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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 13, and 20 recite the limitation "the pick-up location selected" in lines 10, 11, and 10 respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Claims 1, 13, and 20 do not recite that a pick-up location is selected. The metes and bounds of the claimed limitation are vague and ill-defined rendering the claim indefinite. According to the examiner’s best knowledge, the claim limitation will be treated as “setting the pick-up location recommended to the user as a destination of the vehicle”.
Claims 2-12, and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected independent claims 1 and 13 and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract without significantly more. The claim(s) (Claims 1, 13, and 20) recite(s) obtaining user related and location information, determining a pickup location, recommending the pickup location and setting the pickup location as a destination.
The limitations of determining a pickup location, recommending the pickup location and setting the pickup location as a destination, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components (claims 13 and 20). That is, other than reciting “a processor and a memory,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “a processor and a memory” language, “determining, recommending and setting” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally figuring out a pick up location using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claims 13 and 20 recite the additional elements of using a processor and a memory to perform both the determining, recommending and setting steps. The processor in all the steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Regarding the additional limitations of “obtaining user related and location information”, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities. In particular, the obtaining steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for use in the determining step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor and a memory to perform both the determining, recommending, and setting steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “obtaining user related and location information” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Hence, the claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2-12 and 14-19 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. 2-9, 11-12, and 14-19 include additional steps that fall under the mental process. Claim 10 comprises limitations that describe the list of services and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.. Therefore, dependent claims 2-12 and 14-19 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claims 1 and 13.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 12-13, 16, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwie et al US 10,466,057 B1 (hence Schwie) in view of Garcia US 2024/0256990 A1 (hence Garcia).
In re claims 1, 13, and 20, Schwie discloses a method of using a vehicle management system to determine high traffic areas and thereby move a self-driving vehicle to a variety of pick-up locations to meet a rider (Abstract) and teaches the following:
obtaining user-related information including a desired pick-up location of the user (Col.12, lines 38-55 “the system 4 can also receive a requested pickup location that indicates where the person 1 would like to be picked up by the vehicle 2”);
obtaining location-related information including traffic conditions around a location of the vehicle (Col.32, Lines 17-21 “traffic adjacent 422 to the primary pick-up location 420 is greater than a predetermined traffic threshold”);
determining a pick-up location of the user based on the user-related information and the location-related information (Col.32, lines 21-26 “in response to determining that the traffic adjacent 422 to the primary pick-up location 420 is not greater than the predetermined traffic threshold, methods include sending, by the vehicle management system 4, the self-driving vehicle 2 to the primary pick-up location 420”, and Col.33, lines 3-14 “in response to determining that traffic adjacent 422 to the primary pick-up location 420 is greater than the predetermined traffic threshold (at step 1700), methods may include identifying, by the vehicle management system 4, an alternate pick-up location 428a (at step 1702)”);
recommending the pick-up location to the vehicle (Col.33, lines 15-24 “sending, by the vehicle management system 4, a wireless communication 460 to the remote computing device 12 to request to meet at the alternate pick-up location 428a (at step 1704)”);
and setting the pick-up location selected by the user as a destination of the vehicle (Col.33, lines 25-33 “sending, by the vehicle management system 4, the self-driving vehicle 2 to the alternate pick-up location 428a (at step 1708)”)
However, Schwie doesn’t explicitly teach the following:
user-related information including a desired boarding time of a user, and an estimated parking time of the vehicle
Nevertheless, Garcia discloses system, method, and computer program product embodiments for ride hailing an autonomous vehicle by a third party (Abstract) and teaches the following:
user-related information including a desired boarding time of a user (Paragraph 0072 “an advanced scheduled pick-up associated with a rider profile may include parameters, such as a time, a day”), and an estimated parking time of the vehicle (Paragraph 0072 “an amount of time to wait at each stop or destination location”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the Schwie reference to include a desired boarding time of a user and an estimated parking time of the vehicle as part of a user related information, as taught by Garcia, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to assign, based on the pick-up request, an autonomous vehicle to pick-up the rider based on the rider profile (Garcia, Paragraph 0002).
In re claim 3, Schwie teaches the following:
changing the recommended pick-up location to a new pick-up location, wherein changing the recommended pick-up location includes determining the new pick-up location based on the user-related information and the location-related information, which are updated according to a changed schedule of the user (Col.22, lines 13-18 “the vehicle 2 might travel to the pick-up location 120 to find the user is not there and then come back to the pick-up location 120 in 20 minutes”, and Col.22, lines 44-57 “ the user may have taken a different means of transportation to travel to her next destination (e.g., travel back home). Accordingly, the vehicle management system 65 may be arranged and configured to instruct the vehicle 2 to travel to another location”)
In re claims 5 and 16, Schwie teaches the following:
determining a parking location of the vehicle based on the user-related information and the location-related information; and recommending the parking location to the vehicle (Col.19, line 65 – Col.20, line 10 “after sending the self-driving vehicle 2 to the pick-up location 120, the vehicle management system 65 may instruct the self-driving vehicle 2 to find a parking location 134 in response to determining, by the vehicle management system 65, that communicative coupling between the vehicle management system 65 and the remote computing device 12 has been restored”, and Col.20, lines 43-53)
In re claim 12, Schwie teaches the following:
changing the recommended pick-up location to a new pick-up location through determining the new pick-up location of the user based on the location-related information including real-time traffic conditions (Col.32, lines 21-26 “in response to determining that the traffic adjacent 422 to the primary pick-up location 420 is not greater than the predetermined traffic threshold, methods include sending, by the vehicle management system 4, the self-driving vehicle 2 to the primary pick-up location 420”, and Col.33, lines 3-14 “in response to determining that traffic adjacent 422 to the primary pick-up location 420 is greater than the predetermined traffic threshold (at step 1700), methods may include identifying, by the vehicle management system 4, an alternate pick-up location 428a (at step 1702)”)
Claim(s) 2 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwie and Garcia and further in view of Tatsumoto et al US 2022/0049964 A1 (hence Tatsumoto).
In re claims 2 and 14, the combination of Schwie and Garcia discloses the claimed invention as recited above including wherein determining the pick-up location of the user includes: determining the desired pick-up location as the pick-up location when the desired boarding time is the same as or later than a time when the vehicle will arrive at the desired pick-up location (Col.19, lines 10-23 “ can send the vehicle 2 to try to pick up the user (either right away or later, closer to an estimated pick up time)”), but doesn’t explicitly teach the following:
determining a location at which the vehicle is able to arrive earlier than the desired boarding time as the pick-up location when the desired boarding time is earlier than the time when the vehicle will arrive at the desired pick-up location
Nevertheless, Tatsumoto discloses vehicle dispatch for taxis or ridesharing (Abstract and Paragraph 0003) and teaches the following:
determining a location at which the vehicle is able to arrive earlier than the desired boarding time as the pick-up location when the desired boarding time is earlier than the time when the vehicle will arrive at the desired pick-up location (Paragraph 0020 “the server apparatus 12 notifies, to the terminal apparatus 11, a second boarding location (alternative boarding location) which is within a predetermined distance range from the specified boarding location and reachable by a dispatchable vehicle 13 earlier than the specified boarding location.”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the Schwie reference to include a second boarding location reachable by a dispatchable vehicle earlier than the first boarding location, as taught by Tatsumoto, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to reduce the time from when the passenger requests vehicle dispatch until arrival of the vehicle (Tatsumoto, Paragraph 0005).
Claim(s) 4 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwie and Garcia and further in view of Ogden et al US 2023/0342674 A1 (hence Ogden).
In re claims 4, and 15, the combination of Schwie and Garcia discloses the claimed invention as recited above but doesn’t explicitly teach the following:
wherein recommending the pick-up location comprises providing information including a travel route and a time required from a parking location of the vehicle to the pick-up location to the user
Nevertheless, Ogden discloses ride services within a mapping application in a client computing device (Abstract) and teaches the following:
wherein recommending the pick-up location comprises providing information including a travel route and a time required from a parking location of the vehicle to the pick-up location to the user (Paragraph 0064 “present an indication of the driver on the map display along with the pick-up location or destination location for the user to view the driver's progress to the pick-up location or on the route to the destination location“ and Fig.11B, Fig.13B, and Paragraph 0097)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the Schwie reference to include ride request displays, as taught by Ogden, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to present suitable information regarding the ride service route segment and ride information (Ogden, Paragraphs 0003 and 0005).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwie and Garcia and further in view of Sugano et al US 2024/0257286 A1 (hence Sugano).
In re claim 6, the combination of Schwie and Garcia discloses the claimed invention as recited above but doesn’t explicitly teach the following:
changing the recommended parking location to a new parking location, wherein changing the recommended parking location includes determining the new parking location of the vehicle based on the user-related information and the location-related information, which are updated according to a changed schedule of the user
Nevertheless, Sugano discloses a technique for managing parking of vehicles in a parking lot (Paragraph 0002) and teaches the following:
changing the recommended parking location to a new parking location, wherein changing the recommended parking location includes determining the new parking location of the vehicle based on the user-related information and the location-related information, which are updated according to a changed schedule of the user (Paragraph 0058 “park the vehicle 1 at a position closer to the pick-up and drop-off area 21 as the current time is closer to the scheduled usage time”, and Paragraph 0066)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the Schwie reference to include moving the vehicle to the pick-up and drop-off area, as taught by Sugano, in order to improve the efficiency of the traffic flow in the parking lot (Sugano, Paragraph 0075).
Claim(s) 7 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwie and Garcia and further in view of Khoo et al US 2020/0175869 A1 (hence Khoo).
In re claims 7, and 17, the combination of Schwie and Garcia discloses the claimed invention as recited above but doesn’t explicitly teach the following:
providing information including congestion in parking lots, parking fees, a travel distance and a time required from the location of the vehicle to the user
Nevertheless, Khoo discloses alerting a driver of a vehicle of parking conditions within a predetermined distance of a destination (Abstract) and teaches the following:
providing information including congestion in parking lots, parking fees, a travel distance and a time required from the location of the vehicle to the user (Paragraphs 0017, 0032, and 0041)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the Schwie reference to include parking data as taught by Khoo, in order to provide multiple parking options so the driver can determine where to park (Khoo, Paragraph 0032).
Claim(s) 8-9, 11, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwie and Garcia and further in view of Zack US 2021/0120385 A1 (hence Zack).
In re claims 8, and 18, the combination of Schwie and Garcia discloses the claimed invention as recited above but doesn’t explicitly teach the following:
providing a list of services available during the estimated parking time based on the user-related information and the location-related information
Nevertheless, Zack discloses vehicle telematics and in particular the utilization of vehicle telematics for the purpose of vehicle maintenance (Abstract) and teaches the following:
providing a list of services available during the estimated parking time based on the user-related information and the location-related information (Paragraph 0023 “ examples of assets may comprise fueling stations, recharging stations, lodging, parking” and Paragraph 0024 “total available parking, a list of services provided by the asset”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the Schwie reference to include location-related information, as taught by Zack, in order to present information about nearby vendors of goods or services to a passenger of a vehicle (Zack, Paragraph 0002).
In re claims 9 and 19, Zack teaches the following:
changing the provided list of available services to a new service list, wherein changing the provided list of available services to the new service list includes providing the new service list available during the estimated parking time based on the user-related information and the location-related information, which are updated according to the changed schedule of the user (Paragraph 0024)
In re claim 11, Zack teaches the following:
wherein providing the list of available services comprises providing a list of services that need to be used in consideration of the user-related information and the location-related information (Paragraph 0024)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Schwendimann et al US 2025/0346260 A1 discloses a system for providing wait times for pickups of passengers for a trip involving autonomous vehicles based on different criteria.
Blume et al US 2024/0109562 A1 discloses detailed electronic map information, such as roadgraph data, in conjunction with other features to select appropriate pickup and drop-off locations for riders and other users of an autonomous vehicle.
Suzuki et al US 2022/0196416 A1 discloses a vehicle travel route control system, a vehicle travel route control device, and a vehicle travel route control method, which are applied to a vehicle dispatch service and manage a travel route of a dispatch vehicle.
Yasui et al US 11,541,908 B2 discloses an acquirer configured to acquire a boarding request, a deriver configured to derive, when an action schedule of an automatic driving vehicle includes a standby state based on a boarding request acquired by the acquirer, a usage charge of the automatic driving vehicle reflecting a cost generated in a traveling state in which the automatic driving vehicle carries a user and travels and a cost generated in the standby state, and an output configured to output information including the usage charge derived by the deriver.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMI KHATIB whose telephone number is (571)270-1165. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00am-5:30pm.
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, Erin M Piateski can be reached at 571-270 7429. 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.
/RAMI KHATIB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669