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
Claims 1-20 of US Application No. 19/015,030, filed on 09 January 2025, are currently pending and have been examined. Applicant amended claim 1 and added claims 2-20 via preliminary amendment.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite “the robtotaxi vehicle type” (e.g., line 16 of claim 1) but should recite – the robotically driven vehicle type – to be consistent with preceding claim terminology.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 3-6, 8, 10-13, 15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldberg et al. (US 2015/0006072 A1, “Goldberg”) in view of Prada Gomez et al. (US 8,630,897 B1, “Prada”) and Mahfouda et al. (US 2013/0204656 A1, “Mahfouda”).
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 15, Goldberg discloses a dynamically optimized transportation system and teaches:
one or more processors; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to perform operations (coordination system – see at least ¶ [0009]) that include:
receiving, over one or more networks, a request from a mobile device of an end user for transporting the end user towards a destination location from a starting location (message from the rider including start point, end point, and start time – see at least ¶ [0019]; coordination system receives a rider request – see at least ¶ [0084]);
determining, based at least in part on the request, a preference of the end user for a [ ] vehicle type (preference for vehicle type – see at least ¶ [0066]);
generating, based at least in part on the preference for the robotically driven vehicle type, a travel plan for facilitating the end user in traveling to the destination location from the starting location using multiple transport vehicles, the travel plan including a transport leg to transport the end user to either an intermediate location or to the destination location, using the [ ] vehicle type (in response to the rider’s request, a message including transportation modalities and number of stops is presented to the rider – see at least ¶ [0068]; rider's preferences on which the message is based, include transportation options such as limo, taxi, bus, etc., number of transfers – see at least ¶ [0066]; the rider's default choices include a start point and end point for the trip -see at least 1 [0067]; e.g. 2, leg 1 = walk to pick up location, leg 2 = take bus 1, leg 3 = take jitney - see at least 1 [0069]-[0074];
wherein the travel plan identifies a starting time and a starting location for the transport leg utilizing the [ ] vehicle type (coordination system will direct riders to proceed to specific pick-up area within a given timeframe – see at least ¶ [0010]);
monitoring a current location of the mobile device of the end user before the starting time of the transport leg utilizing the robotically driven vehicle type (rider is equipped with a smartphone or device that updates location reflective of the rider’s progress toward a pick-up point – see at least ¶ [0010]); and
based on the current location of the mobile device of the end user [ ], selecting a [ ] vehicle for the end user (coordination system applies current location, mobility and requested destination for the rider against profiles for transportation assets and identifies transportation assets for the rider to choose – see at least ¶ [0085]); and
directing the selected robotically driven vehicle to rendezvous with the end user at the starting location for the transport leg utilizing the [ ] vehicle type (message to proceed to a pickup or drop off location is sent to a transportation asset – see at least ¶ [0051]).
Goldberg fails to teach the vehicle type being a robotically driven vehicle type; based on the starting time of the transport leg, selecting a vehicle for the end user.
However, Prada teaches:
determining, based at least in part on the request, a preference of the end user for a robotically driven vehicle type (customer preferences may include autonomous vehicles – see at least 2:61-67 and 11:53-59).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the dynamically optimized transportation system of Goldberg to provide for determining a preference for a robotically driven vehicle type, as taught by Prada, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would allow a vehicle to be arranged that matches the user’s preference (Prada at 4:44-46).
In addition, Mahfouda teaches:
based on the current location of the mobile device of the end user, and the starting time of the transport leg utilizing the [ ] vehicle type, selecting a [ ] vehicle for the end user (set of X potentially matching rides ("candidates") may be extracted from a database according to some of the following criteria: a) geographic proximity of user's requested pick up and drop off locations to the candidate's; b) temporal proximity of user's requested pick up and drop off times to the candidate's; c) available seats in one vehicle – see at least ¶ [0043]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the dynamically optimized transportation system of Goldberg to provide for selecting a vehicle based on starting time of the transport leg, as taught by Mahfouda, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would allow for arranging pickups that satisfy time window constraints (Mahfouda at ¶ [0048]).
Regarding claims 3, 10, and 17, Goldberg further teaches:
wherein selecting the robotically driven vehicle is further based at least in part on a location of the selected robotically driven vehicle (coordination system applies current location, mobility and requested destination for the rider against profiles for transportation assets and identifies transportation assets for the rider to choose – see at least ¶ [0085]; message from transportation asset may include location – see at least ¶ [0039]).
Regarding claims 4, 11, and 18, Goldberg further teaches:
wherein selecting the robotically driven vehicle is further based at least in part on passenger status of the selected robotically driven vehicle (coordination system applies current location, mobility and requested destination for the rider against profiles for transportation assets and identifies transportation assets for the rider to choose – see at least ¶ [0085]; message from transportation asset may include number of passengers on board – see at least ¶ [0039]).
Regarding claims 5, 12, and 19, Goldberg further teaches:
monitoring the selected robotically driven vehicle for a location and a passenger status of the robotically driven vehicle (messages from an asset may include current status, such as location and number of passengers on board – see at least ¶ [0039]);
based on the monitoring, making a determination as to whether the robotically driven vehicle is able to rendezvous with the end user at the starting location of the transport leg utilizing the robotically driven vehicle type (coordination system applies current location, mobility and requested destination for the rider against profiles and positions for transportation assets and identifies transportation assets for the rider to choose – see at least ¶ [0085]).
Regarding claims 6, 13, and 20, Goldberg further teaches:
wherein the operations further comprise: adjusting the travel plan based on the determination being that the robotically driven vehicle is not able to rendezvous with the end user (transportation asset no-show may trigger a new set of ride offers or notification of a delay – see at least ¶ [0025], [0034]; directions to the rider and transportation asset operator will be update if there is an exception – see at least ¶ [0062]).
Claims 2, 9, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldberg in view of Prada and Mahfouda, as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Khunger et al. (US 2011/0145089 A1, “Khunger”).
Regarding claims 2, 9, and 16, Goldberg, Prada, and Mahfouda fail to teach but Khunger discloses real-time ride share system and teaches:
wherein directing the selected robotically driven vehicle to rendezvous with the end user includes instructing the robotically driven vehicle to arrive at the starting location of the transport leg by the starting time (after matching a rider and driver, identity, location, time, and day may be transmitted to the driver – see at least ¶ [0035]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined dynamically optimized transportation system of Goldberg, Prada, and Mahfouda to provide for instructing the vehicle to arrive at the starting location by the starting time, as taught by Khunger, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would provide for coordinating the driver and rider (Khunger at ¶ [0001]).
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldberg in view of Prada and Mahfouda, as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Petroff (US 2009/0327011 A1).
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Goldberg, Prada, and Mahfouda fail to teach but Petroff discloses a vehicle dispatching method and system and teaches:
wherein directing the selected robotically driven vehicle includes transmitting one or more commands to a computer of the robotically driven vehicle (dispatching 34 may comprise sending instructions to vehicle 6 via an interface communication unit 2 such that at least a portion of the vehicle’s functions may operate under the control of a computer, processor, and/or control unit – see at least ¶ [0019]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined dynamically optimized transportation system of Goldberg, Prada, and Mahfouda to provide for transmitting commands to a computer of the vehicle, as taught by Petroff, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would allow for the autonomous vehicle to meet scheduling and goals (Petroff at ¶ [0025]).
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 AARON L TROOST whose telephone number is (571)270-5779. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30am-4pm.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at 313-446-6519. 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.
/AARON L TROOST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights