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 § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 6, 10, 14, 15, 17 and 20 - 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Rhodes et al. (Pub. No.: US 2020/0026279 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 10 and 20 (Currently Amended); Rhodes discloses a method (FIG. 2), system for controlling an autonomous vehicle (¶ 1 and FIG. 6) and non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions which, when executed, cause a computing device to perform a method of controlling an autonomous vehicle (computer-readable medium for smart routing for autonomous vehicle ¶ 1) comprising:
controlling, by one or more processors (See Abstract), an autonomous vehicle to drop off a passenger at an intermediate destination during a trip to a final destination (“…an autonomous vehicle 110 may drive to a first real estate property (House 1), and may stop and wait for a user to view the property. After the user returns, the autonomous vehicle 110 may proceed along a route 120 to a second stop 130, which may be at a second real estate property (House 2), at which the user may exit the autonomous vehicle 110 and tour or view the second real estate property.´¶ 24);
determining, by the one or more processors, an estimated amount of time that the autonomous vehicle is expected to wait for the passenger to return (“The computer processor(s) may cause the autonomous vehicle to wait at the first location for a predetermined length of time (such as a length of time indicated by the user for viewing the property” ¶ 32);
after dropping off the passenger, receiving, by the one or more processors, information modifying the estimated amount of time (“For example, the computer processor(s) determine that the user has departed the autonomous vehicle 220 at the first location or first real estate option 160 (e.g., by detecting that the door was opened and closed, by receiving an indication from the user that the user would like to tour the property, by a mobile device of the user detecting movement indicative of a user walking and sending an indication of such to the vehicle or remote server, etc.), and may determine that the user will not return to the autonomous vehicle 110 for a length of time. For example, the user may indicate that the user will be viewing the property for 15 minutes, based on historical information (e.g., information associated with the property, other property, and/or the user), and/or based on the tour (e.g., time allocated to the property in the tour.” ¶ 37 And similarly, computer processor determining a total wait time for the autonomous vehicle at the drop off location ¶ 55); and
controlling, by the one or more processors, the autonomous vehicle to perform a task
based on the modified estimated amount of time (“Accordingly, the computer processor(s) may cause the autonomous vehicle 110 to be available for ridesharing (e.g., in a ridesharing mode) or for another purpose during the length of time. For example, because the user does not need the autonomous vehicle 110 during the length of time, the autonomous vehicle 110 may be used for other tasks or purposes. In some embodiments, the user may be given a time limit, such as 20 minutes, after which the autonomous vehicle 110 may leave, and another autonomous vehicle or the same autonomous vehicle 110 may return to pick up the user when the user has completed viewing the property, as discussed with respect to FIG. 3.” ¶ 37 and “For example, based at least in part on the pickup and drop off location for the second user (as well as the time to drive to the pickup location, traffic information, etc.), the computer processor(s) may determine that a total time for the autonomous vehicle that is in the waiting mode to pick up and drop off the second user, and then return to the location of the first real estate option is less than the length of time that the first user will be gone (e.g., 20 minutes in this example).” ¶ 55).
Regarding claims 5 and 14 (Currently Amended), Rhodes discloses the method and system, wherein the task is to wait at the intermediate destination for the passenger to board the autonomous vehicle (User wants vehicle to wait ¶ 50).
Regarding claims 6 and 15, Rhodes discloses the method and system, wherein the task is to maneuver the autonomous vehicle to pick up another passenger (rideshare, pick up other passengers ¶ 51).
Regarding claim 17, Rhodes discloses the system, wherein the one or more processors are comprised by either the autonomous vehicle or a fleet management system (600, FIG. 6).
Regarding claims 21 and 23 (new), Rhodes discloses the method and system, wherein updating the estimated amount of time comprises receiving, from a client computing device of the passenger while the passenger is at the intermediate destination, information indicating an increase or a decrease in an expected amount of time that the passenger will spend at the intermediate destination (“…a mobile device of the user detecting movement indicative of a user walking and sending an indication of such to the vehicle or remote server, etc.), and may determine that the user will not return to the autonomous vehicle 110 for a length of time. For example, the user may indicate that the user will be viewing the property for 15 minutes” ¶ 37).
Regarding claim 22 and 24 (new), Rhodes discloses the method and system, wherein modifying the estimated amount of time is performed periodically while the passenger is at the intermediate destination (¶¶ 37, 55).
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rhodes et al. (Pub. No.: US 2020/0026279 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Konrardy et al. (Patent No.: US 10,086,782 B1).
Regarding claims 2 and 11 (Currently Amended), Rhodes is silent to the method and system, wherein the task is to maneuver the autonomous vehicle to a maintenance location and then maneuver the autonomous vehicle back to the intermediate destination before the modified estimated amount of time elapses. However, Konrardy teaches a vehicle 108 in a fully autonomous manner along a route to a destination, which may be the original destination or a new destination (e.g., an emergency facility, a repair facility, etc.; 514, FIG. 5 and col. 44, lines 1-5). Rhodes already teaches the vehicle performing different tasks, if permitted, based on the length of time between the task and picking up the first passenger (¶ 37).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the task taught by Rhodes to maneuver the autonomous vehicle to a maintenance location and then maneuver the autonomous vehicle back to the first location before the estimated amount of time elapses as taught Konrardy to enhance vehicle performance by serving the vehicle before issues arise.
Claim(s) 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rhodes et al. (Pub. No.: US 2020/0026279 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Araki (Pub. No.: US 2017/0217319 A1).
Regarding claims 3 and 12 (Currently Amended), Araki teaches the method and system, wherein the task is to maneuver the autonomous vehicle to a charging location and then maneuver the autonomous vehicle back to the intermediate destination before the modified estimated amount of time elapses (Charging station as destination along a route ¶ 90 and FIG. 4). Rhodes already teaches the vehicle performing different tasks, if permitted, based on the length of time between the task and picking up the first passenger (¶ 37).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the task taught by Rhodes to maneuver the autonomous vehicle to a charging location and then maneuver the autonomous vehicle back to the first location before the estimated amount of time elapses as taught Konrardy to enhance convenience by making it possible to present a charging station that meets a requirement of the user of the vehicle (¶ 7).
Claim(s) 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rhodes et al. (Pub. No.: US 2020/0026279 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Walsh (Pub. No.: US 2020/0133268 A1).
Regarding claims 4 and 13 (Currently Amended), Walsh teaches the method and system, wherein the task is to maneuver the autonomous vehicle to a cleaning location and then maneuver back to the intermediate destination before the modified estimated amount of time elapses (candidate destination location may be a carwash ¶ 53). Rhodes already teaches the vehicle performing different tasks, if permitted, based on the length of time between the task and picking up the first passenger (¶ 37).
It would have been obvious to modify the tasks taught by Rhodes to wherein the task is to maneuver the autonomous vehicle to a cleaning location and then maneuver back to the first location before the estimated amount of time elapses as taught by Walsh to enhance user flexibility and convenience by allowing the user to select a preferred service provider location of the carwash (¶ 53).
Claim(s) 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rhodes et al. (Pub. No.: US 2020/0026279 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Dickens (Pub. No.: US 2020/0042015 A1).
Regarding claims 7 and 16, Dickens teaches the method and system, wherein the task is to maneuver the autonomous vehicle to at least one of pick up or deliver cargo (amount of time a user has to wait based on the delivery of goods 508, FIG. 5).
It would have been obvious to modify Rhodes to wherein the task is to maneuver the autonomous vehicle to at least one of pick up or deliver cargo as taught by Dickens to enhance convenience for the autonomous vehicle occupants.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants generally argue that the claims are patentable over prior art Rhodes in light of amendments. Specifically, Applicants argue:heir own merit.
“Thus, claim 1 has been amended to clarify that "after dropping off the passenger" information is received "modifying the estimated amount of time", and that "the autonomous vehicle" is controlled "to perform a task based on the modified estimated amount of time". Applicant respectfully asserts that the Rhodes publication does not disclose this newly-claimed modifying of the estimated amount of time or controlling of the autonomous vehicle "based on the modified estimated amount of time". Accordingly, Rhodes does not anticipate the amended independent claims.
Therefore, Applicant asserts that the claimed embodiments are distinguishable over Rhodes. The other cited publications are merely utilized as allegedly teaching features of dependent claims, and do not cure the deficiencies of Rhodes. As such, Applicant respectfully submits that the rejection of claim 1 is improper and should be withdrawn. Claims 10 and 20 may be compared to claim 1. As such, Applicant respectfully submits that independent claims 1, 10, and 20 and their respective dependent claims are patentable over the cited reference of record.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees as discussed above in claim rejections for independent claims 1, 10 and 20. Examiner maintains that prior art Rhodes meets the limitations of the claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TYLER J LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-9727. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached at 571-272-9855. 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.
/TYLER J LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights