DETAILED ACTION
In the response filed December 10, 2025, claims 1-20 are pending in the current application.
Notice of AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
The drawings were objected to for informalities. Examiner thanks the Applicant for revising and amending the disclosure and hereby withdraws the objection from the previous Office action.
Applicant’s arguments for claims 1-20, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection have been considered but are unpersuasive. Applicant argues that Donnelly and Adams do not teach “identify whether the vehicle is the dispatched vehicle based on the received optical signal, wherein the optical signal includes the user identification code output through the automotive lamp.” Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, the previous Office action states that Donnelly discloses identifying whether the vehicle is the dispatched vehicle based on the received optical signal (Par. [0028], the user device 195 can execute a perception technique to detect the flash sequence outputted by the selected AV 109 as the selected AV 109 approaches the pick - up location , as described in detail below . In response to determining the flash code 127 from the selected AV 109 , the user device 195 can display an indicator on the display screen indicating the selected AV). To further emphasize the cited prior, Donnelly emphasizes that the mobile terminal can readily identify the vehicle dispatched to the user from the optical signal output from the vehicle (Par. [0057], the mobile computing device 300 can generate an indication feature viewable on the display so that the requesting user can readily identify the matching AV 390).
Second, Donnelly discloses the use of unique optical signals (Par. [0028], The flash codes 127 can enable a lighting element (or other output device, such as a radio or acoustic transmitter) on the selected AV 109 to output a unique flash sequence that identifies the selected AV). However, Donnelly does not explicitly disclose including a user identification code, wherein the optical signal includes the user identification code output through the automotive lamp. Here, Adams teaches a code (Par. [0058], The first client device 310 encodes the handshake identifier 335 received from the online concierge system 140 into an encoded identifier. The first client device 310 encodes the handshake identifier by applying an encoding algorithm to the handshake identifier 345. For example, the first client device 310 may apply a binary encoding algorithm to the handshake identifier, such as Morse code encoding) that identifies the user (Par. [0057], the handshake identifier 335 may be a unique number to be assigned by the online concierge system 140 to the first client device 310) and wherein the code that identifies the user is transmitted as a light signal (Par. [0059], The first client device 310 operates 350 a light emitter coupled to the first client device 310 to transmit the encoded handshake identifier as a light signal 355. The light emitter is a component of the first client device that emits light).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the transportation system of Donnelly to include the light signal coding abilities of Adams to teach “identify whether the vehicle is the dispatched vehicle based on the received optical signal, wherein the optical signal includes the user identification code output through the automotive lamp,” as a need exists to verify a handshake process that does not require physical proximity (Adams, Par. [0003]). Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself - that is in the substitution of the handshake code of Adams for the flash sequence as disclosed in Donnelly. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. As such, Applicant’s arguments remain unpersuasive and the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection is hereby maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donnelly (US 2017/0294130 A1) in view of Adams et al. (US 2024/0289856 A1), hereinafter Adams.
Regarding claim 1, Donnelly discloses a mobile terminal for identifying a dispatched vehicle using an automotive lamp, the mobile terminal comprising:
at least one processor; and a storage medium storing a computer-readable instruction, wherein when executed by the at least one processor (Par. [0060], a processor 3400 of the mobile computing device 300 can execute a rider application 332 stored in memory 330), the computer-readable instruction causes the at least one processor to
transmit a vehicle call request (Par. [0023], A requesting user can provide an input on a user device 195 to transmit a pick-up request 197),
receive an optical signal output from a vehicle based on the vehicle call request (Par. [0028], The flash codes 127 can enable a lighting element (or other output device , such as a radio or acoustic transmitter) on the selected AV 109 to output a unique flash sequence that identifies the selected AV … When outputted , the flash sequence corresponding to the flash code 127 can be identified using a camera of the requesting user’s device 195), and
identify whether the vehicle is the dispatched vehicle based on the received optical signal (Par. [0028], the user device 195 can execute a perception technique to detect the flash sequence outputted by the selected AV 109 as the selected AV 109 approaches the pick - up location , as described in detail below . In response to determining the flash code 127 from the selected AV 109 , the user device 195 can display an indicator on the display screen indicating the selected AV; Par. [0057], the mobile computing device 300 can generate an indication feature viewable on the display so that the requesting user can readily identify the matching AV 390),
Donnelly discloses the use of unique optical signals (Par. [0028], The flash codes 127 can enable a lighting element (or other output device, such as a radio or acoustic transmitter) on the selected AV 109 to output a unique flash sequence that identifies the selected AV). Donnelly does not explicitly disclose including a user identification code, wherein the optical signal includes the user identification code output through the automotive lamp. Adams teaches transmit a user identification (Par. [0057], the handshake identifier 335 may be a unique number to be assigned by the online concierge system 140 to the first client device 310) code (Par. [0058], The first client device 310 encodes the handshake identifier 335 received from the online concierge system 140 into an encoded identifier. The first client device 310 encodes the handshake identifier by applying an encoding algorithm to the handshake identifier 345. For example, the first client device 310 may apply a binary encoding algorithm to the handshake identifier, such as Morse code encoding), wherein the optical signal includes the user identification code output through the automotive lamp (Par. [0059], The first client device 310 operates 350 a light emitter coupled to the first client device 310 to transmit the encoded handshake identifier as a light signal 355. The light emitter is a component of the first client device that emits light).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the transportation system of Donnelly to include the light signal coding abilities of Adams to teach “identify whether the vehicle is the dispatched vehicle based on the received optical signal, wherein the optical signal includes the user identification code output through the automotive lamp,” as a need exists to verify a handshake process that does not require physical proximity (Adams, Par. [0003]). Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself - that is in the substitution of the handshake code of Adams for the flash sequence as disclosed in Donnelly. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 2, Donnelly and Adams teach the mobile terminal according to claim 1. Donnelly does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one processor: receives the optical signal, the optical signal being output by flashing the automotive lamp based on binary code; demodulates the received optical signal and converts the demodulated optical signal into the user identification code; determines whether the converted user identification code matches a pre-stored user identification code; and identifies the vehicle as the dispatched vehicle when the converted user identification code matches the pre-stored user identification code as a determination result. Adams teaches wherein the at least one processor: receives the optical signal, the optical signal being output by flashing the automotive lamp based on binary code; demodulates the received optical signal and converts the demodulated optical signal into the user identification code; determines whether the converted user identification code matches a pre-stored user identification code; and identifies the vehicle as the dispatched vehicle when the converted user identification code matches the pre-stored user identification code as a determination result (Par. [0058], [0059]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the transportation system of Donnelly to include the light signal coding abilities of Adams as a need exists to verify a handshake process that does not require physical proximity (Adams, Par. [0003]). Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself - that is in the substitution of the handshake code of Adams for the flash sequence as disclosed in Donnelly. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 3, Donnelly and Adams teach the mobile terminal according to claim 2. Donnelly does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one processor converts the binary code into the user identification code based on Morse code or American standard code for information interchange (ASCII) code. Adams teaches wherein the at least one processor converts the binary code into the user identification code based on Morse code or American standard code for information interchange (ASCII) code (Par. [0058], [0059]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the transportation system of Donnelly to include the light signal coding abilities of Adams as a need exists to verify a handshake process that does not require physical proximity (Adams, Par. [0003]). Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself - that is in the substitution of the handshake code of Adams for the flash sequence as disclosed in Donnelly. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 4, Donnelly and Adams teach the mobile terminal according to claim 1. Donnelly discloses wherein the at least one processor: determines whether a user boarding is completed; and outputs a dispatch completion indication if the user boarding is determined to be completed (Par. [0079], detects user egress and terminates designated application).
Regarding claim 5, Donnelly and Adams teach the mobile terminal according to claim 4. Donnelly discloses wherein the at least one processor determines that the user boarding is completed when detecting at least one of near field communication (NFC) tagging or quick response (QR) code tagging, or when receiving confirmation from a user (Par. [0052], NFC interface; Par. [0079], detects user egress and terminates designated application).
Regarding claim 6, Donnelly and Adams teach the mobile terminal according to claim 1. Donnelly discloses wherein the at least one processor activates a vehicle search button when the vehicle approaches within a preset distance from the mobile terminal (Par. [0075], when the AV 390 is within a proximity to the pick-up location, such as a predetermined distance or time, the mobile computing device 300 can generate a prompt (e.g., a visual and/or audio prompt) instructing the user to point the camera 350 of the mobile computing device 300 towards oncoming road traffic).
Regarding claim 7, Donnelly and Adams teach the mobile terminal according to claim 6. Donnelly discloses wherein the at least one processor highlights and displays an identified vehicle on a screen when the activated vehicle search button is clicked (Par. [0075], when the AV 390 is within a proximity to the pick-up location, such as a predetermined distance or time, the mobile computing device 300 can generate a prompt (e.g., a visual and/or audio prompt) instructing the user to point the camera 350 of the mobile computing device 300 towards oncoming road traffic; the mobile computing device 300 can detect flash code data 312 via the camera, and provide a visual indication of the AV 390 on the display screen 320 identifying the AV 390 (510). In one example, the visual indication can comprise a shaped outline, such as a colored circle or square, that identifies the AV 390 on live image data displayed on the display screen 320).
Regarding claim 8, Donnelly and Adams teach the mobile terminal according to claim 7. Donnelly discloses wherein the at least one processor highlights and outputs the identified vehicle by surrounding the vehicle with a shape (Par. [0075], when the AV 390 is within a proximity to the pick-up location, such as a predetermined distance or time, the mobile computing device 300 can generate a prompt (e.g., a visual and/or audio prompt) instructing the user to point the camera 350 of the mobile computing device 300 towards oncoming road traffic; the mobile computing device 300 can detect flash code data 312 via the camera, and provide a visual indication of the AV 390 on the display screen 320 identifying the AV 390 (510). In one example, the visual indication can comprise a shaped outline, such as a colored circle or square, that identifies the AV 390 on live image data displayed on the display screen 320).
Regarding claim 9, Donnelly discloses a vehicle terminal for identifying a dispatched vehicle using an automotive lamp, the vehicle terminal comprising: at least one processor; and a storage medium storing a computer-readable instruction (Par. [0060], a processor 3400 of the mobile computing device 300 can execute a rider application 332 stored in memory 330), wherein, when executed by the at least one processor, the computer-readable instruction causes the at least one processor to receive dispatch information (Par. [0023], A requesting user can provide an input on a user device 195 to transmit a pick-up request 197), and output an optical signal including the user identification code among the dispatch information using the automotive lamp (Par. [0028], The flash codes 127 can enable a lighting element (or other output device , such as a radio or acoustic transmitter) on the selected AV 109 to output a unique flash sequence that identifies the selected AV … When outputted , the flash sequence corresponding to the flash code 127 can be identified using a camera of the requesting user’s device 195).
Donnelly discloses the use of unique optical signals (Par. [0028], The flash codes 127 can enable a lighting element (or other output device, such as a radio or acoustic transmitter) on the selected AV 109 to output a unique flash sequence that identifies the selected AV). Donnelly does not explicitly disclose including a user identification code, wherein the optical signal includes the user identification code output through the automotive lamp. Adams teaches transmit a user identification code (Par. [0058], The online concierge system 140 generates 340 a handshake identifier and transmits the handshake identifier 335 to the first client device 310. The first client device 310 encodes the handshake identifier 335 received from the online concierge system 140 into an encoded identifier), wherein the optical signal includes the user identification code output through the automotive lamp (Par. [0059], The first client device 310 operates 350 a light emitter coupled to the first client device 310 to transmit the encoded handshake identifier as a light signal 355).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the transportation system of Donnelly to include the light signal coding abilities of Adams as a need exists to verify a handshake process that does not require physical proximity (Adams, Par. [0003]). Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself - that is in the substitution of the handshake code of Adams for the flash sequence as disclosed in Donnelly. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 10, Donnelly and Adams teach the mobile terminal according to claim 9. Donnelly does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one processor: modulates the user identification code and converts the modulated user identification code into a binary code, and outputs the optical signal by flashing the automotive lamp based on the generated binary code. Adams teaches wherein the at least one processor: modulates the user identification code and converts the modulated user identification code into a binary code, and outputs the optical signal by flashing the automotive lamp based on the generated binary code (Par. [0058], [0059]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the transportation system of Donnelly to include the light signal coding abilities of Adams as a need exists to verify a handshake process that does not require physical proximity (Adams, Par. [0003]). Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself - that is in the substitution of the handshake code of Adams for the flash sequence as disclosed in Donnelly. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 11, Donnelly and Adams teach the mobile terminal according to claim 10. Donnelly does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one processor converts the user identification code into the binary code based on Morse code or American standard code for information interchange (ASCII) code. Adams teaches wherein the at least one processor converts the user identification code into the binary code based on Morse code or American standard code for information interchange (ASCII) code (Par. [0058], [0059]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the transportation system of Donnelly to include the light signal coding abilities of Adams as a need exists to verify a handshake process that does not require physical proximity (Adams, Par. [0003]). Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself - that is in the substitution of the handshake code of Adams for the flash sequence as disclosed in Donnelly. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 12, Donnelly and Adams teach the mobile terminal according to claim 10. Donnelly does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one processor flashes the automotive lamp for a binary code “0” to have a shorter turn-on time than a binary code “1,” or the binary code “1” to have a shorter turn-on time than the binary code “0.” Adams teaches wherein the at least one processor flashes the automotive lamp for a binary code “0” to have a shorter turn-on time than a binary code “1,” or the binary code “1” to have a shorter turn-on time than the binary code “0” (Par. [0058], [0059]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the transportation system of Donnelly to include the light signal coding abilities of Adams as a need exists to verify a handshake process that does not require physical proximity (Adams, Par. [0003]). Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself - that is in the substitution of the handshake code of Adams for the flash sequence as disclosed in Donnelly. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 13, Donnelly and Adams teach the mobile terminal according to claim 9. Donnelly does not explicitly disclose wherein the user identification code includes at least one of a combination of letters, symbols, and/or numbers. Adams teaches wherein the user identification code includes at least one of a combination of letters, symbols, and/or numbers (Par. [0058], [0059]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the transportation system of Donnelly to include the light signal coding abilities of Adams as a need exists to verify a handshake process that does not require physical proximity (Adams, Par. [0003]). Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself - that is in the substitution of the handshake code of Adams for the flash sequence as disclosed in Donnelly. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 14, Donnelly and Adams teach the mobile terminal according to claim 9. Donnelly discloses wherein the at least one processor outputs the optical signal while the vehicle travels (Par. [0013], As the service vehicle approaches the pick-up location, the service vehicle can output the flash code using the lighting element).
Regarding claim 15, Donnelly and Adams teach the mobile terminal according to claim 9. Donnelly discloses wherein the at least one processor outputs the user identification code through a display device installed on a roof of the vehicle while the vehicle is parked or stopped (Par. [0081]).
Regarding claim 16, Donnelly and Adams teach the mobile terminal according to claim 9. Donnelly discloses wherein the at least one processor: determines whether a user boarding is completed; and terminates the output of the optical signal when the user boarding is determined to be completed (Par. [0052], NFC interface; Par. [0079], detects user egress and terminates designated application).
Regarding claim 17, Donnelly and Adams teach the mobile terminal according to claim 16. Donnelly discloses wherein the at least one processor determines that the user boarding is completed when detecting a door opening of the vehicle or when receiving the user authentication code (Par. [0052], NFC interface; Par. [0079], detects user egress and terminates designated application).
Regarding claim 18, Donnelly and Adams teach the mobile terminal according to claim 10. Donnelly discloses wherein a frequency at which the automotive lamp flashes is a frequency at which people do not perceive the flashing (Par. [0059], non-visible frequency band).
Regarding claim 19, Donnelly and Adams teach the mobile terminal according to claim 18. Donnelly discloses wherein the flashing frequency is 100 Hz or more (Par. [0059], non-visible frequency band).
Regarding claim 20, Donnelly and Adams teach the mobile terminal according to claim 9. Donnelly discloses wherein the automotive lamps includes at least one of a day running light, a low beam, a tail lamp, a position lamp, or any combination thereof (Par. [0028], one or multiple light sources).
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 Patrick Kim whose telephone number is (571)272-8619. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9AM - 5PM 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, Lynda Jasmin can be reached at (571)272-6782. 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.
/Patrick Kim/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/JESSICA LEMIEUX/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626