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 .
This is in response to Applicant’s communication filed on 7/09/26, wherein:
Claims 1-20 are currently pending;
Claims 1-20 have been amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by LEVY ET AL (US 2019/0137290) from Applicant’s IDS filed on 5/8/25. Herein after LEVY.
As for claim 1, LEVY discloses a method comprising:
detecting a delay to an expected conclusion time of an event {see at least figures 2-3, pars. 0062, 0115 which disclose determine the absence of the user, or the user does not show up at the pickup location, or the user fails to arrive at the pickup location};
determining based on the delay of the expected conclusion time of the event, an intermediate parking location (a wait location) for a transport between a current parked location (a original pick up location) of the transport and a location of a transport occupant (alternate pick up location), moving the transport from the current parked location to the intermediate parking location
{see at least pars. 0062-0063 disclose e.g. if the user fails to arrive (delay) at the autonomous vehicle prior to expiration of the user arrival timer, the autonomous vehicle can depart from the pickup location (interpreted to be a current parked location) and move to another wait location downroad of the pickup location (interpreted to be an intermediate parking location) while waiting for the user to arrive at this alternative pickup location (a location of a transport occupant);
par. 0063 discloses the vehicle autonomously navigate toward a pickup location designated by a user in a pending rideshare request; to select a wait location (intermediate parking location) near the pickup location, such as a parking space, a bike lane, a fire hydrant zone, a driveway, or a double-park location;
par. 0111 discloses e.g. if the remote computer system determines that the user is not present at the pickup location or not within the threshold distance or time of the pickup location, the remote computer system can trigger the autonomous vehicle to execute delay schema. For example, the autonomous vehicle can then: execute the block-circling scheme described above, including scanning the field near the pickup location for viable wait locations;
par. 0115 discloses “if the autonomous vehicle previously arrived at the pickup location specified in the rideshare request, then departed the pickup location due to absence of the user, and is now downroad of the pickup location, the remote computer system can…… elect an alternate pickup location. For example, the remote computer system can prompt the autonomous vehicle to remain in its current location and transmit a notification—to the user's mobile computing device—including the autonomous vehicle's current geospatial location and a prompt to walk to this geospatial location to meet the autonomous vehicle. In another example, the remote computer system can: identify a viable wait location (e.g., a loading zone, a driveway, a fire hydrant zone, etc.) uproad of the pickup location, such as based on scan data recently recorded by the autonomous vehicle while executing delay schema; elect this wait location as an alternate pickup location; dispatch the autonomous vehicle to this alternate pickup location; and transmit a notification—to the user's mobile computing device—including the geospatial location of the alternate pickup location and a prompt to walk to this geospatial location to meet the autonomous vehicle.
As for claim 2, LEVY discloses causing the transport to move to a pickup location when a device associated with the transport occupant approaches the pickup location {see at least pars. 0115, 0122-0123}.
As for claim 3, LEVY discloses detecting that the transport has parked at the current parked location based on video data received from at least one camera {see at least pars. 0020, 0111-0115}.
As for claim 4, LEVY discloses detecting that the transport has parked at the current parked location based on a change in an operation status of the transport {see LEVY at least pars. 0111-0115}.
As for claim 5, LEVY discloses detecting that the transport has parked at the current parked location based on a sensor of the transport indicating that the transport user-occupant of the transport has exited the transport {see at least par. 0026-0027, 0031, 0038}.
As for claim 6, LEVY discloses receiving a notification from a device associated with the transport occupant to move the transport {see at least pars. 0095-0097}.
As for claim 7, LEVY discloses determining the intermediate parking location based on vehicles vacating a parking spot between the current parked location and a pickup location {see at least pars. 0043-0044, 0048-0051, 0062-0063, 0122-0123}.
As for claims 8-20, the limitations of these claims have been noted in the rejection above. They are therefore rejected for the same reason sets forth above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/9/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument (remarks 7-9) that the reference of Levy fails to teach the amended language “detect a delay to an expected conclusion time of an event, determining based on the delay to the expected conclusion time of the event, an intermediate parking location between a current parked location of the transport and a location of a transport occupant”. However, this is not persuasive.
As indicated in the rejection above, Levy at least in pars. 0062-0063 discloses determine when the user fail to show up at the pickup location (interpreted to be a current parked location), then the autonomous vehicle depart to the wait location (interpreted to be intermediate location) near the pickup location (current parked location) such as a parking space, a bike lane, a fire hydrant zone, a driveway, or a double-park location;
par. 0111 discloses e.g. if the remote computer system determines that the user is not present at the pickup location or not within the threshold distance or time of the pickup location, the remote computer system can trigger the autonomous vehicle to execute delay schema. For example, the autonomous vehicle can then: execute the block-circling scheme described above, including scanning the field near the pickup location for viable wait locations;
par. 0115 discloses the remote computer system can prompt the autonomous vehicle to remain in its current location and transmit a notification—to the user's mobile computing device including the autonomous vehicle's current geospatial location and a prompt to walk to this geospatial location to meet the autonomous vehicle. In another example, the remote computer system can: identify a viable wait location (e.g., a loading zone, a driveway, a fire hydrant zone, etc.) uproad of the pickup location, such as based on scan data recently recorded by the autonomous vehicle while executing delay schema; elect this wait location as an alternate pickup location (a location of a transport occupant).
Noted: because the claim does not specific or limit with respect to the distance or how far is from a current parked location to intermediate parking location, and how far from intermediate parking location to a location of a transport occupant. In the other words, the claim only indicate that an intermediate parking location for a transport is between a current parked location and a location of a transport occupant”. Since Levy as indicated above teach the autonomous vehicle depart to another wait locations (intermediate parking location) near the pickup location (current parked location) while waiting for the user to arrive at this alternative pickup location (a location of a transport occupant), Levy teaches the wait location (intermediate parked location) is between the pick up location (current parked location) and the alternate pickup location (a location of a transport occupant) even if they are a few meter or few feet apart.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 Kira Nguyen whose telephone number is (571)270-1614. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday 9:00-5:00 ET.
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, Khoi Tran can be reached on 571-272-6919. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KIRA NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights