DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed 08/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants’ arguments, on page 6 of the remarks, are directed at the double patenting rejection and are not found to be persuasive. Specifically, applicants’ arguments directed to, “Applicant respectfully submits the Office Action fails to establish claims 1-20 of the present application are not patentably distinct from the claims of the '630 Patent, the '287 Patent, and the '823 Patent. Applicant submits such the current rejection is per se improper as the Office Action fails to establish that claims 1-20 are drawn to "the same" invention (i.e., identical subject matter) of the claims of the '319 Patent as required by the MPEP § 804. In this regard, in the rejection of claims 1-20 over each of the cited patents, the Office Action merely states, "Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because: Where the claims are not identical, they [sic] claims of the patent are anticipated by the claim of the current application" (emphasis in original). Office Action at 3-4. There is no further finding of "anticipat[ion]" of the present claims by those of the cited patents. As such, Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration of the non-statutory double patenting rejection presented herein.”
These arguments are not persuasive as the “anticipatory obvious type double patenting rejection is stating that the claims even though not identical to the the parent claims from the patented case would anticipate the currently presented claims in the child application. The claims in the current applicant are broad and so would be anticipated by the narrower claims in the patented cases. Hence, the anticipatory double patenting rejection. Applicant has stated that the “action fails to establish that claims 1-20 are drawn to the “same invention (i.e., identical subject matter) …”, anticipatory obvious type double patenting does not claim this and hence this is not persuasive. Applicant is directed to MPEP 804 where it states in part, “…There are generally two types of double patenting rejections. One is the "same invention" type double patenting rejection based on 35 U.S.C. 101 which states in the singular that an inventor "may obtain a patent." The second is the "nonstatutory-type" double patenting rejection based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy and which is primarily intended to prevent prolongation of the patent term by prohibiting claims in a second patent not patentably distinct from claims in a first patent. Since the doctrine of double patenting seeks to avoid unjustly extending patent rights at the expense of the public, the focus of any double patenting analysis necessarily is on the claims in the multiple patents or patent applications involved in the analysis. The doctrine of nonstatutory double patenting also seeks to prevent the possibility of multiple suits against an accused infringer by different assignees of patents claiming patentably indistinct variations of the same invention. In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 944-48, 214 USPQ 761, 767-70 (CCPA 1982) (citing Chisum, Patents, § 9.04(2)(b) (1981) ). A terminal disclaimer, submitted in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or (d) to overcome a double patenting rejection, includes a provision that the patent or any patent issuing from the application is only enforceable for and during such period that it is owned by the same party (or parties) that owns the other patents or applications, identified in the terminal disclaimer, that claim obvious variations of one invention. Van Ornum, 686 F.2d at 944-45, 214 USPQ at 767 (citing Chisum, Patents, § 9.04(2)(b) (1981)). The doctrine of nonstatutory double patenting also seeks to prevent the possibility of multiple suits against an accused infringer by different assignees of patents claiming patentably indistinct variations of the same invention. In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 944-48, 214 USPQ 761, 767-70 (CCPA 1982) (citing Chisum, Patents, § 9.04(2)(b) (1981) ). A terminal disclaimer, submitted in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or (d) to overcome a double patenting rejection, includes a provision that the patent or any patent issuing from the application is only enforceable for and during such period that it is owned by the same party (or parties) that owns the other patents or applications, identified in the terminal disclaimer, that claim obvious variations of one invention. Van Ornum, 686 F.2d at 944-45, 214 USPQ at 767 (citing Chisum, Patents, § 9.04(2)(b) (1981)). Nonstatutory double patenting includes rejections based on anticipation, a one-way determination of "obviousness," or a two-way determination of "obviousness." It is important to note that the "obviousness" analysis for "obviousness-type" double-patenting is "similar to, but not necessarily the same as, that undertaken under 35 U.S.C. 103." In re Braat, 937 F.2d 589, 592-93, 19 USPQ2d 1289, 1292 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (citing In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 892 n.4, 225 USPQ 645, 648 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 1985)); Geneva Pharmaceuticals, 349 F.3d 1373, 1378 n.1, 68 USPQ2d 1865, 1869 n.1 (Fed. Cir. 2003). In addition, nonstatutory double patenting also includes rejections based on the equitable principle against permitting an unjustified timewise extension of patent rights. See In re Schneller, 397 F.2d 350, 158 USPQ 210 (CCPA 1968); see also subsection II.B.6, below…” ”
Applicants’ arguments under the “claim rejections under 35 USC § 112” has been reviewed and found persuasive and the 112th rejections have been removed.
Applicants’ arguments under the section labeled, “Claim Rejections Under 35 USC § 103”, are found to be not persuasive for the following reasons: Where applicant argues in pages 8-9 that;
“Regarding independent claim 1, Applicant respectfully submits that the Office Action fails to establish the features of claim 1 are taught or even suggested by the applied combination of Meuleau and Beaurepaire. For example, claim 1 recites, in part, "in response to receiving the request, identifying, by the one or more processors, a recommended location for the vehicle to stop based on a plurality of heuristics for the recommended location". The Office Action rejects this feature in view of Meuleau at paragraphs [0078]-[0081]. The cited portions of Meuleau disclose a vehicle transportation network and information associated therewith regarding "docking locations" associated with destinations of the vehicle transportation network. Meuleau at [0078]. These docking locations and information pertaining thereto may be manually included based on user input or generated based on vehicle operating information. Id. at [0078], [0083], and [0085]. Additionally, docking location information "may identify a type of docking operation associated with a docking location 3700." Id. at [0078]. The type of docking operation may include "a first docking location for passenger loading and a second docking location for passenger unloading." Id. The cited portions of Meuleau disclose an example where an autonomous vehicle identifies a point of interest and the identifies the first docking location 3700 for passenger loading or unloading and parking area 3200 for to park the vehicle. Id. at [0079]. Meuleau provides a further example where a portion 4000 of the vehicle transportation network includes one or more unnavigable areas, one or more partially navigable areas, and/or one or more navigable areas. Id. at [0080]-[0081]. In contrast claim 1 recites, "in response to receiving the request, identifying, by the one or more processors, a recommended location for the vehicle to stop based on a plurality of heuristics for the recommended location". Meuleau merely discloses that an autonomous vehicle identifies a point of intertest and different docking locations thereof. Meuleau at [0079]. The different docking locations of Meuleau do not include a "a recommended location for the vehicle" that is "based on a plurality of heuristics for the recommended location" or otherwise. In this regard, the different docking locations of Meuleau are locations that will be used by the vehicle for different purposes (i.e., passenger unloading, passenger loading, or vehicle parking). Id. at [0078]-[0081]. Moreover, the docking locations of Meuleau are manually included based on user input or generated based on vehicle operating information not "based on a plurality of heuristics for the recommended location". See id. at [0078], [0083], and [0085]. As such, Applicant respectfully submits Meuleau does not teach or even suggest the above quoted feature of claim 1. This deficiency of Meuleau is not remedied by Beaurepaire.”
Applicants’ arguments are not persuasive and respectfully traversed, as the prior art of Meuleau does teach the features of having the system identify locations/docking locations whereby the vehicle can be stopped to pick up passengers as described in at least paragraphs 0078, “For example, defined docking location information may be included in the vehicle transportation network information based on user input. In some embodiments, the docking location information may be automatically generated docking location information as described herein. Although not shown separately in FIG. 3, docking location information may identify a type of docking operation associated with a docking location 3700. For example, a destination may be associated with a first docking location for passenger loading and a second docking location for passenger unloading….” Furthermore, it is also disclosed by Meuleau in paragraph 0079 to have, “In an example, an autonomous vehicle may identify a point of interest, which may include the building 3100, the parking area 3200, and the entrance 3500, as a destination. The autonomous vehicle may identify the building 3100, or the entrance 3500, as a primary destination for the point of interest, and may identify the parking area 3200 as a secondary destination. The autonomous vehicle may identify the docking location 3700 as a docking location for the primary destination. The autonomous vehicle may generate a route from an origin (not shown) to the docking location 3700. The autonomous vehicle may traverse the vehicle transportation network from the origin to the docking location 3700 using the route. The autonomous vehicle may stop or park at the docking location 3700 such that passenger loading or unloading may be performed…” Furthermore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of heuristics was taken and in this instance any parameter which would fulfill the user’s requirement for the pickup/dropoff/docking location as described in the above cited paragraphs. It is also noted that applicants currently presented claims only requires, “…a recommended location for the vehicle to stop based on a plurality of heuristics for the recommended location…”, where the prior art of Meuleau does disclose this in the above cited portions, specifically where they cite, “…an autonomous vehicle may identify a point of interest, which may include the building 3100, the parking area 3200, and the entrance 3500, as a destination. The autonomous vehicle may identify the building 3100, or the entrance 3500, as a primary destination for the point of interest, and may identify the parking area 3200 as a secondary destination. The autonomous vehicle may identify the docking location 3700 as a docking location for the primary destination…” Hence applicants’ arguments are respectfully traversed and not persuasive and the rejection has been maintained.
Where applicants argue:
“In contrast claim 1 recites, "providing, by the one or more processors, the recommended location to the client computing device for display with a map on a display of the client computing device, wherein the recommended location is provided as a suggested alternative to the first location.". Meuleau merely discloses that an autonomous vehicle identifies a point of intertest and different docking locations thereof. Meuleau at [0079]; see also id. at [0092] and [0215]-[0221]. There is no disclosure in Meuleau that the different docking locations are provided "for display with a map on a display of the client computing device." The existence of user interface 1350 in Meuleau does not equate to providing specific information for display thereon. Moreover, there is no disclosure in Meuleau that the different docking locations are "provided as a suggested alternative" of any other location received in a user request or otherwise. In this regard, the different docking locations of Meuleau are locations at the point of interest that will be used by the vehicle for different purposes (i.e., passenger unloading, passenger loading, or vehicle parking). Id. at [0078]-[0081]; see also id. at [0092] and [0215]-[0221]. As such, Applicant respectfully submits Meuleau does not teach or even suggest the above quoted feature of claim 1. This deficiency of Meuleau is not remedied by Beaurepaire.”
Applicants’ arguments are respectfully traversed where it is disclosed by Meuleau in at least paragraphs 6, 79, 92, 210-211 & 215-216 to have their system produce a primary and secondary docking location of the pickup/drop-off of a passenger of the autonomous vehicle. Whereby it has been interpreted that the production of the secondary location that is produced may require the user to walk to the pickup/drop-off location as described in at least paragraphs 215-216, this meets applicants claimed limitation of “provided as a suggested alternative to the first location. Whereby, the secondary location is the suggestion by the system for the user for a new docking location. Thus, for the previously mentioned reasons applicants’ arguments are not persuasive and the rejections have been maintained below.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-24 of U.S. Patent No. 12,287,630. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because: Where the claims are not identical the claims of the patent are anticipated by the claim of the current application.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,487,287. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because: Where the claims are not identical the claims of the patent are anticipated by the claim of the current application.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,209,823. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because: Where the claims are not identical, the claims of the patent are anticipated by the claim of the current application.
It is noted that this is an anticipatory NSDP rejection of the current claims with the above patented claims. Where the current applications claims are broader than the patented claims mentioned above, hence the current application claims would anticipate the claims from the patents mentioned above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 12-15 & 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meuleau et al., US PG Pub 2016/0209843 A1., (hereafter Meuleau)., in view of Beaurepaire et al., US PG Pub 2015/0219464 A1., (hereafter Beaurepaire).
Regarding claim 1 where it is disclosed by Meuleau to have passenger docking/pickup location selection system and method. Where it is disclosed by Meuleau to have their system, “A method [see abstract] comprising: receiving, by one or more processors [at least paragraph 0004-0006 where they state having a processor], …, wherein the request identifies a first location [at least paragraphs 0078-0081 where the system can produce pickup locations]; in response to receiving the request, identifying, by the one or more processors, a recommended location for the vehicle to stop based on a plurality of heuristics for the recommended location [see at least paragraphs 0078-0081 the system can determine pickup/docking points for passengers]; and providing, by the one or more processors [in at least 0004-0006], the recommended location …for display with a map on a display of the client computing device [at least paragraphs 0055 & 0060 where it describes displaying information], wherein the recommended location is provided as a suggested alternative to the first location [at least paragraphs 0078-0079, 0092 & 0215-0221 where they state “In some embodiments, the autonomous vehicle may perform a docking operation at 23210. For example, the autonomous vehicle may stop at the first target docking location and one or more passengers may exit the autonomous vehicle. The autonomous vehicle may travel from the first target docking location to the secondary destination at 23220 and may park at the secondary destination at 23230. In some embodiments, the autonomous vehicle may travel from the secondary destination to the second target docking location at 23240 and may perform a second docking operation, at the second target docking location, at 23250. For example, the autonomous vehicle may stop at the second target docking location and one or more passengers may enter the autonomous vehicle.”].”
Where it is not specifically disclosed by Meuleau to have, “…a request for a vehicle from a client computing device associated with a passenger…” and “…to the client computing device…”
Beaurepaire is directed to a method and system for providing passenger embarkation/pickup points for points of interest. Beaurepaire in at least paragraphs 0009-0010 & 0023-0031 as well as figures 3-5 to have their system also include the features of, “…a request for a vehicle from a client computing device associated with a passenger…” and “…to the client computing device…”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Meuleau by the teachings of Beaurepaire, where they are both directed to the same field of endeavor of determining pickup points for passengers for vehicles. Where one with a reasonable expectation of success would have looked to modify Meuleau by the use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way, as taught by Beaurepaire. Where in this instance the modification of Meuleau whom does not have their system on a mobile device, as taught by Beaurepaire, where this would have been advantageous to the user as it would allow them to call and be picked up using their personal mobile device which they carry on them for convenience and efficiency.
Regarding claim 2 where it is disclosed by both Meuleau and Beaurepaire in at least paragraphs 0221 and 0071-0072, respectively, to include the feature of, “the first location is at least one or a pickup location, a destination, or a drop off location.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Meuleau by the teachings of Beaurepaire, where they are both directed to the same field of endeavor of determining pickup points for passengers for vehicles. Where one with a reasonable expectation of success would have looked to modify Meuleau by the use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way, as taught by Beaurepaire. Where in this instance the modification of Meuleau whom does not have their system on a mobile device, as taught by Beaurepaire, where this would have been advantageous to the user as it would allow them to call and be picked up using their personal mobile device which they carry on them for convenience and efficiency.
Regarding claim 3 where it is disclosed by both Meuleau in paragraphs 76, 81, 131, 178 & 191-192 and Beaurepaire in at least paragraphs 29, 37, 72 & 73, to have, “at least one of the plurality of heuristics is associated with a walkable route between the first location and the recommended location.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Meuleau by the teachings of Beaurepaire, where they are both directed to the same field of endeavor of determining pickup points for passengers for vehicles. Where one with a reasonable expectation of success would have looked to modify Meuleau by the use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way, as taught by Beaurepaire. Where in this instance the modification of Meuleau whom does not have their system on a mobile device, as taught by Beaurepaire, where this would have been advantageous to the user as it would allow them to call and be picked up using their personal mobile device which they carry on them for convenience and efficiency.
Regarding claim 4 where it is disclosed by both Meuleau in paragraphs 76, 81, 131, 178 & 191-192 and Beaurepaire in at least paragraphs 29, 37, 72 & 73, to have, “at least one of the plurality of heuristics is associated with whether a walkable route between the first location and the recommended location includes crossing a street of a certain width.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Meuleau by the teachings of Beaurepaire, where they are both directed to the same field of endeavor of determining pickup points for passengers for vehicles. Where one with a reasonable expectation of success would have looked to modify Meuleau by the use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way, as taught by Beaurepaire. Where in this instance the modification of Meuleau whom does not have their system on a mobile device, as taught by Beaurepaire, where this would have been advantageous to the user as it would allow them to call and be picked up using their personal mobile device which they carry on them for convenience and efficiency. Furthermore, where the prior art has the system produce routes based on walkways, pedestrian sidewalk and intersections, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the closest pickup point based on the width of the street as the wider the street the more traffic lanes the user would have to cross to be pickup by the vehicle and this could lead to a potentially risky situation.
Regarding claim 5 where it is disclosed by both Meuleau in paragraphs 76, 81, 131, 178 & 191-192 and Beaurepaire in at least paragraphs 29, 37, 72 & 73, to have, “at least one of the plurality of heuristics is associated with whether a walkable route between the first location and the recommended location includes a crosswalk.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Meuleau by the teachings of Beaurepaire, where they are both directed to the same field of endeavor of determining pickup points for passengers for vehicles. Where one with a reasonable expectation of success would have looked to modify Meuleau by the use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way, as taught by Beaurepaire. Where in this instance the modification of Meuleau whom does not have their system on a mobile device, as taught by Beaurepaire, where this would have been advantageous to the user as it would allow them to call and be picked up using their personal mobile device which they carry on them for convenience and efficiency. Furthermore, where the prior art has the system produce routes based on walkways, pedestrian sidewalk and intersections, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the closest pickup point based on the width of the street as the wider the street the more traffic lanes the user would have to cross to be pickup by the vehicle and this could lead to a potentially risky situation.
Regarding claim 7 where it is further disclosed by both Meuleau in paragraphs 79, 81, 88 & 142 and Beaurepaire in paragraph 59 to have, “at least one of the plurality of heuristics is associated with whether the recommended location is within a known entrance or exit of a building.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Meuleau by the teachings of Beaurepaire, where they are both directed to the same field of endeavor of determining pickup points for passengers for vehicles. Where one with a reasonable expectation of success would have looked to modify Meuleau by the use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way, as taught by Beaurepaire. Where in this instance the modification of Meuleau whom does not have their system on a mobile device, as taught by Beaurepaire, where this would have been advantageous to the user as it would allow them to call and be picked up using their personal mobile device which they carry on them for convenience and efficiency.
Regarding claim 12 which is the corresponding system claim for method claim 1 and thus rejected for the same reasons as stated for claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 13 which is the corresponding system claim for method claim 2 and thus rejected for the same reasons as stated for claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 14 which is the corresponding system claim for method claim 3 and thus rejected for the same reasons as stated for claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 15 which is the corresponding system claim for method claim 4 and thus rejected for the same reasons as stated for claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 16 which is the corresponding computer program product claim for method claim 1 and thus rejected for the same reasons as stated for claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 17 which is the corresponding computer program product claim for method claim 2 and thus rejected for the same reasons as stated for claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 18 which is the corresponding computer program product claim for method claim 3 and thus rejected for the same reasons as stated for claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 19 which is the corresponding computer program product claim for method claim 5 and thus rejected for the same reasons as stated for claim 5 above.
Claim(s) 6 & 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meuleau and Beaurepaire as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of O’Sullivan US PG Pub 2008/0195428 A1., (hereafter O’Sullivan).
Regarding claim 6 where all the limitations of claim 1 are disclosed by Meuleau and Beaurepaire as described above. Where it is not specifically disclosed by either Meuleau and Beaurepaire to have their system also include, “at least one of the plurality of heuristics is associated with whether a walkable route between the first location and the recommended location includes crossing a street that is historically busy.”
O’Sullivan is directed to a shared transport system and service network, where in at least paragraphs 23, 130 & 134, they describe, “at least one of the plurality of heuristics is associated with whether a walkable route between the first location and the recommended location includes crossing a street that is historically busy.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Meuleau and Beaurepaire by the teachings of O’Sullivan, where they are all directed to the same field of endeavor of passenger pickup and drop off in a transportation network. Where one with a reasonable expectation of success would have looked to modify Meuleau and Beaurepaire, by the teaching of the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way, as taught by O’Sullivan. Where in this instance the modification of Meuleau and Beaurepaire, whom do not have their system specifically use historical data for the production of routes for the vehicle and user to travel to a mutual pickup point to ensure that the pick up point will not impede traffic and is safe for both the vehicle and the passenger/pickup customer.
Regarding claim 20 where all the limitations of claim 1 are disclosed by Meuleau and Beaurepaire as described above. Where it is not specifically disclosed by either Meuleau and Beaurepaire to have their system also include, “at least one of the plurality of heuristics is associated with whether a walkable route between the first location and the recommended location includes crossing a street that is historically busy.”
O’Sullivan is directed to a shared transport system and service network, where in at least paragraphs 23, 130 & 134, they describe, “at least one of the plurality of heuristics is associated with whether a walkable route between the first location and the recommended location includes crossing a street that is historically busy.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Meuleau and Beaurepaire by the teachings of O’Sullivan, where they are all directed to the same field of endeavor of passenger pickup and drop off in a transportation network. Where one with a reasonable expectation of success would have looked to modify Meuleau and Beaurepaire, by the teaching of the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way, as taught by O’Sullivan. Where in this instance the modification of Meuleau and Beaurepaire, whom do not have their system specifically use historical data for the production of routes for the vehicle and user to travel to a mutual pickup point to ensure that the pickup point will not impede traffic and is safe for both the vehicle and the passenger/pickup customer.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meuleau and Beaurepaire as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Holsinger et al., US PG Pub 2011/0191019 A1., (hereafter Holsinger).
Regarding claim 8 where all the limitations of claim 1 are disclosed by Meuleau and Beaurepaire as described above. Where it is not specifically disclosed by either Meuleau and Beaurepaire to have, “at least one of the plurality of heuristics is associated with whether the recommended location is within a predetermined distance from a handicapped parking spot.”
Holsinger is directed to a method and system for a navigation system and in at least paragraphs 39-40 they disclose the feature of their system being able to provide the location of handicap accessible meeting points which would include parking locations. This is read upon by applicants claim to, “at least one of the plurality of heuristics is associated with whether the recommended location is within a predetermined distance from a handicapped parking spot.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was field to modify Meuleau and Beaurepaire by the teachings of Holsinger, where they are all directed to the same field of endeavor of providing directions to users. Where one with a reasonable expectation of success would have looked to modify Meuleau and Beaurepaire, by the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way as taught by Holsinger. Where in this instance the modification of both Meuleau and Beaurepaire, whom do not provide directions to handicap accessible locations, so as to be able to provide directions to location which are accessible to all users and abide by Federal Law in regards to ADA compliance, as taught by Holsinger.
Regarding claim 9 where all the limitations of claim 1 are disclosed by Meuleau and Beaurepaire as described above. Where it is not specifically disclosed by either Meuleau and Beaurepaire to have, “each of the plurality of heuristics has a ranking that is adjustable.”
Holsinger is directed to a method and system for a navigation system and in at least paragraphs 81-82 & 104 they disclose the feature of their system being able to provide rankings which can be adjusted by the user. This is read upon by applicants claim to, “each of the plurality of heuristics has a ranking that is adjustable.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was field to modify Meuleau and Beaurepaire by the teachings of Holsinger, where they are all directed to the same field of endeavor of providing directions to users. Where one with a reasonable expectation of success would have looked to modify Meuleau and Beaurepaire, by the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way as taught by Holsinger. Where in this instance the modification of both Meuleau and Beaurepaire, whom do not provide directions to handicap accessible locations, so as to be able to provide directions to location which are accessible to all users and abide by Federal Law in regards to ADA compliance, as taught by Holsinger.
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meuleau and Beaurepaire as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of James et al., US PG Pub 2014/0067488 A1., (hereafter James).
Regarding claim 10 where all the limitations of claim 1 are disclosed by Meuleau and Beaurepaire, as described above. Where it is disclosed by Meuleau to have their system produce at least two docking locations for the system, see above. It is also disclosed by Beaurepaire to have their system include displaying passenger pickup and drop-off points on a user device as described in at least paragraphs 9-10 & 23-31.
However, it is not specifically disclosed by either Meuleau nor Beaurepaire to have their system also allow the user being able to pan on a display to zoom in on the map. This is disclosed by James as described in at least paragraph 151.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Meuleau and Beaurepaire, by the teachings of James where they are all directed to the same field of endeavor of ride hailing systems. Where one with a reasonable expectation of success would have been motivated to modify Meuleau and Beaurepaire, by the use of a well-known technique to improve similar devices in the same way, as taught by James. Where in this instance the modification of both Meuleau and Beaurepaire by James to now includes the feature of allowing the user to view the information live on a handheld device to help the user determine where the ride share vehicle will be to allow them to grab it for a ride to a point of interest.
Regarding claim 11 where all the limitations of claim 1 are disclosed by Meuleau and Beaurepaire, as described above. Where it is disclosed by Meuleau to have their system produce at least two docking locations for the system, see above. It is also disclosed by Beaurepaire to have their system include displaying passenger pickup and drop-off points on a user device as described in at least paragraphs 9-10 & 23-31.
However, it is not specifically disclosed by either Meuleau nor Beaurepaire to have their system also allow the user being able to pan on a display to zoom in on the map. This is disclosed by James as described in at least paragraph 151.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Meuleau and Beaurepaire, by the teachings of James where they are all directed to the same field endeavor of ride hailing systems. Where one with a reasonable expectation of success would have been motivated to modify Meuleau and Beaurepaire, by the use of a well-known technique to improve similar devices in the same way, as taught by James. Where in this instance the modification of both Meuleau and Beaurepaire by James to now includes the feature of allowing the user to view the information live on a handheld device to help the user determine where the ride share vehicle will be to allow them to grab it for a ride to a point of interest.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: Applicant claims, “the recommended location is provided with instructions to surface the recommended location in response to a user panning on the map.” It is unclear as to what applicant means when they claim, “with instructions to surface”. What is being given instructions as applicant claims, “instructions to surface” and what specifically is type of instructions are being provide to a surface? Is applicant trying to claim instructions to display? Appropriate correction is required.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BHAVESH V AMIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3255. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thur, 8-6:30, EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abby Lin can be reached at (571) 270-3976. 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.
BHAVESH V. AMIN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3657
/BHAVESH V AMIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights