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 Application
Claim(s) 2-21 were previously pending and were rejected in the previous office action. Claim(s) 2, 10, 12, 16, and 19 were amended. Claim(s) 3-9, 11, 13-15, 17-18, and 20-21 were left as previously/originally presented. Claim 1 was cancelled. Claim(s) 2-21 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements’ (IDS) submitted on March 05, 2026, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Double Patenting
Applicant's arguments, on page 8, filed on February 27, 2026, has been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, on page 8, that the non-statutory double patenting should be held in abeyance. However, Examiner, respectfully, does not find the argument persuasive because it does not appear to show the claims are patentably distinct from the reference claims. See MPEP 804(I)(B)(1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s arguments, see page 9, of Applicant’s Response, filed February 27, 2026, with respect to 35 USC § 101 rejection of Claim(s) 2-21, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, on page 9, that the invention provides that the application is now integrated into a practical application thus sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea since the autonomous vehicle generates motion plans that integrate multiple service assignments and initiating motion control to cause the AV to execute those plans. Examiner, respectfully, disagrees with applicant’s arguments.
As an initial matter, it is important to note that first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. The claim itself does not need to explicitly recite the improvement described in the specification (e.g., "thereby increasing the bandwidth of the channel"), see MPEP 2106.04(d)(1). An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d at 1102-03; DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1259, 113 USPQ2d at 1107. In this respect, the improvement consideration overlaps with other considerations, specifically the particular machine consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)), and the mere instructions to apply an exception consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Thus, evaluation of those other considerations may assist examiners in making a determination of whether a claim satisfies the improvement consideration.
Here, in this case the specification discloses a solution to improve the service convenience of a user and the vehicle, see applicant’s specification paragraph 0021. This is at best an improvement to the abstract idea (e.g., providing delivery and/or rideshare services to a user) itself rather than a technological improvement.
First, the step(s) of accomplishing this desired improvement in the specification is made in blanket conclusory manner by merely stating the autonomous vehicle can perform these services such that they are convenient for the users and the vehicle (e.g., minimizing processing, data storage usage, fuel/electricity consumption, etc.). In this way, an autonomous vehicle can create vehicle service pools across different service entities in a manner that allows the vehicle to efficiently utilize its computational resources, move via an improved/more efficient route that address a plurality of service assignments, see applicant’s specification paragraph 0021, thus when the specification states the improvement in a conclusory manner the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology.
Also, even if it is determined that the specification doesn’t set forth an improvement in a conclusory manner, the independent claim(s) that are being evaluated fail to reflect the disclosed step(s) of accomplishing such improvement listed by applicant. While applicant provides that the autonomous vehicle operations and behaviors are improved, see applicants arguments on page 9 and applicant’s specification paragraph 0021. However, the claims are not as narrowly claimed. There is nothing in the claims that provide how the autonomous vehicle cameras and/or sensors are used to analyze motion plans and determine how the autonomous vehicle should operate within its surrounding environment. The claims fail to claim how the autonomous vehicle is able to generate motion plans and use those motion plans to improve its autonomous routing behavior within an environment, thus the limitations amount to no more than a recitation of the words “apply it. See, Versata Development Group, Inc. v. SAP America, Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citations omitted) ('"[T]he prohibition on patenting an ineligible concept cannot be circumvented by limiting the use of an ineligible concept to a particular technological environment").
Also, another important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d at 1102-03; DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1259, 113 USPQ2d at 1107. In this respect, the improvement consideration overlaps with other considerations, specifically the particular machine consideration (see MPEP §2106.05(b)), and the mere instructions to apply an exception consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Thus, evaluation of those other considerations may assist examiners in making a determination of whether a claim satisfies the improvement consideration.
Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv., the court has held that the use of a computer
or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive,
store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer
components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or
mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical
application or provide significantly more. Here, in this case applicant’s limitations merely
accessing, determining, exchanging, causing, and performing, respectively,
services using computer components that operate in their ordinary capacity (e.g., autonomous vehicle, computing system, processors, a first/second computing platform, an onboard memory, and non-transitory computer readable media), which are no more than “applying,” the judicial exception.
Examiner, also, further notes the “autonomous vehicle,” causing and performing, indicates a “field-of-use,” within the technological environment of providing instructions to a driver to move to provide delivery and/or transportation services to a user. As currently claimed, there is no improvement to the functioning of the autonomous vehicle, and the instructions sent are similar to those that would be sent by an entity specifying location information to a driver for providing services to a user.
Furthermore, like in Affinity Labs v. DirecTv, the additional elements generally link causing and performing, respectively, by an autonomous vehicle to move to a location, which, does no more than merely confine the use of the abstract idea of providing instructions to a driver to travel to a user location thus failing to add an inventive concept to the claims.
Also, similar to, Credit Acceptance Corp v. Westlake Services, the court provided that mere automation of manual processes is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality. In this case, applicant’s specification paragraph 0045-0047, provides that the autonomous vehicle can drive with interaction from a human operator via a remote and/or fully controllable by the human operator. These paragraphs provides that the driving of the autonomous vehicle can be performed by a human thus merely automating a manual process is not enough to show an improvement.
Also, see the recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
In this case, applicant has merely claimed the result of accomplishing the problem when the applicant has merely provided the AV can perform the first vehicle service and second vehicle service by generating a motion plan and initiating motion control. However, the claim(s) lack the details as to how the autonomous vehicle is able to generate this motion plan and based on that generation how the autonomous hardware uses that motion plan to then navigate to along that route thus merely claiming the result is equivalent to the words of “apply it.” Examiner, respectfully, suggest applicant consider amending the limitations to provide details of the sensors and camera of the autonomous vehicle and how that hardware is able to generate a plan and use that plan to navigate the environment, see applicant’s specification paragraph(s) 0022, 0058-0063 (e.g., other paragraph(s) may be helpful)
As the claim does not recite the specific improvement to the autonomous vehicle that perform the motion, such limitations directed to the autonomous vehicle are generically recited. See, Accenture Glob. Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2013) “[Where t]he limitations of the . . . claims . . . do not provide sufficient additional features or limit the abstract concept in a meaningful way[,] . . . the level of detail in the specification does not transform a claim reciting only an abstract concept into a patent-eligible system or method.” Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, see page(s) 9-11 of Applicant’s Response, filed February 27, 2026, with respect to Claim(s) 2-21, have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim(s) 2-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as
being unpatentable over Claim(s) 1-12 and 14-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,277,513 B2 (hereinafter Patent 513) in view of Greenberger et al. (US 10,789,568 B2) and further in view of Hochberg et al. (US 2021/0223051) and further in view of Morrison (WO 03/023641 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Patent 513, teaches a computer-implemented method for autonomous vehicle (AV) control, comprising:
accessing, by a computing system, first vehicle service assignment data describing a first vehicle service for an AV. (Claim 1)(Patent 513 teaches accessing, by a computing system, first vehicle service assignment data describing a first vehicle service for an autonomous vehicle)
the first vehicle service assignment data being received from a first service entity computing platform
determining, by the computing system, that the AV is available to perform at least a portion of one or more additional vehicle services in addition to the first vehicle service, based at least in part on the first vehicle service assignment data and based on any vehicle services computing system that the autonomous vehicle can perform the at least the portion of the one or more additional vehicle services in addition to any vehicle services identified in a vehicle assignment queue associated with the autonomous vehicle)
in response to determining that the AV can perform the at least the portion of the one or more additional vehicle services in addition to any vehicle services identified in the vehicle assignment queue. (Claim 1)(Patent 513 teaches in response to determining that the autonomous vehicle can perform the at least the portion of the one or more additional vehicle services in addition to any vehicle services identified in the vehicle assignment queue associated with the autonomous vehicle)
exchanging data, by the computing system, with a second service entity computing platform
the exchanged data comprising perform an additional vehicle service, and the second service entity obtaining a second vehicle service for the autonomous vehicle in response to receiving the communication)
causing, by the computing system, the AV to perform the first vehicle service in addition to at least a portion of the second vehicle service. (Claim 1)(Patent 513 teaches causing, by the computing system, the autonomous vehicle to concurrently perform the first vehicle service with at least a portion of the second vehicle service)
With respect to the above limitations: while Patent 513 teaches autonomous vehicles that is able to provide a first and second assignment service. The system is able to access an assignment queue to determine the assignments for the autonomous vehicles. However, Patent 513, doesn’t explicitly teach that the assignment queue is in the memory of the autonomous vehicle. Patent 513, also, doesn’t explicitly teach sending a confirmation that the autonomous vehicle is available. Patent 513, also, doesn’t explicitly teach that the first and second service entity coordinates vehicle services. Patent 513, also, doesn’t explicitly teach that the AV performs motion planning and the vehicle imitates motion control based on the motion plan.
But, Greenberger et al. in the analogous art of using an autonomous vehicle to conduct multiple request at the same time, teaches
the portion of the one or more additional vehicle services in addition to any vehicle services identified in a vehicle assignment queue stored in on board memory of the AV. (Column 4, Lines 22-45); (Column 8, Lines 5-38); (Column 13, Lines 60-67); (Column 14, Lines 1-2); (Column 22, Lines 46-60); (Column 33, Lines 19-31) and (Column 34, Lines 10-20)(Greenberger, also, teaches in method 750 the scheduler of the platform system can determine the autonomous vehicle availability by querying the product scheduling queue and the person scheduling queue, which the system can determine that the a compartment is available. Greenberger, further, teaches the autonomous vehicle includes a computer infotainment system. The computer infotainment system includes a storage device that stores application and operating systems. The product queue module is program instructions, ana application, routine, or subroutine that is stored in the storage device and evoked by the processor of the hardware device in the computer infotainment system. Greenberger, also, teaches that the request can be stored in the request queue of the infotainment system of the autonomous vehicle)
the exchanged data comprising a confirmation that the AV is available to perform an additional vehicle service, and the second service entity associating a second vehicle service with the AV in response to the exchanged data comprising the confirmation that the AV is available to perform the additional vehicle service. (Column 33, Lines 19-39); and (Column 34, Lines 9-26)(Greenberger teaches that after the system determines the autonomous vehicle is available by querying the product scheduling queue and the person scheduling queue then the system can send a confirmation to the seller of a product (e.g., second service entity). The confirmation can also send a code and an anticipated arrival time for the seller to place a package into the vehicle. The vehicle can then receive the product or item from the seller and then continue on with giving one or more subsequent persons with a ride request)
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify receiving a first request and a second request for an autonomous vehicle. The system can provide assignments to the autonomous vehicle using an assignment queue of Patent 513, by incorporating the teachings of an storage device on the autonomous vehicle that includes queue information. The autonomous vehicle system can determine an available queue request and send a confirmation to the seller. The system can then load the product while continuing with performing the ride request of Greenberger et al., with the motivation to better utilize empty seats in service vehicles by better matching available drivers and passengers through various souring network services. (Greenberger et al.: Column 2, Lines 1-11)
With respect to the above limitations: while Greenberger et al. teaches that the assignment queue is in the memory of the autonomous vehicle and sending a confirmation that the autonomous vehicle is available. However, Patent 513 and Greenberger et al., also, doesn’t explicitly teach that the first and second service entity coordinates vehicle services. Patent 513 and Greenberger et al., also, doesn’t explicitly teach that the AV performs motion planning and the vehicle imitates motion control based on the motion plan.
But, Hochberg et al. in the analogous art of ridesharing and delivery, teaches the AV performing the first vehicle service and at least the portion of the second vehicle service by generating a motion plan based on the first vehicle service and the second vehicle service and initiating motion control of the AV to traverse a route according to the motion plan. (Paragraph(s) 0128 and 0410-0411)(Hochberg et al. teaches the ridesharing management server can send route planning information based on real time traffic data, ride service assignments to the driving-control device of the autonomous vehicle (e.g., motion control). The ridesharing server can also predict updated traffic and environmental conditions, which will then provide the updated route to the driving-control device of the autonomous vehicle. Hochberg et al., also, teaches that the driving control device of the autonomous vehicle is used to control the navigation of the vehicle and the vehicle itself can detect its surroundings and identify feasible paths)
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify receiving a first request and a second request for an autonomous vehicle. The system can provide assignments to the autonomous vehicle using an assignment queue of Patent 513 and an storage device on the autonomous vehicle that includes queue information. The autonomous vehicle system can determine an available queue request and send a confirmation to the seller. The system can then load the product while continuing with performing the ride request of Greenberger et al., by incorporating the teachings of an AV performing motion control based on receiving a route of Hochberg et al., with the motivation to improve service efficiency. (Hochberg et al.: Paragraph 0134)
With respect to the above limitations: while Hochberg et al. teaches the AV performs motion planning and the vehicle imitates motion control based on the motion plan. However, Patent 513, Greenberger et al., and Hochberg et al., do not explicitly teach that the first and second service entity coordinates vehicle services.
But, Morrison in the analogous art of transporting passengers and delivery items at the same time, teaches
a first service entity computing platform that coordinates vehicle service. (Page 6, Lines 34-37); (Page 7, Lines 1-19); (Column 14, Lines 4-19 and 30-37); and (Page 15, Lines 1-9)(Morrison teaches the communication network can communicate with local service providers. The local service providers include taxi service organizations (e.g., first service entity that coordinates vehicle services). The taxi LSP can receive pick-up and delivery information from the freight forwarders (e.g., second service entity that coordinates vehicle service). The taxi can still ferry passengers while also delivering goods)
a second service entity computing platform that coordinates vehicle services. (Column 14, Lines 30-37); and (Page 15, Lines 1-9)(Morrison teaches the Global Integrators, Freight Forwarders and Combination Carriers (e.g., second service entity computing platform that coordinates vehicle service) can communicate delivery jobs to the communication network. The Carriers can receive request from customers for delivery jobs, which those jobs and customer information will be forwarded to the communication network)
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify receiving a first request and a second request for an autonomous vehicle. The system can provide assignments to the autonomous vehicle using an assignment queue of Patent 513, an storage device on the autonomous vehicle that includes queue information. The autonomous vehicle system can determine an available queue request and send a confirmation to the seller. The system can then load the product while continuing with performing the ride request of Greenberger et al., and an AV performing motion control based on receiving a route of Hochberg et al., by incorporating a communication network that is able to communicate with both taxi organizations and delivery freight organizations for jobs and coordinating those jobs of Morrison, with the motivation to improve efficient delivery and rideshare services. (Morrison: Page 4, Lines 5-19)
Regarding Claim 3, Patent 513/Greenberger et al./Hochberg et al./Morrison, teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 2 and the first vehicle service assignment data associated with the AV describing a maximum capacity of the AV and including camera image data from a camera of the AV and weight sensor data from the AV, further comprising:
processing a combination of the camera image and the weight sensor data to determine the maximum capacity of the AV. (Claim 2)(Patent 513 teaches data associated with the autonomous vehicle describing a maximum capacity of the autonomous vehicle and including camera image data from a camera of the autonomous vehicle and weight sensor data from the autonomous vehicle. The system can process a combination of the camera image data and the weight sensor data to determine the maximum capacity of the autonomous vehicle)
Regarding Claim 4, Patent 513/Greenberger et al./Hochberg et al./Morrison, teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 2 and the first vehicle service assignment data associated with the AV comprising sensor data, and comprising obtaining the sensor data via an interior camera of the AV and a weight sensor of the AV, further comprising determining an amount of remaining available weight capacity of the AV based on the sensor data. (Claim 3)(Patent 513 teaches the data associated with the autonomous vehicle comprising sensor data, and comprising obtaining the sensor data via an interior camera of the autonomous vehicle and a weight sensor of the autonomous vehicle, further comprising determining an amount of remaining available weight capacity of the autonomous vehicle based on the sensor data)
Regarding Claim 5, Patent 513/Greenberger et al./Hochberg et al./Morrison, teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 2 and determining that the vehicle assignment queue excludes the one or more additional vehicle services that the AV is able to perform in addition to the first vehicle service. (Claim 4)(Patent 513 teaches determining that the vehicle assignment queue excludes the one or more additional vehicle services that the autonomous vehicle is able to perform concurrently with the first vehicle service)
Regarding Claim 6, Patent 513/Greenberger et al./Hochberg et al./Morrison, teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 2 and comprising performing operations to signing in online with the second service entity to indicate that the AV is available to perform the additional vehicle service in response to determining that the AV can perform the at least the portion of the one or more additional vehicle services in addition to any vehicle services identified in the vehicle assignment queue of the AV. (Claim 5)(Patent 513 performing operations to signing in online with the second service entity to indicate that the autonomous vehicle is available to perform the additional vehicle service in response to determining that the autonomous vehicle can perform the at least the portion of the one or more additional vehicle services in addition to any vehicle services identified in the vehicle assignment queue of the autonomous vehicle)
Regarding Claim 7, Patent 513/Greenberger et al./Hochberg et al./Morrison, teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 2 and the first vehicle service being a same type of vehicle service as the second vehicle service. (Claim 6)(Patent 513 teaches the first vehicle service being a same type of vehicle service as the second vehicle service)
Regarding Claim 8, Patent 513/Greenberger et al./Hochberg et al./Morrison, teaches the first vehicle service being a different type of vehicle service than the second vehicle service. (Claim 7)(Patent 513 teaches the first vehicle service being a different type of vehicle service than the second vehicle service)
Regarding Claim 9, Patent 513/Greenberger et al./Hochberg et al./Morrison, teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 2 and the computing system being onboard the AV, comprising determining that the AV is available to specifically perform the additional vehicle service, comprising determining that the vehicle assignment queue excludes a set of vehicle services that the AV is able to perform with the first vehicle service. (Claim 8)(Patent 513 teaches the computing system being onboard the autonomous vehicle, comprising determining that the autonomous vehicle is available to specifically perform the additional vehicle service, comprising determining that the vehicle assignment queue excludes a set of vehicle services that the autonomous vehicle is able to perform concurrently with the first vehicle service)
Regarding Claim 10, Patent 513/Greenberger et al./Hochberg et al./Morrison, teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 2 and the causing of the AV to concurrently perform the first vehicle service with the second vehicle service comprising causing the AV to initiate a motion control to concurrently transport at least one of a first user or a first item for the first vehicle service with at least one of a second user or a second item for the second vehicle service. (Claim 9)(Patent 513 teaches the causing of the autonomous vehicle to concurrently perform the first vehicle service with the second vehicle service comprising causing the autonomous vehicle to initiate a motion control to concurrently transport at least one or a first user or a first item for the first vehicle service with at least one of a second user or a second item for the second vehicle service)
Regarding Claim 11, Patent 513/Greenberger et al./Hochberg et al./Morrison, teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 2.
However, Patent 513, doesn’t explicitly teach the second entity accessing the second vehicle service in response to receiving information indicating that the AV is available to perform the additional vehicle service.
But, Greenberger et al. in the analogous art of using an autonomous vehicle to conduct multiple request at the same time, teaches the second entity accessing the second vehicle service in response to receiving information indicating that the AV is available to perform the additional vehicle service. (Column 33, Lines 19-39); and (Column 34, Lines 9-26)(Greenberger teaches that after the system determines the autonomous vehicle is available by querying the product scheduling queue and the person scheduling queue then the system can send a confirmation to the seller of a product (e.g., second service entity). The confirmation can also send a code and an anticipated arrival time for the seller to place a package into the vehicle. The vehicle can then receive the product or item from the seller and then continue on with giving one or more subsequent persons with a ride request)
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify receiving a first request and a second request for an autonomous vehicle. The system can provide assignments to the autonomous vehicle using an assignment queue of Patent 513, by incorporating the teachings of determining the vehicle is available to perform a service, which a confirmation will be sent to a second service entity of Greenberger et al., with the motivation to better utilize empty seats in service vehicles by better matching available drivers and passengers through various souring network services. (Greenberger et al.: Column 2, Lines 1-11)
Regarding Claim 12, Patent 513/Greenberger et al./Hochberg et al./Morrison, teaches a computing system comprising:
one or more processors. (Claim 10)(Patent 513 teaches one or more processors)
one or more non-transitory computer readable media that collectively store instructions that when executed by the one or more processors cause the computing system to perform operations comprising: (Claim 10)(Patent 513 teaches one or more non-transitory computer readable media that collectively store instructions that when executed by the one or more processors cause the computing system to perform operations)
accessing, by a computing system, first vehicle service assignment data describing a first vehicle service for an AV. (Claim 10)(Patent 513 teaches accessing, by a computing system, first vehicle service assignment data describing a first vehicle service for an autonomous vehicle)
the first vehicle service assignment data being received from a first service entity computing platform
determining, by the computing system, that the AV is available to perform at least a portion of one or more additional vehicle services in addition to the first vehicle service, based at least in part on the first vehicle service assignment data and based on any vehicle services
in response to determining that the AV can perform the at least the portion of the one or more additional vehicle services in addition to any vehicle services identified in the vehicle assignment queue. (Claim 10)(Patent 513 teaches in response to determining that the autonomous vehicle can perform the at least the portion of the one or more additional vehicle services in addition to any vehicle services identified in the vehicle assignment queue associated with the autonomous vehicle)
exchanging data, by the computing system, with a second service entity computing platform entity computing platform that is different than the first service entity computing platform )
the exchanged data comprising
causing, by the computing system, the AV to perform the first vehicle service in addition to at least a portion of the second vehicle service. (Claim 10)(Patent 513 teaches causing, by the computing system, the autonomous vehicle to concurrently perform the first vehicle service with at least a portion of the second vehicle service)
With respect to the above limitations: while Patent 513 teaches autonomous vehicles that is able to provide a first and second assignment service. The system is able to access an assignment queue to determine the assignments for the autonomous vehicles. However, Patent 513, doesn’t explicitly teach that the assignment queue is in the memory of the autonomous vehicle. Patent 513, also, doesn’t explicitly teach sending a confirmation that the autonomous vehicle is available. Patent 513, also, doesn’t explicitly teach that the first and second service entity coordinates vehicle services. Patent 513, also, doesn’t explicitly teach that the AV performs motion planning and the vehicle imitates motion control based on the motion plan.
But, Greenberger et al. in the analogous art of using an autonomous vehicle to conduct multiple request at the same time, teaches
the portion of the one or more additional vehicle services in addition to any vehicle services identified in a vehicle assignment queue stored in on board memory of the AV. (Column 4, Lines 22-45); (Column 8, Lines 5-38); (Column 13, Lines 60-67); (Column 14, Lines 1-2); (Column 22, Lines 46-60); (Column 33, Lines 19-31) and (Column 34, Lines 10-20)(Greenberger, also, teaches in method 750 the scheduler of the platform system can determine the autonomous vehicle availability by querying the product scheduling queue and the person scheduling queue, which the system can determine that the a compartment is available. Greenberger, further, teaches the autonomous vehicle includes a computer infotainment system. The computer infotainment system includes a storage device that stores application and operating systems. The product queue module is program instructions, ana application, routine, or subroutine that is stored in the storage device and evoked by the processor of the hardware device in the computer infotainment system. Greenberger, also, teaches that the request can be stored in the request queue of the infotainment system of the autonomous vehicle)
the exchanged data comprising a confirmation that the AV is available to perform an additional vehicle service, and the second service entity associating a second vehicle service with the AV in response to the exchanged data comprising the confirmation that the AV is available to perform the additional vehicle service. (Column 33, Lines 19-39); and (Column 34, Lines 9-26)(Greenberger teaches that after the system determines the autonomous vehicle is available by querying the product scheduling queue and the person scheduling queue then the system can send a confirmation to the seller of a product (e.g., second service entity). The confirmation can also send a code and an anticipated arrival time for the seller to place a package into the vehicle. The vehicle can then receive the product or item from the seller and then continue on with giving one or more subsequent persons with a ride request)
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify receiving a first request and a second request for an autonomous vehicle. The system can provide assignments to the autonomous vehicle using an assignment queue of Patent 513, by incorporating the teachings of an storage device on the autonomous vehicle that includes queue information. The autonomous vehicle system can determine an available queue request and send a confirmation to the seller. The system can then load the product while continuing with performing the ride request of Greenberger et al., with the motivation to better utilize empty seats in service vehicles by better matching available drivers and passengers through various souring network services. (Greenberger et al.: Column 2, Lines 1-11)
With respect to the above limitations: while Greenberger et al. teaches that the assignment queue is in the memory of the autonomous vehicle and sending a confirmation that the autonomous vehicle is available. However, Patent 513 and Greenberger et al., also, doesn’t explicitly teach that the first and second service entity coordinates vehicle services. Patent 513 and Greenberger et al., also, doesn’t explicitly teach that the AV performs motion planning and the vehicle imitates motion control based on the motion plan.
But, Hochberg et al. in the analogous art of ridesharing and delivery, teaches the AV performing the first vehicle service and at least the portion of the second vehicle service by generating a motion plan based on the first vehicle service and the second vehicle service and initiating motion control of the AV to traverse a route according to the motion plan. (Paragraph(s) 0128 and 0410-0411)(Hochberg et al. teaches the ridesharing management server can send route planning information based on real time traffic data, ride service assignments to the driving-control device of the autonomous vehicle (e.g., motion control). The ridesharing server can also predict updated traffic and environmental conditions, which will then provide the updated route to the driving-control device of the autonomous vehicle. Hochberg et al., also, teaches that the driving control device of the autonomous vehicle is used to control the navigation of the vehicle and the vehicle itself can detect its surroundings and identify feasible paths)
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify receiving a first request and a second request for an autonomous vehicle. The system can provide assignments to the autonomous vehicle using an assignment queue of Patent 513 and an storage device on the autonomous vehicle that includes queue information. The autonomous vehicle system can determine an available queue request and send a confirmation to the seller. The system can then load the product while continuing with performing the ride request of Greenberger et al., by incorporating the teachings of an AV performing motion control based on receiving a route of Hochberg et al., with the motivation to improve service efficiency. (Hochberg et al.: Paragraph 0134)
With respect to the above limitations: while Hochberg et al. teaches the AV performs motion planning and the vehicle imitates motion control based on the motion plan. However, Patent 513, Greenberger et al., and Hochberg et al., do not explicitly teach that the first and second service entity coordinates vehicle services.
But, Morrison in the analogous art of transporting passengers and delivery items at the same time, teaches
a first service entity computing platform that coordinates vehicle service. (Page 6, Lines 34-37); (Page 7, Lines 1-19); (Column 14, Lines 4-19 and 30-37); and (Page 15, Lines 1-9)(Morrison teaches the communication network can communicate with local service providers. The local service providers include taxi service organizations (e.g., first service entity that coordinates vehicle services). The taxi LSP can receive pick-up and delivery information from the freight forwarders (e.g., second service entity that coordinates vehicle service). The taxi can still ferry passengers while also delivering goods)
a second service entity computing platform that coordinates vehicle services. (Column 14, Lines 30-37); and (Page 15, Lines 1-9)(Morrison teaches the Global Integrators, Freight Forwarders and Combination Carriers (e.g., second service entity computing platform that coordinates vehicle service) can communicate delivery jobs to the communication network. The Carriers can receive request from customers for delivery jobs, which those jobs and customer information will be forwarded to the communication network)
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify receiving a first request and a second request for an autonomous vehicle. The system can provide assignments to the autonomous vehicle using an assignment queue of Patent 513, an storage device on the autonomous vehicle that includes queue information. The autonomous vehicle system can determine an available queue request and send a confirmation to the seller. The system can then load the product while continuing with performing the ride request of Greenberger et al., and an AV performing motion control based on receiving a route of Hochberg et al., by incorporating a communication network that is able to communicate with both taxi organizations and delivery freight organizations for jobs and coordinating those jobs of Morrison, with the motivation to improve efficient delivery and rideshare services. (Morrison: Page 4, Lines 5-19)
Regarding Claim 13, Patent 513/Greenberger et al./Hochberg et al./Morrison, teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 12 and the operations further comprising accepting the first vehicle service for the AV. (Claim 11)(Patent 513 teaches the operations further comprising accepting the first vehicle service for the autonomous vehicle)
Regarding Claim 14, Patent 513/Greenberger et al./Hochberg et al./Morrison, teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 13 and the determining that the AV is available to perform the second vehicle service concurrently with the first vehicle service comprising
determining that the AV is available to perform the second vehicle service concurrently with the first vehicle service prior to accepting the first vehicle service for the AV. (Claim 12)(Patent 513 teaches the determining that the autonomous vehicle is available to perform the second vehicle service concurrently with the first vehicle service comprising determining that the autonomous vehicle is available to perform the second vehicle service concurrently with the first vehicle service prior to accepting the first vehicle service for the autonomous vehicle)
Regarding Claim 15, Patent 513/Greenberger et al./Hochberg et al./Morrison, teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 12 and the determining that the AV is available to perform the second vehicle service concurrently with the first vehicle service comprising determining that the AV is available to perform the second vehicle service with the first vehicle service based at least in part on the data describing capacity of the AV. (Claim 14)(Patent 513 teaches the determining that the autonomous vehicle is available to perform the second vehicle service concurrently with the first vehicle service comprising determining that the autonomous vehicle is available to perform the second vehicle service concurrently with the first vehicle service based at least in part on the data describing capacity of the autonomous vehicle)
Regarding Claim 16, Patent 513/Greenberger et al./Hochberg et al./Morrison, teaches an autonomous vehicle (AV) comprising:
one or more processors. (Claim 15)(Patent 513 teaches one or more processors)
one or more non-transitory computer readable media that collectively store instructions that when executed by the one or more processors cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: (Claim 15)(Patent 513 teaches one or more non-transitory computer readable media that collectively store instructions that when executed by the one or more processors cause the one or more processors to perform operations)
accessing, by a computing system, first vehicle service assignment data describing a first vehicle service for an AV. (Claim 15)(Patent 513 teaches accessing, by a computing system, first vehicle service assignment data describing a first vehicle service for an autonomous vehicle)
the first vehicle service assignment data being received from a first service entity computing platform
determining, by the computing system, that the AV is available to perform at least a portion of one or more additional vehicle services in addition to the first vehicle service, based at least in part on the first vehicle service assignment data and based on any vehicle services
in response to determining that the AV can perform the at least the portion of the one or more additional vehicle services in addition to any vehicle services identified in the vehicle assignment queue. (Claim 15)(Patent 513 teaches in response to determining that the autonomous vehicle can perform the at least the portion of the one or more additional vehicle services in addition to any vehicle services identified in the vehicle assignment queue associated with the autonomous vehicle)
exchanging data, by the computing system, with a second service entity computing platform that coordinates vehicle services and is different than the first service entity computing platform. (Claim 15)(Patent 513 teaches sending, by the computing system, a communication to a second service entity computing platform that is different than the first service entity computing platform )
the exchanged data comprising
causing, by the computing system, the AV to perform the first vehicle service in addition to at least a portion of the second vehicle service. (Claim 15)(Patent 513 teaches causing, by the computing system, the autonomous vehicle to concurrently perform the first vehicle service with at least a portion of the second vehicle service)
With respect to the above limitations: while Patent 513 teaches autonomous vehicles that is able to provide a first and second assignment service. The system is able to access an assignment queue to determine the assignments for the autonomous vehicles. However, Patent 513, doesn’t explicitly teach that the assignment queue is in the memory of the autonomous vehicle. Patent 513, also, doesn’t explicitly teach sending a confirmation that the autonomous vehicle is available. Patent 513, also, doesn’t explicitly teach that the first and second service entity coordinates vehicle services. Patent 513, also, doesn’t explicitly teach that the AV performs motion planning and the vehicle imitates motion control based on the motion plan.
But, Greenberger et al. in the analogous art of using an autonomous vehicle to conduct multiple request at the same time, teaches
the portion of the one or more additional vehicle services in addition to any vehicle services identified in a vehicle assignment queue stored in on board memory of the AV. (Column 4, Lines 22-45); (Column 8, Lines 5-38); (Column 13, Lines 60-67); (Column 14, Lines 1-2); (Column 22, Lines 46-60); (Column 33, Lines 19-31) and (Column 34, Lines 10-20)(Greenberger, also, teaches in method 750 the scheduler of the platform system can determine the autonomous vehicle availability by querying the product scheduling queue and the person scheduling queue, which the system can determine that the a compartment is available. Greenberger, further, teaches the autonomous vehicle includes a computer infotainment system. The computer infotainment system includes a storage device that stores application and operating systems. The product queue module is program instructions, ana application, routine, or subroutine that is stored in the storage device and evoked by the processor of the hardware device in the computer infotainment system. Greenberger, also, teaches that the request can be stored in the request queue of the infotainment system of the autonomous vehicle)
the exchanged data comprising a confirmation that the AV is available to perform an additional vehicle service, and the second service entity associating a second vehicle service with the AV in response to the exchanged data comprising the confirmation that the AV is available to perform the additional vehicle service. (Column 33, Lines 19-39); and (Column 34, Lines 9-26)(Greenberger teaches that after the system determines the autonomous vehicle is available by querying the product scheduling queue and the person scheduling queue then the system can send a confirmation to the seller of a product (e.g., second service entity). The confirmation can also send a code and an anticipated arrival time for the seller to place a package into the vehicle. The vehicle can then receive the product or item from the seller and then continue on with giving one or more subsequent persons with a ride request)
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify receiving a first request and a second request for an autonomous vehicle. The system can provide assignments to the autonomous vehicle using an assignment queue of Patent 513, by incorporating the teachings of an storage device on the autonomous vehicle that includes queue information. The autonomous vehicle system can determine an available queue request and send a confirmation to the seller. The system can then load the product while continuing with performing the ride request of Greenberger et al., with the motivation to better utilize empty seats in service vehicles by better matching available drivers and passengers through various souring network services. (Greenberger et al.: Column 2, Lines 1-11)
With respect to the above limitations: while Greenberger et al. teaches that the assignment queue is in the memory of the autonomous vehicle and sending a confirmation that the autonomous vehicle is available. However, Patent 513 and Greenberger et al., also, doesn’t explicitly teach that the first and second service entity coordinates vehicle services. Patent 513 and Greenberger et al., also, doesn’t explicitly teach that the AV performs motion planning and the vehicle imitates motion control based on the motion plan.
But, Hochberg et al. in the analogous art of ridesharing and delivery, teaches the AV performing the first vehicle service and at least the portion of the second vehicle service by generating a motion plan based on the first vehicle service and the second vehicle service and initiating motion control of the AV to traverse a route according to the motion plan. (Paragraph(s) 0128 and 0410-0411)(Hochberg et al. teaches the ridesharing management server can send route planning information based on real time traffic data, ride service assignments to the driving-control device of the autonomous vehicle (e.g., motion control). The ridesharing server can also predict updated traffic and environmental conditions, which will then provide the updated route to the driving-control device of the autonomous vehicle. Hochberg et al., also, teaches that the driving control device of the autonomous vehicle is used to control the navigation of the vehicle and the vehicle itself can detect its surroundings and identify feasible paths)
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify receiving a first request and a second request for an autonomous vehicle. The system can provide assignments to the autonomous vehicle using an assignment queue of Patent 513 and an storage device on the autonomous vehicle that includes queue information. The autonomous vehicle system can determine an available queue request and send a confirmation to the seller. The system can then load the product while continuing with performing the ride request of Greenberger et al., by incorporating the teachings of an AV performing motion control based on receiving a route of Hochberg et al., with the motivation to improve service efficiency. (Hochberg et al.: Paragraph 0134)
With respect to the above limitations: while Hochberg et al. teaches the AV performs motion planning and the vehicle imitates motion control based on the motion plan. However, Patent 513, Greenberger et al., and Hochberg et al., do not explicitly teach that the first and second service entity coordinates vehicle services.
But, Morrison in the analogous art of transporting passengers and delivery items at the same time, teaches
a first service entity computing platform that coordinates vehicle service. (Page 6, Lines 34-37); (Page 7, Lines 1-19); (Column 14, Lines 4-19 and 30-37); and (Page 15, Lines 1-9)(Morrison teaches the communication network can communicate with local service providers. The local service providers include taxi service organizations (e.g., first service entity that coordinates vehicle services). The taxi LSP can receive pick-up and delivery information from the freight forwarders (e.g., second service entity that coordinates vehicle service). The taxi can still ferry passengers while also delivering goods)
a second service entity computing platform that coordinates vehicle services. (Column 14, Lines 30-37); and (Page 15, Lines 1-9)(Morrison teaches the Global Integrators, Freight Forwarders and Combination Carriers (e.g., second service entity computing platform that coordinates vehicle service) can communicate delivery jobs to the communication network. The Carriers can receive request from customers for delivery jobs, which those jobs and customer information will be forwarded to the communication network)
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify receiving a first request and a second request for an autonomous vehicle. The system can provide assignments to the autonomous vehicle using an assignment queue of Patent 513, an storage device on the autonomous vehicle that includes queue information. The autonomous vehicle system can determine an available queue request and send a confirmation to the seller. The system can then load the product while continuing with performing the ride request of Greenberger et al., and an AV performing motion control based on receiving a route of Hochberg et al., by incorporating a communication network that is able to communicate with both taxi organizations and delivery freight organizations for jobs and coordinating those jobs of Morrison, with the motivation to improve efficient delivery and rideshare services. (Morrison: Page 4, Lines 5-19)
Regarding Claim 17, Patent 513/Greenberger et al./Hochberg et al./Morrison, teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 16 and the causing of the AV to concurrently perform the first vehicle service with the second vehicle service comprising:
causing the AV to travel for the first vehicle service prior to determining that the AV is available to perform the second vehicle service concurrently with the first vehicle service. (Claim 16)(Patent 513 teaches the causing of the autonomous vehicle to concurrently perform the first vehicle service with the second vehicle service. The system causes the autonomous vehicle to travel for the first vehicle service prior to determining that the autonomous vehicle is available to perform the second vehicle service concurrently with the first vehicle service)
subsequent to receiving the second vehicle service assignment data, causing the AV to travel for the second vehicle service concurrently with the first vehicle service. (Claim 16)(Patent 513 teaches subsequent to receiving the second vehicle service assignment data, causing the autonomous vehicle to travel for the second vehicle service concurrently with the first vehicle service)
Regarding Claim 18, Patent 513/Greenberger et al./Hochberg et al./Morrison, teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 17 and
the first vehicle service being a delivery service and the second vehicle service being a transportation service. (Claim 17)(Patent 513 teaches the first vehicle service being a delivery service and the second vehicle service being a transportation service)
the AV beginning to transport an item in accordance with the delivery service prior to one or more users boarding the AV for the transportation service. (Claim 17)(Patent 513 teaches the autonomous vehicle beginning to transport an item in accordance with the delivery service prior to one or more users boarding the autonomous vehicle for the transportation service)
Regarding Claim 19, Patent 513/Greenberger et al./Hochberg et al./Morrison, teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 18 and the causing of the AV to perform the first vehicle service concurrently with the second vehicle service comprising causing the AV to initiate a motion control to transport the item during at least a portion of a time that the one or more users occupy the autonomous vehicle. (Claim 18)(Patent 513 teaches the causing of the autonomous vehicle to perform the first vehicle service concurrently with the second vehicle service comprising causing the autonomous vehicle to initiate a motion control to transport the item during at least a portion of a time that the one or more users occupy the autonomous vehicle)
Regarding Claim 20, Patent 513/Greenberger et al./Hochberg et al./Morrison, teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 17 and the determining that the AV is available to perform the second vehicle service concurrently with the first vehicle service comprising determining that the AV is available to perform the second vehicle service concurrently with the first vehicle service based at least in part on data describing a capacity of the AV. (Claim 19)(Patent 513 teaches the determining that the autonomous vehicle is available to perform the second vehicle service concurrently with the first vehicle service comprising determining that the autonomous vehicle is available to perform the second vehicle service concurrently with the first vehicle service based at least in part on data describing a capacity of the autonomous vehicle)
Regarding Claim 21, Patent 513/Greenberger et al./Hochberg et al./Morrison, teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 16.
However, Patent 513, doesn’t explicitly teach the second service entity accessing the second vehicle service in response to receiving information indicating that the AV is available to perform the additional vehicle service.
But, Greenberger et al. in the analogous art of using an autonomous vehicle to conduct multiple request at the same time, teaches the second service entity accessing the second vehicle service in response to receiving information indicating that the AV is available to perform the additional vehicle service. (Column 33, Lines 19-39); and (Column 34, Lines 9-26)(Greenberger teaches that after the system determines the autonomous vehicle is available by querying the product scheduling queue and the person scheduling queue then the system can send a confirmation to the seller of a product (e.g., second service entity). The confirmation can also send a code and an anticipated arrival time for the seller to place a package into the vehicle. The vehicle can then receive the product or item from the seller and then continue on with giving one or more subsequent persons with a ride request)
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify receiving a first request and a second request for an autonomous vehicle. The system can provide assignments to the autonomous vehicle using an assignment queue of Patent 513, by incorporating the teachings of determining the vehicle is available to perform a service, which a confirmation will be sent to a second service entity of Greenberger et al., with the motivation to better utilize empty seats in service vehicles by better matching available drivers and passengers through various souring network services. (Greenberger et al.: Column 2, Lines 1-11)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A Prong 1: Independent Claim(s) 2, 12, 16 recites an entity that is
able to adjust a price of an item based on the freshness and the change of demand for
the item(s). Independent Claim(s) 2, 12, and 16 as a whole recite limitation(s) that are directed to an abstract idea(s) of certain methods of organizing human activity: managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., social activities and/or following rules or instructions) and/or fundamental economic principles/practices (e.g., hedging) and/or commercial or legal interactions (e.g., business relations) and/or mental processes (e.g., observation, evaluation, and/or judgment).
Independent Claim(s) 2, 12, and 16 limitations of “accessing, first vehicle service assignment data describing a first vehicle service for an AV,” “the first vehicle service assignment data being received from a first service entity that coordinates vehicle services,” “determining, that the AV is available to perform at least a portion of one or more additional vehicle services in addition to the first vehicle service, based at least in part on the first vehicle service assignment data and based on any vehicle services identified in a vehicle assignment queue,” “in response to determining that the AV can perform the at least the portion of the one or more additional vehicle services in addition to any vehicle services identified in the vehicle assignment queue,” “exchanging data, with a second service entity that coordinates vehicle services and is different than the first service entity,” and “the exchanged data comprising a confirmation that the AV is available to perform an additional vehicle service, and the second service entity associating a second vehicle service with the AV in response to the exchanged data comprising the confirmation that the AV is available to perform the additional vehicle service,” step(s)/function(s) are merely certain methods of organizing human activity: managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., social activities and/or following rules or instructions) and/or fundamental economic principles/practices (e.g., hedging) and/or commercial or legal interactions (e.g., business relations) and/or mental processes (e.g., observation, evaluation,
Furthermore, as explained in the MPEP and the October 2019 update, where a series of step(s) recite judicial exceptions, examiners should combine all recited judicial exceptions and treat the claim as containing a single judicial exception for purposes of further eligibility analysis. (See, MPEP 2106.04, 2016.05(II) and October 2019 Update at Section I. B.). For instance, in this case, Independent Claim(s) 2, 12, and 16, are similar to an entity determining pricing for perishable item(s) based on the item(s) demand and freshness. The system can provide a value to the user with the item. Once the system receives the users order then a picker is able to deliver the item to the user. The mere recitation of generic computer components (Claim 2: an autonomous vehicle, a computing system, a first/second computing platform and an onboard memory; Claim 12: a computing system, one or more processors, one or more non-transitory computer readable media, a first/second service entity computing platform, an autonomous vehicle, and an onboard memory; and Claim 16: an autonomous vehicle, one or more processors, one or more transitory computer readable media, a first/second service entity computing platform, and an onboard memory) do not take the claims out of the enumerated group of certain methods of organizing human activity. Therefore, Independent Claim(s) 2, 12, and 16, recites the above abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical
application because the claims as a whole describes how to generally “apply,” the
concept(s) of “accessing,” “determining,” “exchanging,” “performing,” causing,” and “performing,” respectively, information in a computer environment. The limitations that amount to “apply it,” are as follows (Claim 2: an autonomous vehicle, a computing system, a first/second computing platform and an onboard memory; Claim 12: a computing system, one or more processors, one or more non-transitory computer readable media, a first/second service entity computing platform, an autonomous vehicle, and an onboard memory; and Claim 16: an autonomous vehicle, one or more processors, one or more transitory computer readable media, a first/second service entity computing platform, and an onboard memory). Examiner, notes that the autonomous vehicle, computing system, first/second computing platform, onboard memory, one or more processors, and one or more non-transitory computer readable media, respectively, are recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer.
Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv., the court has held that the use of a computer
or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive,
store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer
components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or
mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical
application or provide significantly more. Here, in this case applicant’s limitations merely
accessing, determining, exchanging, causing, and performing, respectively,
services using computer components that operate in their ordinary capacity (e.g., autonomous vehicle, computing system, processors, a first/second computing platform, an onboard memory, and non-transitory computer readable media), which are no more than “applying,” the judicial exception.
Examiner, also, further notes the “autonomous vehicle,” causing and performing, indicates a “field-of-use,” within the technological environment of providing instructions to a driver to move to provide delivery and/or transportation services to a user. As currently claimed, there is no improvement to the functioning of the autonomous vehicle, and the instructions sent are similar to those that would be sent by an entity specifying location information to a driver for providing services to a user.
Furthermore, like in Affinity Labs v. DirecTv, the additional elements generally link causing and performing, respectively, by an autonomous vehicle to move to a location, which, does no more than merely confine the use of the abstract idea of providing instructions to a driver to travel to a user location thus failing to add an inventive concept to the claims.
Also, similar to, Credit Acceptance Corp v. Westlake Services, the court provided that mere automation of manual processes is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality. In this case, applicant’s specification paragraph 0045-0047, provides that the autonomous vehicle can drive with interaction from a human operator via a remote and/or fully controllable by the human operator. These paragraphs provides that the driving of the autonomous vehicle can be performed by a human thus merely automating a manual process is not enough to show an improvement.
Also, see the recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In this case, applicant has merely claimed the result of accomplishing the problem when the applicant has merely provided the AV can perform the first vehicle service and second vehicle service by generating a motion plan and initiating motion control. However, the claim(s) lack the details as to how the autonomous vehicle is able to generate this motion plan and based on that generation how the autonomous hardware uses that motion plan to then navigate to along that route thus merely claiming the result is equivalent to the words of “apply it.” Examiner, respectfully, suggest applicant consider amending the limitations to provide details of the sensors and camera of the autonomous vehicle and how that hardware is able to generate a plan and use that plan to navigate the environment, see applicant’s specification paragraph(s) 0022, 0058-0063 (e.g., other paragraph(s) may be helpful). Each of the above limitations simply implement an abstract idea that is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, which, is not practical application(s) of the abstract idea. Therefore, when viewed in combination these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claims are directed to the above abstract idea(s).
Step 2B: The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as noted previously, the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply,” the abstract idea in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are ineligible.
Claim(s) 5-11, 13-15, and 17-21: The various metrics of Dependent Claim(s) 5-11, 13-15, and 17-21 merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations. For the reasons described above with respect to Independent Claim(s) 2, 12, and 16, respectively, these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 3: The additional limitation of describing “processing,” is further directed to a method of organizing human activity and/or mental processes, as described above for Independent Claim 1, respectively. The limitations that amount to “apply it,” are the camera, and weight sensor. Examiner, notes that the camera and weight sensor are generically claimed that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv, the court has held that task to receive, store, or transmit data are additional elements that amount to no more than “applying,” the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Here, the additional elements is merely processing information which is no more than “applying,” the judicial exception. The recitation(s) of “the first vehicle service assignment data associated with the AV describing a maximum capacity of the AV and processing a combination of the image data and the sensor data to determine the maximum capacity of the AV, “ falls within certain methods of organizing human activity and/or mental processes. For the reasons described above with respect to Claim 3, the judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 4: The additional limitation of describing “obtaining,” and “determining,” is further directed to a method of organizing human activity and/or mental processes, as described above for Independent Claim 1, respectively. The limitations that amount to “apply it,” are the interior camera, and weight sensor. Examiner, notes that the interior camera and weight sensor are generically claimed that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv, the court has held that task to receive, store, or transmit data are additional elements that amount to no more than “applying,” the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Here, the additional elements is merely obtaining and determining information which is no more than “applying,” the judicial exception. The recitation(s) of “the first vehicle service assignment data associated with the AV and obtaining the sensor data, further comprising determining an amount of remaining available weight capacity of the AV based on the sensor data,” falls within certain methods of organizing human activity and/or mental processes. For the reasons described above with respect to Claim 3, the judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
The dependent claim(s) 3-11, 13-15, and 17-21, above do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) in the dependent claim(s) above are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component(s), which, do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, Claim(s) 2-21 are not patent eligible.
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) 2-3, 7-8, and 10-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hochberg et al. (US 2021/0223051) in view of Greenberger et al. (US 10,789,568 B2) and further in view of Morrison (WO 03/023641 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Hochberg et al., teaches a computer-implemented method for autonomous vehicle (AV) control, comprising:
accessing, by a computing system, first vehicle service assignment data describing a first vehicle service for an AV. (Paragraph 0110)(Hochberg et al. teaches that the server (e.g., computing system) can receive a first ride request from a first wireless communication of a first user, which ,the request can include a starting point, destination point, and the need for a transportation service (i.e., data describing a first vehicle service))
the first vehicle service assignment data being received from a first service entity computing platform
determining, by the computing system, that the AV is available to perform at least a portion of one or more additional vehicle services in addition to the first vehicle service, based at least in part on the first vehicle service assignment data and based on any vehicle services to the vehicle based on destination information, one or more pieces of luggage, physical condition that uses 3 seats of capacity rather than 1, and vehicle capacity information of the vehicle (i.e., amount of space of the interior of the autonomous vehicle), see paragraph(s) 0157-0159 and 0162-0164. Hochberg et al., also, teaches that the system can track the available capacity within the autonomous vehicles, using cameras within the vehicle to calculate the number of passengers. Hochberg et al., also, teaches that the vehicle can track the capacity status based on the space being consumed by an item. Hochberg et al., also, teaches an control device (i.e., computing system being onboard the autonomous vehicle) that is integrated with the autonomous vehicle for sending operational instructions and guiding the vehicle to designated pick-up locations and drop-off locations)
causing, by the computing system, the AV to perform the first vehicle service in addition to at least a portion of the second vehicle service. (Paragraph 0143); and (Fig. 5)(Hochberg et al. teaches that the server can receive a first ride request, which the user will be assigned to a vehicle and then pick-up the first user. The system will then receive a second request, which, the system will then assign the second user to the same vehicle and pick-up the second customer. Hochberg et al., further, teaches that the system will then either drop off the first or second passenger prior to the other. Examiner, respectfully, notes that the autonomous vehicle will perform the transportation request at the same time. Examiner, also, notes that the first and second request can be received first and then perform the pick-up request of the first and second passengers)
the AV performing the first vehicle service and at least the portion of the second vehicle service by generating a motion plan based on the first vehicle service and the second vehicle service and initiating motion control of the AV to traverse a route according to the motion plan. (Paragraph(s) 0128 and 0410-0411)(Hochberg et al. teaches the ridesharing management server can send route planning information based on real time traffic data, ride service assignments to the driving-control device of the autonomous vehicle (e.g., motion control). The ridesharing server can also predict updated traffic and environmental conditions, which will then provide the updated route to the driving-control device of the autonomous vehicle. Hochberg et al., also, teaches that the driving control device of the autonomous vehicle is used to control the navigation of the vehicle and the vehicle itself can detect its surroundings and identify feasible paths)
With respect to the above limitations: while Hochberg et al. teaches a system that can receive a first and second transportation request from a first and second user. The system will then receive capacity information from the vehicle, which, will determine if the second user is able to be transported in the same vehicle as the first user. Hochberg et al., further, teaches that first user device can permit a second user to be assigned to a vehicle, which, the vehicle will then be guided to the second user’s location. The vehicle will then be able to transport the first user along with the second user at the same time. However, Hochberg et al., doesn’t explicitly teach an assignment queue that is stored in a memory of the vehicle. Hochberg et al., also, doesn’t explicitly teach once the system determines the vehicle can perform a portion of one or more additional vehicle service in addition to another service then the system will send a communication to the second service entity for providing the service assignment information which can include a confirmation for the vehicle to perform the service. However, to the extent that Hochberg et al., also, doesn’t explicitly teach that the first and second service entity computing platforms coordinate the vehicle services see Morrison below.
But, Greenberger et al. in the analogous art of using an autonomous vehicle to conduct multiple request at the same time, teaches
at least a portion of one or more additional vehicle services in addition to the first vehicle service, based on any vehicle services identified in a vehicle assignment queue stored in on board memory. (Column 4, Lines 22-45); (Column 8, Lines 5-38); (Column 13, Lines 60-67); (Column 14, Lines 1-2); (Column 22, Lines 46-60); (Column 33, Lines 19-31) and (Column 34, Lines 10-20)(Greenberger, also, teaches in method 750 the scheduler of the platform system can determine the autonomous vehicle availability by querying the product scheduling queue and the person scheduling queue, which the system can determine that the a compartment is available. Greenberger, further, teaches the autonomous vehicle includes a computer infotainment system. The computer infotainment system includes a storage device that stores application and operating systems. The product queue module is program instructions, ana application, routine, or subroutine that is stored in the storage device and evoked by the processor of the hardware device in the computer infotainment system. Greenberger, also, teaches that the request can be stored in the request queue of the infotainment system of the autonomous vehicle)
in response to determining that the AV can perform the at least the portion of the one or more additional vehicle services in addition to any vehicle services identified in the vehicle assignment queue. (Column 33, Lines 4-12, 19-31, and 40-42) and (Column 34, Lines 10-20)(Greenberger et al. teaches a seller, which is a person not presently associated with the autonomous vehicle (e.g., second service entity). Greenberger, also, teaches in method 750 the system can determine the autonomous vehicle availability by querying the product scheduling queue and the person scheduling queue, which the system can determine that the a compartment is available and that a seller’s request can be satisfied (e.g., determining that the autonomous vehicle can perform the at least the portion of the one or more additional vehicle services in addition to any vehicle services identified in the vehicle assignment queue associated with the autonomous vehicle))
exchanging data, by the computing system, with a second service entity computing platform that is different than the first service entity computing platform. (Column 33, Lines 4-12, 19-31, and 40-42) and (Column 34, Lines 10-20)(Greenberger et al. teaches a seller, which is a person not presently associated with the autonomous vehicle (e.g., second service entity). Greenberger, also, teaches in method 750 the system can determine the autonomous vehicle availability by querying the product scheduling queue and the person scheduling queue, which the system can determine that the a compartment is available and that a seller’s request can be satisfied (e.g., determining that the autonomous vehicle can perform the at least the portion of the one or more additional vehicle services in addition to any vehicle services identified in the vehicle assignment queue associated with the autonomous vehicle). Greenberger, also, teaches that in method 750 can continue after determining that there is availability in the vehicle then the system will send a confirmation to the device (e.g., exchanging data, by the computing system, with a second service entity computing platform that is different than the first service entity computing platform))
the exchanged data comprising a confirmation that the AV is available to perform an additional vehicle service, and the second service entity associating a second vehicle service with the AV in response to the exchanged data comprising the confirmation that the AV is available to perform the additional vehicle service. (Column 33, Lines 19-39); and (Column 34, Lines 9-26)(Greenberger teaches that after the system determines the autonomous vehicle is available by querying the product scheduling queue and the person scheduling queue then the system can send a confirmation to the seller of a product (e.g., second service entity). The confirmation can also send a code and an anticipated arrival time for the seller to place a package into the vehicle. The vehicle can then receive the product or item from the seller and then continue on with giving one or more subsequent persons with a ride request)
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify receiving a first request and a second request for an autonomous vehicle of Hochberg et al., by incorporating the teachings of an storage device on the autonomous vehicle that includes queue information. The autonomous vehicle system can determine an available queue request and send a confirmation to the seller. The system can then load the product while continuing with performing the ride request of Greenberger et al., with the motivation to better utilize empty seats in service vehicles by better matching available drivers and passengers through various souring network services. (Greenberger et al.: Column 2, Lines 1-11)
With respect to the above limitations: while Greenberger et al. teaches an assignment queue that is stored in a memory of the vehicle. The system determines the vehicle can perform a portion of one or more additional vehicle service in addition to another service then the system will send a communication to the second service entity for providing the service assignment information which can include a confirmation for the vehicle to perform the service. However, to the extent that Hochberg et al and Greenberger et al., do not explicitly teach that the first and second service entity computing platforms coordinate the vehicle services see Morrison below.
But, Morrison in the analogous art of transporting passengers and delivery items at the same time, teaches
a first service entity computing platform that coordinates vehicle service. (Page 6, Lines 34-37); (Page 7, Lines 1-19); (Column 14, Lines 4-19 and 30-37); and (Page 15, Lines 1-9)(Morrison teaches the communication network can communicate with local service providers. The local service providers include taxi service organizations (e.g., first service entity that coordinates vehicle services). The taxi LSP can receive pick-up and delivery information from the freight forwarders (e.g., second service entity that coordinates vehicle service). The taxi can still ferry passengers while also delivering goods)
a second service entity computing platform that coordinates vehicle services. (Column 14, Lines 30-37); and (Page 15, Lines 1-9)(Morrison teaches the Global Integrators, Freight Forwarders and Combination Carriers (e.g., second service entity computing platform that coordinates vehicle service) can communicate delivery jobs to the communication network. The Carriers can receive request from customers for delivery jobs, which those jobs and customer information will be forwarded to the communication network)
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify receiving a first request and a second request for an autonomous vehicle of Hochberg et al. and the teachings of an storage device on the autonomous vehicle that includes queue information. The autonomous vehicle system can determine an available queue request and send a confirmation to the seller. The system can then load the product while continuing with performing the ride request of Greenberger et al., by incorporating a communication network that is able to communicate with both taxi organizations and delivery freight organizations for jobs and coordinating those jobs of Morrison, with the motivation to improve efficient delivery and rideshare services. (Morrison: Page 4, Lines 5-19)
Regarding Claim 3, Hochberg et al./Greenberger et al./Morrison, teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 2 and the first vehicle service assignment data associated with the AV describing a maximum capacity of the AV and including camera image data from a camera of the AV and weight sensor data from the AV, further comprising:
processing a combination of the camera image and the weight sensor data to determine the maximum capacity of the AV. (Paragraph(s) 0455, 0457, 0461-0462, 0463-0464, and 0467)(Hochberg et al. teaches the system includes a detection and assignment module that receives at least one sensor within the ridesharing vehicle to detect the current occupancy within the ridesharing vehicle. The system can receive the information from one or more imaging sensors (e.g., camera) and weight sensors (e.g., weight sensors). The system can aggregate the information from the sensor information to calculate an number of ridesharing occupants. The system can use image data to determine an actual number of passengers in the ridesharing vehicle, which the system will use the plurality of sensor information to determine vehicle occupancy. Hochberg et al., further, teaches the sensor data can be used to detect that four passengers are located within the vehicle, which the vehicle only includes four seats (e.g., determine the maximum capacity of the AV))
Regarding Claim 7, Hochberg et al./Greenberger et al./Morrison, teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 2 and the first vehicle service being a same type of vehicle service as the second vehicle service. (Paragraph(s) 0110 and 0130)(Hochberg et al. teaches that the first and second request are both for transportation request (i.e., same type of vehicle service))
Regarding Claim 8, Hochberg et al./Greenberger et al./Morrison, teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 2.
However, Hochberg et al., doesn’t explicitly teach the first vehicle service being a different type of vehicle service than the second vehicle service.
But, Greenberger et al. in the analogous art of using an autonomous vehicle to conduct multiple request at the same time, teaches the first vehicle service being a different type of vehicle service than the second vehicle service. (Column 17, Lines 5-12, 43-48, and 57-62); (Column 30, Lines 62-67); and (Column 31, Lines 1-27)(Greenberger et al. teaches an intervening person via a device (i.e., first service entity computing platform) is able to provide an acceptance of the fulfillment request that will indicate to the vehicle to alter the route to arrive a fulfillment location to accept the purchased goods for a buyer (i.e., first vehicle service assignment being received from a first service entity computing platform). Greenberger et al., further, teaches that the intervening person will continue to receive delivery task after the delivery of the requested delivery of the package. Greenberger et al., also, teaches a buyer is able to purchase a product (i.e., second service entity computing platform) from a seller, which, the buyer is able to provide a delivery request for the product (i.e., second vehicle service assignment). Greenberger et al., further, teaches that the intervening person via a device (i.e., first service entity computing platform) is also able to continue to provide the vehicle with an acceptance request for making delivery task. Greenberger et al., further, teaches that the vehicle will then be able to alter the route with the intervening passenger inside of the vehicle in order to route to the renter/buyer location)
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify receiving a first request from a first user and a second request in order to have an autonomous vehicle to conduct both request at the same time of Hochberg et al., by incorporating the teachings of receiving a first request for transporting a passenger and a second request for delivering a package, which, the autonomous vehicle can perform those request concurrently of Greenberger et al., with the motivation to better utilize empty seats in service vehicles by better matching available drivers and passengers. (Greenberger et al.: Column 2, Lines 1-11)
Regarding Claim 10, Hochberg et al./Greenberger et al./Morrison, teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 2 and the causing of the AV to concurrently perform the first vehicle service with the second vehicle service comprising causing the AV to initiate the motion control to concurrently transport at least one of a first user or a first item for the first vehicle service with at least one of a second user or a second item for the second vehicle service. (Paragraph(s) 0074, 0128, 0137, and 0143); and (Fig. 5)(Hochberg et al. teaches that the server can receive a first ride request, which, the user (i.e., first user) will be assigned to a vehicle and then pick-up the first user. The system will then receive a second request, which, the system will then assign the second user (i.e., second user) to the same vehicle and pick up the second customer. Hochberg et al., further, teaches that the system will then either drop off the first or second passenger prior to the other. Hochberg et al., further, teaches a driving-control device (e.g., motion control) on the autonomous vehicle for traveling to the first and second location(s), respectively, to pick up the first and second users, respectively, see paragraph(s) 0074, 0128, and 0137. Examiner, respectfully, notes that the autonomous vehicle will complete perform the transportation request at the same time for both customers)
Regarding Claim 11, Hochberg et al./Greenberger et al./Morrison, teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 2.
However, Hochberg et al., doesn’t explicitly teach the second entity accessing the second vehicle service in response to receiving information indicating that the AV is available to perform the additional vehicle service.
But, Greenberger et al. in the analogous art of using an autonomous vehicle to conduct multiple request at the same time, teaches the second entity accessing the second vehicle service in response to receiving information indicating that the AV is available to perform the additional vehicle service. (Column 33, Lines 19-39); and (Column 34, Lines 9-26)(Greenberger teaches that after the system determines the autonomous vehicle is available by querying the product scheduling queue and the person scheduling queue then the system can send a confirmation to the seller of a product (e.g., second service entity). The confirmation can also send a code and an anticipated arrival time for the seller to place a package into the vehicle. The vehicle can then receive the product or item from the seller and then continue on with giving one or more subsequent persons with a ride request)
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify receiving a first request and a second request for an autonomous vehicle of Hochberg et al., by incorporating the teachings of determining the vehicle is available to perform a service, which a confirmation will be sent to a second service entity of Greenberger et al., with the motivation to better utilize empty seats in service vehicles by better matching available drivers and passengers through various souring network services. (Greenberger et al.: Column 2, Lines 1-11)
Regarding Claim 12, Hochberg et al./Greenberger et al./Morrison, teaches a computing system comprising:
one or more processors. (Paragraph 0073)(Hochberg et al. teaches at least one processor that executes stored instructions)
one or more non-transitory computer readable media that collectively store instructions that when executed by the one or more processors cause the computing system to perform operations comprising: (Paragraph 0073)(Hochberg et al. teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium that stores instructions, which a processor uses those instructions to execute the method)
accessing, by a computing system, first vehicle service assignment data describing a first vehicle service for an AV. (See, relevant rejection of Claim 1(a))
the first vehicle service assignment data being received from a first service entity computing platform that coordinates vehicle services. (See, relevant rejection of Claim 1(b))
determining, by the computing system, that the AV is available to perform at least a portion of one or more additional vehicle services in addition to the first vehicle service, based at least in part on the first vehicle service assignment data and based on any vehicle services identified in a vehicle assignment queue stored in on board memory of the AV. (See, relevant rejection of Claim 1(c))
in response to determining that the AV can perform the at least the portion of the one or more additional vehicle services in addition to any vehicle services identified in the vehicle assignment queue. (See, relevant rejection of Claim 1(d))
exchanging data, by the computing system, with a second service entity computing platform coordinates vehicle services and is different than the first service entity computing platform. (See, relevant rejection of Claim 1(e))
the exchanged data comprising a confirmation that the AV is available to perform an additional vehicle service, and the second service entity associating a second vehicle service with the AV in response to the exchanged data comprising the confirmation that the AV is available to perform the additional vehicle service. (See, relevant rejection of Claim 1(f))
causing, by the computing system, the AV to perform the first vehicle service in addition to at least a portion of the second vehicle service. (See, relevant rejection of Claim 1(g))
the AV performing the first vehicle service and at least the portion of the second vehicle service by generating a motion plan based on the first vehicle service and the second vehicle service and initiating motion control of the AV to traverse a route according to the motion plan. (See, relevant rejection of Claim 1(h))
Regarding Claim 13, Hochberg et al./Greenberger et al./Morrison, teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 12 and the operations further comprising accepting the first vehicle service for the AV. (Paragraph(s) 0110 and 0126)(Hochberg et al. teaches a first rider request can be received by the management server. The server will send a message to the user device indicating that the rideshare request has been accepted)
Regarding Claim 14, Hochberg et al./Greenberger et al./Morrison, teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 13.
However, Hochberg et al., doesn’t explicitly teach the determining that the AV is available to perform the second vehicle service concurrently with the first vehicle service comprising
determining that the AV is available to perform the second vehicle service concurrently with the first vehicle service prior to accepting the first vehicle service for the AV.
But, Greenberger et al. in the analogous art of using an autonomous vehicle to conduct multiple request at the same time, the determining that the AV is available to perform the second vehicle service concurrently with the first vehicle service comprising
determining that the AV is available to perform the second vehicle service concurrently with the first vehicle service prior to accepting the first vehicle service for the AV. (Column 2, Lines 28-41); (Column 9, Lines 41-56); and (Column 17, Lines 5-12, 19-24 and 43-48)(Greenberger et al. teaches that the system can determine whether the autonomous vehicle can satisfy the fulfillment request (i.e., first vehicle service assignment) and ride source request from a buyer and an intervening person (i.e., second vehicle service). The system can pick up an intervening person, which, the person will then determine if the fulfillment request should be accepted. If the intervening passenger, that is located on the traveling vehicle prior to the acceptance of the delivery, (i.e., prior to accepting the first vehicle service assignment), then the autonomous vehicle will travel to satisfy the buyers fulfillment request, which, the vehicle will detour to pick up the package. Greenberger et al., further, teaches the system can concurrently perform a ridesharing task along with a delivery task)
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify receiving a first request and a second request for an autonomous vehicle of Hochberg et al., by incorporating the teachings of receiving a first request and a second request and determining that an intervening passenger is able to ride in a vehicle prior to the acceptance of picking up a package at a fulfillment center of Greenberger et al., with the motivation to better utilize empty seats in service vehicles by better matching available drivers and passengers through various souring network services. (Greenberger et al.: Column 2, Lines 1-11)
Regarding Claim 15, Hochberg et al./Greenberger et al./Morrison, teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 12 and the determining that the AV is available to perform the second vehicle service concurrently with the first vehicle service comprising
determining that the AV is available to perform the second vehicle service with the first vehicle service based at least in part on the data describing the capacity of the AV. (Paragraph(s) 0156-0157 and 0159-0163)(Hochberg et al. teaches the system can use threshold blocks (i.e., data describing the capacity of the autonomous vehicle) in a rideshare fleet. The system can receive a first and second request, which the system can assign both to the particular rideshare vehicle such that a threshold capacity of 2 people and/or things within a vehicle can be assigned to the vehicle. Hochberg et al., further, teaches that the threshold block can include capacity information such as the number of pieces of luggage and/or physical conditions of the seats, and/or threshold values within the vehicle (i.e., data). Hochberg et al., further, teaches the system can track a current utilized capacity for each specific ridesharing vehicle. The system can then make assignments based on the capacity of the vehicle)
Regarding Claim 16, Hochberg et al./Greenberger et al./Morrison, teaches an autonomous vehicle (AV) comprising:
one or more processors. (Paragraph 0073)(Hochberg et al. teaches at least one processor that executes stored instructions)
one or more non-transitory computer readable media that collectively store instructions that when executed by the one or more processors cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: (Paragraph 0073)(Hochberg et al. teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium that stores instructions, which a processor uses those instructions to execute the method)
accessing, by a computing system, first vehicle service assignment data describing a first vehicle service for an AV. (See, relevant rejection of Claim 1(a))
the first vehicle service assignment data being received from a first service entity computing platform that coordinates vehicle services. (See, relevant rejection of Claim 1(b))
determining, by the computing system, that the AV is available to perform at least a portion of one or more additional vehicle services in addition to the first vehicle service, based at least in part on the first vehicle service assignment data and based on any vehicle services identified in a vehicle assignment queue stored in on board memory of the AV. (See, relevant rejection of Claim 1(c))
in response to determining that the AV can perform the at least the portion of the one or more additional vehicle services in addition to any vehicle services identified in the vehicle assignment queue. (See, relevant rejection of Claim 1(d))
exchanging data, by the computing system, with a second service entity computing platform coordinates vehicle services and is different than the first service entity computing platform. (See, relevant rejection of Claim 1(e))
the exchanged data comprising a confirmation that the AV is available to perform an additional vehicle service, and the second service entity associating a second vehicle service with the AV in response to the exchanged data comprising the confirmation that the AV is available to perform the additional vehicle service. (See, relevant rejection of Claim 1(f))
causing, by the computing system, the AV to perform the first vehicle service in addition to at least a portion of the second vehicle service. (See, relevant rejection of Claim 1(g))
the AV performing the first vehicle service and at least the portion of the second vehicle service by generating a motion plan based on the first vehicle service and the second vehicle service and initiating motion control of the AV to traverse a route according to the motion plan. (See, relevant rejection of Claim 1(h))
Regarding Claim 17, Hochberg et al./Greenberger et al./Morrison, teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 16 and the causing of the AV to concurrently perform the first vehicle service with the second vehicle service comprising:
causing the AV to travel for the first vehicle service prior to determining that the AV is available to perform the second vehicle service concurrently with the first vehicle service. (Paragraph(s) 0110 and 0128-0129)(Hochberg et al. teaches a server can receive a first ride request from a first wireless communication of a first user. Hochberg et al., further, teaches the server will guide the assigned vehicle to the first pick-up location for picking up the first user. The server can then receive a second ride request from a second user (i.e., second vehicle service) while the first user is still inside the vehicle (i.e., travel for the first vehicle service prior to determining the autonomous vehicle is available to perform the second vehicle service))
subsequent to receiving the second vehicle service assignment data, causing the AV to travel for the second vehicle service concurrently with the first vehicle service. (Paragraph(s) 0130-0131 and 0137)(Hochberg et al. teaches a second ride request from a second user can provide a request to the server for picking up the second user along with the first user after the first user has entered the vehicle. Hochberg et al., further, teaches that the server will then guide the vehicle to a second pick-up location for picking up the second user. Hochberg et al., further, teaches that the vehicle can be guided using the driving control device associated with the autonomous vehicle)
Regarding Claim 18, Hochberg et al./Greenberger et al./Morrison, teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 17.
However, Hochberg et al., doesn’t explicitly teach
the first vehicle service being a delivery service and the second vehicle service being a transportation service.
the AV beginning to transport an item in accordance with the delivery service prior to one or more users boarding the AV for the transportation service.
But, Greenberger et al. in the analogous art of using an autonomous vehicle to conduct multiple request at the same time, teaches
the first vehicle service being a delivery service and the second vehicle service being a transportation service. (Column 24, Lines 56-67); and (Column 25, Lines 11-18)(Greenberger et al. teaches receiving a fulfillment request for a product by a buyer (i.e., first vehicle service is a delivery service) and a ride source request from intervening persons (i.e., second vehicle service is a transportation service))
the AV beginning to transport an item in accordance with the delivery service prior to one or more users boarding the AV for the transportation service. (Column 17, Lines 19-22); (Column 25, Lines 54-59); and (Column 26, Lines 50-58)(Greenberger et al. teaches that the intervening person is able to accept the pickup of the package prior to the intervening person being picked up from the autonomous vehicle. The autonomous vehicle will then travel to the fulfillment location to accept the purchased product, see Column 25, Lines 54-59. Greenberger et al., further, teaches that the vehicle will then continue to travel to the ride source task after picking up the package, see Column 26, Lines 50-58)
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify receiving a first request and a second request for an autonomous vehicle of Hochberg et al., by incorporating the teachings of receiving a first request for the delivery of a package and a second request for picking up a passenger, which, the system will travel to a fulfillment center prior to picking up the intervening passenger of Greenberger et al., with the motivation to better utilize empty seats in service vehicles by better matching available drivers and passengers through various souring network services. (Greenberger et al.: Column 2, Lines 1-11)
Regarding Claim 19, Hochberg et al./Greenberger et al./Morrison, teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 18 and the causing of the AV to perform the first vehicle service concurrently with the second vehicle service comprising causing the AV to initiate the motion control to transport the item during location of the vehicle and after sending a confirmation for the estimated pick-up time then the system will guide the vehicle to pick-up the first rider. Hochberg et al, also, teaches an control device that is integrated with the autonomous vehicle for sending operational instructions and guiding the vehicle to designated pick-up locations and drop-off locations, see paragraph 0069. Hochberg et al., also, teaches that the vehicle can pickup both users at the same time)
With respect to the above limitations: while Hochberg et al. teaches the system can determine a pick-up time for a user. The system can make an autonomous vehicle to concurrently perform a first and second ride sharing request. However, to the extent that Hochberg et al., doesn’t explicitly teach that the item can be transported at a portion of time one of the users are within the vehicle.
But, Greenberger et al. in the analogous art of using an autonomous vehicle to conduct multiple request at the same time, teaches transport the item during at least a portion of a time that the one or more users occupy the autonomous vehicle. (Column 9, Lines 41-46)(Greenberger et al. teaches a concurrent task can be done together. The autonomous vehicle can give a person a ride at the same time the vehicle is in the process of delivering products (i.e., transport the item during a portion of a time that the one or more users occupy the autonomous vehicle), such that the ride task and the delivery task are concurrently happening)
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify receiving a first request and a second request for an autonomous vehicle of Hochberg et al., by incorporating the teachings of performing a delivery task and a rideshare task at the same time of Greenberger et al., with the motivation to better utilize empty seats in service vehicles by better matching available drivers and passengers through various souring network services. (Greenberger et al.: Column 2, Lines 1-11)
Regarding Claim 20, Hochberg et al./Greenberger et al./Morrison, teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 17 and the determining that the AV is available to perform the second vehicle service concurrently with the first vehicle service comprising determining that the AV is available to perform the second vehicle service concurrently with the first vehicle service based at least in part on data describing a capacity of the AV. (Paragraph(s) 0156-0157 and 0159-0163)(Hochberg et al. teaches the system can use threshold blocks (i.e., data describing the capacity of the autonomous vehicle) in a rideshare fleet. The system can receive a first and second request, which the system can assign both to the particular rideshare vehicle such that a threshold capacity of 2 people and/or things within a vehicle can be assigned to the vehicle. Hochberg et al., further, teaches that the threshold block can include capacity information such as the number of pieces of luggage and/or physical conditions of the seats, and/or threshold values within the vehicle (i.e., data). Hochberg et al., further, teaches the system can track a current utilized capacity for each specific ridesharing vehicle. The system can then make assignments based on the capacity of the vehicle)
Regarding Claim 21, Hochberg et al./Greenberger et al./Morrison, teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 16.
However, Hochberg et al., doesn’t explicitly teach the second service entity accessing the second vehicle service in response to receiving information indicating that the AV is available to perform the additional vehicle service.
But, Greenberger et al. in the analogous art of using an autonomous vehicle to conduct multiple request at the same time, teaches the second service entity accessing the second vehicle service in response to receiving information indicating that the AV is available to perform the additional vehicle service. (Column 33, Lines 19-39); and (Column 34, Lines 9-26)(Greenberger teaches that after the system determines the autonomous vehicle is available by querying the product scheduling queue and the person scheduling queue then the system can send a confirmation to the seller of a product (e.g., second service entity). The confirmation can also send a code and an anticipated arrival time for the seller to place a package into the vehicle. The vehicle can then receive the product or item from the seller and then continue on with giving one or more subsequent persons with a ride request)
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify receiving a first request and a second request for an autonomous vehicle of Hochberg et al., by incorporating the teachings of determining the vehicle is available to perform a service, which a confirmation will be sent to a second service entity of Greenberger et al., with the motivation to better utilize empty seats in service vehicles by better matching available drivers and passengers through various souring network services. (Greenberger et al.: Column 2, Lines 1-11)
Claim 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hochberg et al. (US 2021/0223051) in view of Greenberger et al. (US 10,789,568 B2) and Morrison (WO 03/023641 A1) and further in view of Mehta (US 10,527,428 B1).
Regarding Claim 4, Hochberg et al./Greenberger et al./Morrison, teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 2 and the first vehicle service assignment data associated with the AV comprising sensor data, and comprising obtaining the sensor data via an interior camera of the AV and a weight sensor of the AV, further comprising determining an amount of of passengers in the ridesharing vehicle, which the system will use the plurality of sensor information to determine vehicle occupancy)
With respect to the above limitations: while Hochberg et al. teaches the system can determine capacity of a vehicle based on using image data and weight sensor information. However, Hochberg, Greenberger et al., and Morrison, do not explicitly teach determining an available weight capacity of the autonomous vehicle.
But, Mehta in the analogous art of determining capacity within a vehicle, teaches further comprising determining an amount of remaining available weight capacity of the AV based on the sensor data. (Column 3, Lines 10-35); (Column 4, Lines 3-16 and 36-44); (Column 9, Lines 14-23); ); (Column 14, Lines 27-36 and 59-67); (Column 15, Lines 1-8 and 36-56); (Column 16, Lines 21-64); (Column 17, Lines 16-67); and (Column 18, Lines 1-9)(Mehta teaches one or more vehicle capacity criteria can be based in part on the carrying capacity of the vehicle. The one or more vehicle capacity criteria can include a maximum mass criterion of one-thousand kilograms and maximum volume criterion of three-thousand liters. Mehta, further, teaches determining based in part on the object data, one or more features of the one or more objects. The one or more features of one or more objects can be based on the object data. The object data includes a mass of an object based on optical sensors used to determine the objects volume. The one or more features can also include the number of the one or more objects (e.g., a number of passengers) and a wight or mass of the one or more objects (e.g., a weight in pounds or a mas in kilograms). Mehta, further, teaches the maximum vehicle capacity can be determined based on the one or more object data. Mehta, also, teaches that the weight and mass of the one or more objects is based on the data obtained from the weight sensors (i.e., weight sensor) located inside the vehicle. Mehta, also, teaches that the number of passengers and number of cargo based on the appearance of the passenger or cargo is obtained by an image capture device (i.e., camera image) inside the autonomous vehicle. The system can adjust the capacity based on the mass and weight sensor data, which the carrying capacity for the vehicle can change based on the quantity associated with the mas and weight of the one or more objects. The carrying capacity weight will be adjusted such that if the autonomous vehicle has an initial carrying capacity of 800kg and now based on the sensor information the remaining carrying capacity can decrease by 100kg which will be now 700kg (i.e., amount of remaining available weight capacity of the AV))
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a system for determine the capacity of the a vehicle using image and sensor data of Hochberg et al., using a camera to determine items within a vehicle of Greenberger et al., and a communication network that is able to communicate with both taxi organizations and delivery freight organizations for jobs and coordinating those jobs of Morrison, by incorporating the teachings of determining the maximum amount of cargo space in a vehicle using a camera and weight sensors of Mehta, with the motivation to improve placement of cargo and passengers within a vehicle. (Mehta: Column 6, Lines 58-67)
Claim 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hochberg et al. (US 2021/0223051) in view of Greenberger et al. (US 10,789,568 B2) and Morrison (WO 03/023641 A1) and further in view of Cao. (US 2016/0364679 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Hochberg et al./Greenberger et al./Morrison, teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 2.
However, Hochberg et al./Greenberger et al./Morrison, do not explicitly teach comprising determining that the vehicle assignment queue excludes the one or more additional vehicle services that the AV is able to perform in addition to the first vehicle service.
But, Cao in the analogous art of autonomous ridesharing and delivery, teaches comprising determining that the vehicle assignment queue excludes the one or more additional vehicle services that the AV is able to perform in addition to the first vehicle service. (Paragraph(s) 0238 and 0294)(Cao teaches a scenario where a user will request an uber. The system will then require the request to be approved by a vendor which the system will then place the appointment into an appointment queue for approval (e.g., determining that the vehicle assignment queue excludes the one or more additional vehicle services). Cao, further, teaches that the vehicle can be autonomous)
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a system for determine the capacity of the a vehicle using image and sensor data of Hochberg et al., using a camera to determine items within a vehicle of Greenberger et al., and a communication network that is able to communicate with both taxi organizations and delivery freight organizations for jobs and coordinating those jobs of Morrison, by incorporating the teachings of a system receiving a request, which the system will then place the request into an assignment queue of Cao, with the motivation to improve customer experiences. (Cao: Paragraph 0205)
Claim 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hochberg et al. (US 2021/0223051) in view of Greenberger et al. (US 10,789,568 B2) and Morrison (WO 03/023641 A1) and further in view of Liu et al. (US 2018/0174265 A1)(filed on Jan. 30, 2018).
Regarding Claim 6, Hochberg et al./Greenberger et al./Morrison, teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 2.
However, Hochberg et al./Greenberger et al./Morrison, do not explicitly teach comprising performing operations to signing in online with the second service entity to indicate that the AV is available to perform the additional vehicle service in response to determining that the AV can perform the at least the portion of the one or more additional vehicle services in addition to any vehicle services identified in the vehicle assignment queue of the AV.
But, Liu et al. in the analogous art of ridesharing, teaches comprising performing operations to signing in online with the second service entity to indicate that the AV is available to perform the additional vehicle service in response to determining that the AV can perform the at least the portion of the one or more additional vehicle services in addition to any vehicle services identified in the vehicle assignment queue of the AV. (Paragraph(s) 0057, 0062, 0068-0069, and 0100-0101)(Liu et al. teaches a driverless transportation vehicle includes a built-in device. Liu et al., further, teaches the autonomous vehicle can provide the server with status information, which the status information includes an available status of the vehicle. Lu et al., also, teaches that the status information is provided to the server based on the built-in device in the vehicle being online (e.g., signing in online))
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a system for determine the capacity of the a vehicle using image and sensor data of Hochberg et al., using a camera to determine items within a vehicle of Greenberger et al., and a communication network that is able to communicate with both taxi organizations and delivery freight organizations for jobs and coordinating those jobs of Morrison, by incorporating the teachings of a driverless vehicle, via a built-in device, can provide a server that it is available based on the driverless vehicle being online of Liu et al., with the motivation to efficiently determine a target vehicle. (Liu et al.: Paragraph 0003)
Claim 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hochberg et al. (US 2021/0223051) in view of Greenberger et al. (US 10,789,568 B2) and Morrison (WO 03/023641 A1) and further in view of Al Falasi et al. (US 2019/0026671 A1)(filed on Jul. 20, 2017).
Regarding Claim 9, Hochberg et al./Greenberger et al./Morrison, teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 2.
However, Hochberg et al./Greenberger et al./Morrison, do not explicitly teach the computing system being onboard the AV, comprising determining that the AV is determining that the AV is available to specifically perform the additional vehicle service, comprising determining that the vehicle assignment queue excludes a set of vehicle services that the AV is able to perform with the first vehicle service.
But, Al Falasi et al. in the analogous art of autonomous ridesharing, teaches the computing system being onboard the AV, comprising determining that the AV is determining that the AV is available to specifically perform the additional vehicle service, comprising determining that the vehicle assignment queue excludes a set of vehicle services that the AV is able to perform with the first vehicle service. (Paragraph(s) 0072 and 0074-0076)(Al Falasi et al. teaches a dispatch queue can receive new request, which the dispatch queue will then prioritize that new request in the queue (e.g., determining that the vehicle assignment queue excludes a set of vehicle services that the AV is able to perform with the first vehicle service). The system queue after receiving the new request will maintain the request in order they are received or rank those request. The system can then determine if one of the taxis are available to accept the queued request based on a cost factor. The system can then select the lowest cost taxi, which the taxi and the request will then be removed from the queue (e.g., determining that the AV is determining that the AV is available to specifically perform the additional vehicle service))
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a system for determine the capacity of the a vehicle using image and sensor data of Hochberg et al., using a camera to determine items within a vehicle of Greenberger et al., and a communication network that is able to communicate with both taxi organizations and delivery freight organizations for jobs and coordinating those jobs of Morrison, by incorporating the teachings of a system that can receive a new request, which the new request is placed into a queue. The system can also determine if a taxi is available for the service based on cost of Al Falasi et al., with the motivation to improve the taxi optimization queuing scheme/system. (Al Falasi et al.: Paragraph 0015)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gilley et al. (US 2017/0093700 A1). Gilley et al. teaches a pizza delivery service that can coordinate a worker pick-up. The system can coordinate with a taxi company, which the taxi company will pick-up the worker and the pizza for delivery.
“Shared Mobility: Current Practices and Guiding Principles,” by Susan Shaheen, Adam Cohen, and Ismail Zohdy, April 2016, (hereinafter Shared). Shared teaches a courier network service that provides for-hire delivery services and carsharing/ride-sourcing companies. The courier network service can be used to deliver items along with providing passenger ride services.
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 BRIAN A HEFLIN whose telephone number is (571)272-3524. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 - 5:00 M-F.
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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at (571) 270-1833. 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.
/B.A.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/MICHAEL P HARRINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628