DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
This application is a CON of 18/798,116, now US 12,672,206.
18/798,116 is a CON of 18/213,068, now US 12,096,522.
18/213,068 is a CON of 17/902,697, now US 11,729,859.
17/902,697 is a CON of 17/219,312, now US 11,477,847.
17/219,312 is a CON of 16/890,162, now US 11,006,479.
16/890,162 is a CON of 15/600,570, now US 10,701,759.
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 § 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0002319 A1 (Jin et al.), in view of US 2018/0238694 A1 (Bellotti et al.).
As to Claim 1, Jin et al. disclose a computer system comprising:
one or more processors (Jin et al. disclose the processor and memory - ¶ [0042]);
memory resources storing a set of instructions (Jin et al. disclose the processor and memory - ¶ [0042]) that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computer system to perform operations comprising:
receiving, from a computing device of a user over one or more networks, data for a transport request, the data including (i) a position of the user, and (ii) a service destination (Jin et al. discloses receiving the position of a user or user’s device at a live time, and also a position the user designates that he/she will be located at a later time {future position of interest} - ¶ [0019);
determining a service location for the transport request based at least in part on the data received from the computing device of the user (Jin et al. disclose displaying on the user’s app the map depicting the cross street locations at which the user can intercept an available taxi driver - ¶¶ [0019, 0021, 0028, 0049], Claims 5, 12 and 19; and Fig. 10. Jin et al. also disclose the periodic updates based on new service provider position data received - ¶ [0011]);
transmitting a first set of data to the computing device of the user, the first set of data causing the user device to display walking directions to the service location (Jin et al. discloses selecting one or more licensed taxi drivers in a geographic region based on the user’s location and request for service; and pinpointing probable cross streets for the user to intercept an available driver with probability of approximate time to wait - ¶¶ [0011, 0019,0021] and Fig. 10. Jin et al. also disclose displaying on the user’s app the map depicting the cross street locations at which the user can intercept an available taxi driver - ¶¶ [0019, 0021, 0028, 0049], Claims 5, 12 and 19; and Fig. 10. The map depicts the waiting points and the user’s current location. The walking directions to the user are merely to follow along the map until the user reaches the desired destination to wait for the taxi).
Jin et al. do not expressly disclose receiving mapping data, the mapping data including traffic information related to the service location; updating the service location based at least in part on the mapping data; and transmitting a second set of data to the computing device of the user, the second set of data causing the user device to guide the user to the updated service location. However, Bellotti et al., in the same field of passenger pick-up, disclose
receiving mapping data, the mapping data including traffic information related to the service location (Bellotti et al. disclose calculating a new pick-up location based on factors related to traffic, walking speed of the passenger to be picked up, etc. and announcing the new pick-up location to both the vehicle {with human driver or driverless} and the passenger {human} who made the transportation request - ¶¶ [0024, 0026, 0063-0064, 0069-0072] and Figs. 2, & 3 and Claims 8-12);
updating the service location based at least in part on the mapping data (Bellotti et al. disclose calculating a new pick-up location based on factors related to traffic, walking speed of the passenger to be picked up, etc. and announcing the new pick-up location to both the vehicle {with human driver or driverless} and the passenger {human} who made the transportation request - ¶¶ [0024, 0026, 0063-0064, 0069-0072] and Figs. 2, & 3 and Claims 8-12); and
transmitting a second set of data to the computing device of the user, the second set of data causing the user device to guide the user to the updated service location (Bellotti et al. disclose calculating a new pick-up location based on factors related to traffic, walking speed of the passenger to be picked up, etc. and announcing the new pick-up location to both the vehicle {with human driver or driverless} and the passenger {human} who made the transportation request - ¶¶ [0024, 0026, 0063-0064, 0069-0072] and Figs. 2, & 3 and Claims 8-12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine receiving mapping data, the mapping data including traffic information related to the service location; updating the service location based at least in part on the mapping data; and transmitting a second set of data to the computing device of the user, the second set of data causing the user device to guide the user to the updated service location, taught by Bellotti et al., with the transportation service request method, taught by Jin et al., in order to, inter alia, allow the vehicle to inform the passenger of an unexpected changed route or a new pick-up location based on current dynamic traffic conditions identified by the driver or an algorithm. (Bellotti et al. - ¶ [0003]).
As to Claim 2, the combination of Kin et al. and Bellotti et al. discloses the computer system of claim 1,
wherein the service location is updated, and the second set of data is transmitted to the computing device of the user as the user walks towards the service location (Bellotti et al. disclose calculating a new pick-up location based on factors related to traffic, walking speed of the passenger to be picked up, etc. and announcing the new pick-up location to both the vehicle {with human driver or driverless} and the passenger {human} who made the transportation request - ¶¶ [0024, 0026, 0063-0064, 0069-0072] and Figs. 2, & 3 and Claims 8-12).
The motivation and obviousness arguments are the same as in Claim 1.
As to Claim 3, the combination of Kin et al. and Bellotti et al. discloses the computer system of claim 1,
wherein the mapping data includes real-time traffic information, and wherein the service location is updated based on the real-time traffic information (Bellotti et al. disclose calculating a new pick-up location based on factors related to traffic, walking speed of the passenger to be picked up, etc. and announcing the new pick-up location to both the vehicle {with human driver or driverless} and the passenger {human} who made the transportation request - ¶¶ [0024, 0026, 0063-0064, 0069-0072] and Figs. 2, & 3 and Claims 8-12).
The motivation and obviousness arguments are the same as in Claim 1.
As to Claim 4, the combination of Kin et al. and Bellotti et al. discloses the computer system of claim 1, wherein the operations further include:
determining whether the service location is suitable for picking up passengers based on historical traffic data (Bellotti et al. - ¶ [0008]).
The motivation and obviousness arguments are the same as in Claim 1.
As to Claim 5, the combination of Kin et al. and Bellotti et al. discloses the computer system of claim 1, wherein the operations further include:
selecting a service area for picking up the user based on the position of the user, the selected service area including or coinciding with the service location (Bellotti et al. disclose calculating a new pick-up location based on factors related to traffic, walking speed of the passenger to be picked up, etc. and announcing the new pick-up location to both the vehicle {with human driver or driverless} and the passenger {human} who made the transportation request - ¶¶ [0024, 0026, 0063-0064, 0069-0072] and Figs. 2, & 3 and Claims 8-12).
The motivation and obviousness arguments are the same as in Claim 1.
As to Claim 6, the combination of Kin et al. and Bellotti et al. discloses the computer system of claim 5,
wherein the selecting the service area includes determining whether the service area is suitable for picking up passengers based on data collected by autonomous vehicles and/or user devices (Bellotti et al. disclose calculating a new pick-up location based on factors related to traffic, walking speed of the passenger to be picked up, etc. and announcing the new pick-up location to both the vehicle {with human driver or driverless} and the passenger {human} who made the transportation request - ¶¶ [0024, 0026, 0063-0064, 0069-0072] and Figs. 2, & 3 and Claims 8-12).
The motivation and obviousness arguments are the same as in Claim 1.
As to Claim 7, the combination of Kin et al. and Bellotti et al. discloses the computer system of claim 5,
wherein selecting the service area is based on mapping data that indicates crowds (Bellotti et al. disclose calculating a new pick-up location based on factors related to traffic {crowds of vehicles}, walking speed of the passenger to be picked up, etc. and announcing the new pick-up location to both the vehicle {with human driver or driverless} and the passenger {human} who made the transportation request - ¶¶ [0024, 0026, 0063-0064, 0069-0072] and Figs. 2, & 3 and Claims 8-12. Bellotti et al. also disclose the entry of user profile on the user’s device in determining factors relevant to calculating a new pick-up location, including temporary obstacles to mobility {which crowds of people create} - ¶¶ [0054-0056]).
The motivation and obviousness arguments are the same as in Claim 1.
As to Claim 8, the combination of Kin et al. and Bellotti et al. discloses the computer system of claim 1,
wherein updating the service location is further based at least in part on input received from the computing device of the user (Bellotti et al. disclose the entry of user profile on the user’s device in determining factors relevant to calculating a new pick-up location - ¶¶ [0054-0056]).
The motivation and obviousness arguments are the same as in Claim 1.
As to Claims 9-20, the limitations presented are the same as those of the preceding claims, albeit in the non-transitory computer-readable medium (Jin et al. - ¶ [0015]; Bellotti et al. - ¶ [0072]); and computer-implemented method (Jin et al. – Claim 1; Bellotti et al. - ¶¶ [0014-0018]) embodiments, and are therefore rejected on the same basis.
Interview Practice
USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR)
The USPTO AIR is a new optional online interview scheduling tool that allows Applicants to request an interview with an Examiner for their pending patent application.
The USPTO AIR form is available on our website at: http://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/interview-practice.
By submitting this type of interview request, the pending patent application will be in compliance with the written authorization requirement for Internet communication in accordance with MPEP §502.03. This authorization will be in effect until the Applicant provides a written withdrawal of authorization to the Examiner of record.
If you have questions or need assistance with the USPTO AIR form or with interview practice at the USPTO, please contact an Interview Specialist at http://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/interview-practice/interview-specialist or send an email to ExaminerInterviewPractice@USPTO.GOV.
Examiner Notes:
A) Prior to conducting any interview (whether using AIR or not), Applicant(s) must submit an agenda including the proposed date and time, all arguments in writing, and proposed claim amendments (if applicable). Any proposed amendments or arguments not presented in the agenda will only be heard by the Examiner, but because the Examiner will not have heard them in advance and been given an equitable opportunity to consider them, no decision will be rendered, nor agreement made. ALL AGENDAS MUST BE RECEIVED BY THE EXAMINER AT LEAST 24 HOURS PRIOR TO THE START OF THE INTERVIEW, OR THE PREVIOUS BUSINESS DAY, WHICHEVER IS LONGER, or the interview may have to be rescheduled.
B) After-final interviews may be granted, but the agenda must be in compliance with MPEP 713.09 which limits the interview only to discussions of proposed amendments, or clarification for appeal. After-final interviews are not to be conducted for the purpose of rehashing previously made arguments. After seeing the agenda, Examiner will decide whether to grant or deny the interview.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD G KEEHN whose telephone number is (571)270-5007. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am - 5:00pm Eastern.
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, John A Follansbee can be reached at 571-272-3964. 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.
/RICHARD G KEEHN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights