, or other geolocation information, e.g., an airport or train station; a route planner receives this information and dynamically maintains a listing of all requested routes; upon receiving a new requested route, the route planner optimizes the new requested route; another way to optimize route planning is to take into account rush hour traffic; the AI Dispatcher considers the operator's preferences, models the system, conducts AI simulations of system performance, and provides the most efficient shuttle routes and utilization consistent with the system operator's preferences; the AID may perform AI-enabled simulations that model pedestrians, third-party traffic and vehicles, based on the environmental conditions including weather, traffic, and time of day; in determining the safest route in the presence of pedestrians, cross-traffic, and other obstacles, self-driving shuttle may employ one or more of the techniques);
the obstruction detector is operable to detect an obstruction along each of the plurality of routes (¶ 0035-0036, 0293-0295, 0301; Figs. 27-28; the shuttle comprises a variety of camera types and locations, including front-facing cameras to help identify forward facing paths and obstacles and provide information critical to making an occupancy grid and determining the preferred vehicle paths; the system considers time of day, weather, traffic, and other environmental conditions to provide the desired level and type of service to travelers); and
the controller is configured or programmed to select one of the plurality of routes based on a result of detection by the obstruction detector upon receiving the identification information (¶ 0035, 0196, 0207, 0212, 0229-0230, 0301, 0362, 0389; Fig. 28; a mobile application on a mobile device that allows a passenger to summon the vehicle so that the vehicle can transport the passenger to a desired location; the mobile application may include a GPS or other geolocator that transmits the coordinates or other identifying information corresponding to the current location of the passenger; the mobile application may also provide facility for permitting the passenger to transmit her desired destination in the form of an address, GPS coordinates, building or structure name, or other geolocation information, e.g., an airport or train station; a route planner receives this information and dynamically maintains a listing of all requested routes; upon receiving a new requested route, the route planner optimizes the new requested route; another way to optimize route planning is to take into account rush hour traffic; the AI Dispatcher considers the operator's preferences, models the system, conducts AI simulations of system performance, and provides the most efficient shuttle routes and utilization consistent with the system operator's preferences; the AID may perform AI-enabled simulations that model pedestrians, third-party traffic and vehicles, based on the environmental conditions including weather, traffic, and time of day; in determining the safest route in the presence of pedestrians, cross-traffic, and other obstacles, self-driving shuttle may employ one or more of the techniques).
Regarding Claim 14, Hicok in view of Senchuk discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Hicok additionally discloses output information to the communication terminal regarding a length of time required for the shuttle to arrive at the second location when it is determined that the communication terminal is in the second location based on the terminal location information (¶ 0035, 0175, 0196, 0207, 0212, 0223, 0229-0230, 0301, 0362, 0389, 0430; Fig. 28; a mobile application on a mobile device that allows a passenger to summon the vehicle so that the vehicle can transport the passenger to a desired location; the mobile application may include a GPS or other geolocator that transmits the coordinates or other identifying information corresponding to the current location of the passenger; the mobile application may also provide facility for permitting the passenger to transmit her desired destination in the form of an address, GPS coordinates, building or structure name, or other geolocation information, e.g., an airport or train station; after the system schedules a shuttle (e.g., wherein the pickup location may be the user's current location), the mobile device preferably displays the estimated pickup time at the pickup location, as well as a planned travel route and estimated arrival time). Hicok does not explicitly disclose but Senchuk does disclose wherein the shuttle is the ferry (¶ 0073; the anchoring device of FIG. 18 can be used to provide a plurality of deployable anchoring points within the harbor, permitting boats to be attached to the anchoring points; the harbor authorities can, for example, operate a small shuttle boat to bring people to and from the anchored boats).
The rationale to combine remains the same as for Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 15, Hicok in view of Senchuk discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Hicok additionally discloses output present location information of the shuttle and destination information of the shuttle to the communication terminal when it is determined that the communication terminal is in the second location based on the terminal location information (¶ 0035, 0175, 0196, 0207, 0212, 0223, 0229-0230, 0301, 0362, 0389, 0430; Figs. 56C-56I, 28; a mobile application on a mobile device that allows a passenger to summon the vehicle so that the vehicle can transport the passenger to a desired location; the mobile application may include a GPS or other geolocator that transmits the coordinates or other identifying information corresponding to the current location of the passenger; the mobile application may also provide facility for permitting the passenger to transmit her desired destination in the form of an address, GPS coordinates, building or structure name, or other geolocation information, e.g., an airport or train station; after the system schedules a shuttle (e.g., wherein the pickup location may be the user's current location), the mobile device preferably displays the estimated pickup time at the pickup location, as well as a planned travel route and estimated arrival time; the app then displays a proposed route along with a proposed pickup time and an estimated time to arrival at the destination; the app displays the shuttle's current location and estimated time of arrival). Hicok does not explicitly disclose but Senchuk does disclose wherein the shuttle is the ferry (¶ 0073; the anchoring device of FIG. 18 can be used to provide a plurality of deployable anchoring points within the harbor, permitting boats to be attached to the anchoring points; the harbor authorities can, for example, operate a small shuttle boat to bring people to and from the anchored boats).
The rationale to combine remains the same as for Claim 1.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hicok in view of Senchuk and Zhang et al (CN 112050740) (hereafter, “Zhang”).
Regarding Claim 5, Hicok in view of Senchuk discloses the limitations of Claim 3. Hicok additionally discloses a location detector to detect location information of the ferry (¶ 0295, 0335, 0338, 0363; Fig. 27; the shuttle includes GPS sensors to allow the vehicle to detect its position).
Hicok does not explicitly disclose but Zhang does disclose determine whether the ferry is remote from the second location by a predetermined distance or greater based on a result of detection by the location detector (pgs. 2-4, 8, mooring safety monitoring and early warning system, including real-time obtaining the mooring distance monitoring value between mooring ship and dock side wall and comparing the hydrological information and mooring safety monitoring value with pre-stored hydrological information safety critical value and mooring safety critical value and obtaining comparison result; when any distance measuring device detects the obtained distance change value is greater than the distance change threshold value, the information processing and storage module sends the pre-warning instruction).
Hicok additionally discloses determine that the predetermined condition is satisfied when a detection is made (¶ 0225; Shuttle 1 may use facial recognition technology to identify the presence and arrival at Shuttle 1 of the requesting passenger; alternatively, shuttle may include a badge reader, at the door frame, such as an RFID device that allows persons eligible to use the system to confirm their identity and entitlement or authorization to use the system; Shuttle 1 confirms the arrival and boarding of the passenger (“Bill”) requesting shuttle service through Client 1, closes doors, and prepares to proceed to location B). Hicok does not explicitly disclose but Zhang does disclose wherein the detection is a determination that the ferry is remote from the second location by the predetermined distance or greater (pgs. 2-4, 8, mooring safety monitoring and early warning system, including real-time obtaining the mooring distance monitoring value between mooring ship and dock side wall and comparing the hydrological information and mooring safety monitoring value with pre-stored hydrological information safety critical value and mooring safety critical value and obtaining comparison result; when any distance measuring device detects the obtained distance change value is greater than the distance change threshold value, the information processing and storage module sends the pre-warning instruction).
The rationale to combine Hicok and Senchuk remains the same as for Claim 1. It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to include the vehicle mooring distance determination techniques of Zhang with the on-demand autonomous transportation system and method of Hicok and Senchuk because the combination merely applies a known technique to a known device/method/product ready for improvement to yield predictable results (see KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421 (2007) and MPEP 2143). The known techniques of Zhang are applicable to the base device (Hicok and Senchuk), the technical ability existed to improve the base device in the same way, and the results of the combination are predictable because the function of each piece (as well as the problems in the art which they address) are unchanged when combined.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hicok in view of Senchuk and Lee et al (PGPub 20190392826) (hereafter, “Lee”).
Regarding Claim 6, Hicok in view of Senchuk discloses the limitations of Claim 3. Hicok additionally discloses a speech detector to recognize speech spoken by the user (¶ 0032-0033, 0127, 0148; the passenger is able to interact with the shuttle via an on-board shuttle client-interface application, Passenger UX; in some embodiments Passenger UX includes camera-based feature recognition, speech recognition and visual information, etc.; voice recognition neural networks may be employed to communicate with passengers).
Hicok additionally discloses wherein the controller is configured or programmed to determine whether the predetermined condition is satisfied based on a result of detection by a sensor (¶ 0225; Shuttle 1 may use facial recognition technology to identify the presence and arrival at Shuttle 1 of the requesting passenger; alternatively, shuttle may include a badge reader, at the door frame, such as an RFID device that allows persons eligible to use the system to confirm their identity and entitlement or authorization to use the system; Shuttle 1 confirms the arrival and boarding of the passenger (“Bill”) requesting shuttle service through Client 1, closes doors, and prepares to proceed to location B). Hicok does not explicitly disclose but Lee does disclose wherein the sensor is the speech detector (¶ 0099-0100; the dialogue system may determine boarding of occupants through the speech recognition; in order to identify each a talker who is verified to board on the vehicle through the speech recognition, the dialogue system may estimate a location of the talker by mapping the location where the speech is generated, with an internal image of the vehicle).
The rationale to combine Hicok and Senchuk remains the same as for Claim 1. It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to include the rental vehicle occupancy determination techniques of Lee with the on-demand autonomous transportation system and method of Hicok and Senchuk because the combination merely applies a known technique to a known device/method/product ready for improvement to yield predictable results (see KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421 (2007) and MPEP 2143). The known techniques of Lee are applicable to the base device (Hicok and Senchuk), the technical ability existed to improve the base device in the same way, and the results of the combination are predictable because the function of each piece (as well as the problems in the art which they address) are unchanged when combined.
Claims 7-8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hicok in view of Senchuk and Leblanc et al (CA 2997440) (hereafter, “Leblanc”).
Regarding Claim 7, Hicok in view of Senchuk discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Hicok does not explicitly disclose but Leblanc does disclose a detector to detect leaving of the watercraft from the second location (pgs. 37, 40-41, 44, 46; features of the mooring buoy include verification of connection to mooring chain/rope; a load cell, strain gauge, or other such tension strain device may be provided to detect strain on one or more securing lines connected between the mooring anchor, mooring buoy, and/or watercraft; method comprising: detecting based on a sensor of the mooring buoy a potential detachment of a watercraft from the mooring buoy; in certain embodiments, the sensor for detecting a potential detachment of the watercraft may comprise one or more cameras of the mooring buoy; a potential detachment of the watercraft may be detected by automated analysis of an image feed provided by the one or more cameras; the sensor for detecting a potential detachment of the watercraft may comprise a conductive wire loop; a detachment of the watercraft from the mooring buoy may be detected based on a break in conductivity).
Hicok additionally discloses wherein the controller is configured or programmed to set the first location as the destination of the shuttle based on the first location information, and execute an automated control to automatically move the shuttle to the first location when a detection is made (¶ 0225, 0292-0295; Shuttle 1 may use facial recognition technology to identify the presence and arrival at Shuttle 1 of the requesting passenger; alternatively, shuttle may include a badge reader, at the door frame, such as an RFID device that allows persons eligible to use the system to confirm their identity and entitlement or authorization to use the system; Shuttle 1 confirms the arrival and boarding of the passenger (“Bill”) requesting shuttle service through Client 1, closes doors, and prepares to proceed to location B; controllers provide autonomous self-driving capabilities; a mobile application on a mobile device that allows a passenger to summon the vehicle so that the vehicle can transport the passenger to a desired location). Hicok does not explicitly disclose but Senchuk does disclose wherein the shuttle is the ferry (¶ 0073; the anchoring device of FIG. 18 can be used to provide a plurality of deployable anchoring points within the harbor, permitting boats to be attached to the anchoring points; the harbor authorities can, for example, operate a small shuttle boat to bring people to and from the anchored boats). Hicok does not explicitly disclose but Leblanc does disclose wherein the detection is a determination that the watercraft is away from the second location based on a result of detection by the detector while the ferry is in the second location (pgs. 37, 40-41, 44, 46; features of the mooring buoy include verification of connection to mooring chain/rope; a load cell, strain gauge, or other such tension strain device may be provided to detect strain on one or more securing lines connected between the mooring anchor, mooring buoy, and/or watercraft; method comprising: detecting based on a sensor of the mooring buoy a potential detachment of a watercraft from the mooring buoy; in certain embodiments, the sensor for detecting a potential detachment of the watercraft may comprise one or more cameras of the mooring buoy; a potential detachment of the watercraft may be detected by automated analysis of an image feed provided by the one or more cameras; the sensor for detecting a potential detachment of the watercraft may comprise a conductive wire loop; a detachment of the watercraft from the mooring buoy may be detected based on a break in conductivity).
The rationale to combine Hicok and Senchuk remains the same as for Claim 1. It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to include the water vehicle parking and detection structure and techniques of Leblanc with the on-demand autonomous transportation system and method of Hicok and Senchuk because the combination merely applies a known technique to a known device/method/product ready for improvement to yield predictable results (see KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421 (2007) and MPEP 2143). The known techniques of Leblanc are applicable to the base device (Hicok and Senchuk), the technical ability existed to improve the base device in the same way, and the results of the combination are predictable because the function of each piece (as well as the problems in the art which they address) are unchanged when combined.
Regarding Claim 8, Hicok in view of Senchuk and Leblanc discloses the limitations of Claim 7. Hicok does not explicitly disclose but Leblanc does disclose:
a mooring including a buoy to moor the watercraft and a connector to connect the buoy to the watercraft (pgs. 23, 37; one or more attachment points may comprise any suitable attachment point for engaging with one or more securing lines for securely linking the mooring buoy to the watercraft; features of the mooring buoy include verification of connection to mooring chain/rope);
wherein the detector is operable to detect separation of the connector from the watercraft (pgs. 37, 40-41, 44, 46; features of the mooring buoy include verification of connection to mooring chain/rope; a load cell, strain gauge, or other such tension strain device may be provided to detect strain on one or more securing lines connected between the mooring anchor, mooring buoy, and/or watercraft; method comprising: detecting based on a sensor of the mooring buoy a potential detachment of a watercraft from the mooring buoy; in certain embodiments, the sensor for detecting a potential detachment of the watercraft may comprise one or more cameras of the mooring buoy; a potential detachment of the watercraft may be detected by automated analysis of an image feed provided by the one or more cameras; the sensor for detecting a potential detachment of the watercraft may comprise a conductive wire loop; a detachment of the watercraft from the mooring buoy may be detected based on a break in conductivity); and
the controller is configured or programmed to determine that the watercraft is away from the second location when the detector detects the separation of the connector from the watercraft (pgs. 37, 40-41, 44, 46; features of the mooring buoy include verification of connection to mooring chain/rope; a load cell, strain gauge, or other such tension strain device may be provided to detect strain on one or more securing lines connected between the mooring anchor, mooring buoy, and/or watercraft; method comprising: detecting based on a sensor of the mooring buoy a potential detachment of a watercraft from the mooring buoy; in certain embodiments, the sensor for detecting a potential detachment of the watercraft may comprise one or more cameras of the mooring buoy; a potential detachment of the watercraft may be detected by automated analysis of an image feed provided by the one or more cameras; the sensor for detecting a potential detachment of the watercraft may comprise a conductive wire loop; a detachment of the watercraft from the mooring buoy may be detected based on a break in conductivity).
The rationale to combine remains the same as for Claim 7.
Regarding Claim 11, Hicok in view of Senchuk discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Hicok additionally discloses wherein the second location information includes location information of a parking location of the vehicle (¶ 0024, 0031, 0037-0039, 0112, 0142-0144, 0172, 0225, 0229; Fig. 1A; shuttle brings users to an airport or train station; vehicle such as a shuttle bus that serves a satellite parking area for an airport, said shuttle picking passengers up from said satellite parking area and transporting them to an airport terminal; a mobile application on a mobile device that allows a passenger to summon the vehicle so that the vehicle can transport the passenger to a desired location; the mobile application may include a GPS or other geolocator that transmits the coordinates or other identifying information corresponding to the current location of the passenger; the mobile application may also provide facility for permitting the passenger to transmit her desired destination in the form of an address, GPS coordinates, building or structure name, or other geolocation information, e.g., an airport or train station). Hicok does not explicitly disclose but Leblanc does disclose wherein the parking location of the vehicle is a buoy usable to moor the watercraft (pgs. 15, 23, 37; one or more attachment points may comprise any suitable attachment point for engaging with one or more securing lines for securely linking the mooring buoy to the watercraft; features of the mooring buoy include verification of connection to mooring chain/rope; mooring buoys may comprise a satellite-based positioning system, such as a GPS unit, for determining the location of the mooring buoy).
The rationale to combine remains the same as for Claim 7.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hicok in view of Senchuk and Suda (PGPub 20220234701) (hereafter, “Suda”).
Regarding Claim 9, Hicok in view of Senchuk discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Hicok does not explicitly disclose but Suda does disclose:
a camera to generate image data by taking a picture of the ferry (¶ 0031, 0036; Fig. 1; the hull of the boat is provided with at least one camera; the camera captures images of the surroundings of the hull);
a falling-into-water detector to detect falling of a person on board the ferry into the water based on the image data generated by the camera (¶ 0059; the automatic navigation control unit acquires the position of the person who has fallen overboard from the hull (hereinafter may be referred to as the “overboard person”) relative to the hull based on at least one of the image data acquired by the camera); and
a notifier to output an alert when the falling-into-water detector detects the falling of the person on board the ferry into the water (¶ 0049; the rescue control unit generates an alarm to notify that a person has fallen into the water; the rescue control unit preferably displays the alarm on the touch panel display and/or outputs from a speaker).
The rationale to combine Hicok and Senchuk remains the same as for Claim 1. One of ordinary skill in the art would further have been motivated to include the vehicle passenger monitoring and alarm techniques of Suda with the on-demand autonomous transportation system and method of Hicok and Senchuk to increase the safety of passengers of the vehicle (see at least Paragraphs 0010 and 0064 of Suda).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hicok in view of Senchuk and Bash et al (PGPub 20170308081) (hereafter, “Bash”).
Regarding Claim 10, Hicok in view of Senchuk discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Hicok additionally discloses a location detector to detect location information of the ferry (¶ 0295, 0335, 0338, 0363; Fig. 27; the shuttle includes GPS sensors to allow the vehicle to detect its position).
Hicok additionally discloses determine whether the shuttle has been moved from the first location to the second location based on a result of detection by the location detector (¶ 0295, 0335, 0338, 0363, 0430; Fig. 27; the shuttle includes GPS sensors to allow the vehicle to detect its position; the app displays the shuttle's current location and estimated time of arrival; using a mobile app, passengers can summon and track their shuttle rides; once the shuttle arrives at the pickup point, the app displays an arrival notification). Hicok does not explicitly disclose but Senchuk does disclose wherein the shuttle is the ferry (¶ 0073; the anchoring device of FIG. 18 can be used to provide a plurality of deployable anchoring points within the harbor, permitting boats to be attached to the anchoring points; the harbor authorities can, for example, operate a small shuttle boat to bring people to and from the anchored boats).
Hicok does not explicitly disclose but Bash does disclose switch the automated control into a manual control when it is determined that the shuttle has been moved from a first location to a second location (¶ 0038, 0051, 0092; a mission plan is generated for the vehicle to move from a first start location to a second end location; a mode changing event for causing the vehicle to switch from automated to user-based manual control may be entering geographical proximity of a destination). Hicok additionally discloses wherein movement from a first location to a second location is movement from the first location to the second location (¶ 0295, 0335, 0338, 0363, 0430; Fig. 27; the shuttle includes GPS sensors to allow the vehicle to detect its position; the app displays the shuttle's current location and estimated time of arrival; using a mobile app, passengers can summon and track their shuttle rides; once the shuttle arrives at the pickup point, the app displays an arrival notification). Hicok does not explicitly disclose but Senchuk does disclose wherein the shuttle is the ferry (¶ 0073; the anchoring device of FIG. 18 can be used to provide a plurality of deployable anchoring points within the harbor, permitting boats to be attached to the anchoring points; the harbor authorities can, for example, operate a small shuttle boat to bring people to and from the anchored boats).
The rationale to combine Hicok and Senchuk remains the same as for Claim 1. It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to include the autonomous vehicle control techniques of Bash with the on-demand autonomous transportation system and method of Hicok and Senchuk because the combination merely applies a known technique to a known device/method/product ready for improvement to yield predictable results (see KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421 (2007) and MPEP 2143). The known techniques of Bash are applicable to the base device (Hicok and Senchuk), the technical ability existed to improve the base device in the same way, and the results of the combination are predictable because the function of each piece (as well as the problems in the art which they address) are unchanged when combined.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hicok in view of Senchuk and Podhola (PGPub 20240294079, claiming priority to PCT/IB2021/056558) hereafter, “Podhola”).
Regarding Claim 16, Hicok in view of Senchuk discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Hicok additionally discloses a battery on the ferry (¶ 0194, 0292; in an embodiment with electric shuttles, MC may provide an indicator of shuttles charging and their associated state of charge; the vehicle includes a propulsion system, such as hybrid electric power plant or all-electric engine).
Hicok does not explicitly disclose but Podhola does disclose a charger to supply electricity to the battery when the ferry is at the first location (¶ 0049, 0095, 0099; Fig. 13; Claim 16; the term "vehicle" may refer to manned and unmanned vehicles, overwater vessels, etc.; locating a charging trailer and providing charging power transfer on shore at an electric vessel situated off shore; the charging trailer can also charge/discharge by means of included/coupled charging stations the electric vehicles when located [e.g. on a platform, on a pier, etc.] at the charging trailer).
The rationale to combine Hicok and Senchuk remains the same as for Claim 1. It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to include the vehicle fueling structure and context of Podhola with the on-demand autonomous transportation system and method of Hicok and Senchuk because the combination merely applies a known technique to a known device/method/product ready for improvement to yield predictable results (see KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421 (2007) and MPEP 2143). The known techniques of Podhola are applicable to the base device (Hicok and Senchuk), the technical ability existed to improve the base device in the same way, and the results of the combination are predictable because the function of each piece (as well as the problems in the art which they address) are unchanged when combined.
Discussion of Prior Art Cited but Not Applied
For additional information on the state of the art regarding the claims of the present application, please see the following documents not applied in this Office Action (all of which are prior art to the present application):
PGPub 20230124771 – “Air Taxi Pod Terminals and Methods,” Bastiyali, disclosing systems for transportation of passengers to and from piers by autonomous air- and water-based vehicles
Gu et al, Operational benefits of autonomous vessels in logistics—A case of autonomous water-taxis in Bergen, Transportation Research Part E, Vol. 154 (October 2021), disclosing techniques and structural arrangements for transporting passengers by way of ferries and other watercraft, including autonomous vehicles
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 MARK C CLARE whose telephone number is (571)272-8748. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30am-2:30pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey Zimmerman can be reached at (571) 272-4602. 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.
/MARK C CLARE/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/MICHAEL P HARRINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628