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 . Claims 1-20 have been reviewed and are under consideration by this office action.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 02/20/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step One - First, pursuant to step 1 in the January 2019 Guidance on 84 Fed. Reg. 53, the claim(s) is/are directed to statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong One – The claims are found to recite limitations that set forth the abstract idea(s), namely in independent claims recite a series of steps for the abstract idea recited below.
Regarding Claims 1, 11, and 12, A processing apparatus comprising: at least one memory configured to store one or more instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the one or more instructions to: / A processing method comprising, by one or more computers; / A non-transitory storage medium recording a program causing a computer to:
acquire transportation tasks carried out by a plurality of transportation vehicles each;
compute, for each of the transportation tasks, a requisite power being an amount of power required in a case where the transportation task is carried out by using a predetermined electric vehicle; and
compute, based on the requisite power for each of the transportation tasks, a number of the transportation vehicles replaceable with the predetermined electric vehicle.
As drafted, this is, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, within the Abstract idea groupings of “Mental processes—concepts performed in the human mind” (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) as the claims are directed towards acquiring transportation tasks, computing (i.e. calculate) a requisite power , and computing a number of vehicles replaceable with a predetermined vehicle all of which are concepts capable of being performed in the human mind (i.e. via pen and paper).
Further the claims are directed towards the abstract idea grouping of “Certain methods of organizing human activity” — commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) as the claims are directed towards acquiring transportation tasks, computing (i.e. calculate) a requisite power , and computing a number of vehicles replaceable with a predetermined vehicle.
Step 2A, Prong Two - This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The independent claims utilize at least the additional elements bolded above. The additional elements are performing the steps would be no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and/or amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Step 2B - The claim does 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 elements are just “apply it” on a computer. (See MPEP 2106.05(f) – Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception – “Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible.” Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 235) and/or amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Regarding Claims 2-10 and 13-20, the claim further narrows the abstract idea or recite additional elements previously addressed in the independent claims (i.e. memory, processor, computer, etc.).
Accordingly, the claim fails to recite any improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, use of a particular machine, effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, and/or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular environment. See 84 Fed. Reg. 55. Viewed individually or as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-4, 11-15, and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arnas et al. (US 20230377065 A1) in view of Padan et al. (US 20090276267 A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 11, and 12, Arnas teaches: A processing apparatus comprising: at least one memory configured to store one or more instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the one or more instructions to: / A processing method comprising, by one or more computers; (Arnas, [113-115]; Systems can include further comprising a database comprising the geographic road route information….Systems can include a processor comprised by the control unit…Systems can include a memory comprised by the control unit.
acquire transportation tasks carried out by a plurality of transportation vehicles each; (Arnas, [16-17]; Receive a plurality of freight transport assignments including at least the following criteria for each: a pick-up point, a pick-up time, a drop-off point, a drop-off time and a weight and/or volume…Determine an electric energy requirement for fulfilling each received freight transport assignment).
compute, for each of the transportation tasks, a requisite power being an amount of power required in a case where the transportation task is carried out by using a… electric vehicle; and (Arnas, [16-18]; receive a plurality of freight transport assignments including at least the following criteria for each: a pick-up point, a pick-up time, a drop-off point, a drop-off time and a weight and/or volume…Determine an electric energy requirement for fulfilling each received freight transport assignment… Determine a set of mobile electric assets, route assignments and charging assignments for those mobile electric assets which meet both the determined electric energy requirement and the criteria of the received freight transport assignment).
compute, based on the requisite power for each of the transportation tasks, a number of the transportation vehicles replaceable with the… electric vehicle. (Arnas, [16-18]; receive a plurality of freight transport assignments including at least the following criteria for each: a pick-up point, a pick-up time, a drop-off point, a drop-off time and a weight and/or volume…Determine an electric energy requirement for fulfilling each received freight transport assignment… Determine a set of mobile electric assets, route assignments and charging assignments for those mobile electric assets which meet both the determined electric energy requirement and the criteria of the received freight transport assignment and Arnas, [25]; For example, in a situation where two or more self-propelled vehicle assets are eligible to perform a transport assignment in terms of that both are capable to perform the task within a predefined time frame, the system may be configured to select the geographic road route and self-propelled vehicle asset which will execute the assignment based on other criteria, for example based on electric energy required for carrying out another transport assignment). Examiner interprets the set of vehicles as a number of vehicles that are replaceable as they are all capable of the set of assignments.
While Arnas teaches a computer readable medium and processing device (Arnas, [27-29]) Arnas does not appear to teach instructions. However, Arans in view of the analogous art of Padan (i.e. vehicle routing) does teach: Padan, [14]; the system comprising a control unit configured to and Padan, [28]; Computerized module 200 may use, handle and analyze weight data using applications that preferably comprise software components written in any programming language such as C, C#, C++, Java, VB, VB.Net, or the like, and developed under any development environment).
While Arnas teaches acquiring transport activities, computing a requisite amount of power for a transportation task, selecting vehicles for a task, and determining a replacement number of vehicles; Arnas does not appear to compute a predetermined vehicle. However, Arnas/Padan does teach: a predetermined vehicle (Padan, [33]; the amount of fuel to be used or to be loaded to the vehicle is determined as a function of the received weight data. Such terms and conditions used for determining the amount of fuel to be used or loaded are preferably stored on storage 210 and may vary according to the vehicle, trip, number of passengers, rate between passengers' weight and luggage weight, and the like.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to have combined the teachings of Arnas including acquiring transport activities, computing a requisite amount of power for a transportation task, selecting vehicles for a task, and determining a replacement number of vehicles with the teachings of Padan including instructions and a predetermined vehicle in order to have a system capable of easier distribution and to ensure a vehicle has sufficient energy to complete transport task (Padan, [04]; Evaluation of the total weight is used to evaluate the amount of fuel or energy required for transporting the vehicle from one point to another. Such evaluation results in loading a relatively accurate amount of fuel or other energy source, which leads to economic benefit).
Regarding Claims 2, 13, and 17, Arnas/Padan teaches: The processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the transportation task indicates a transportation destination, transportation order, and a weight of a transportation target object, and (Arnas, [21]; A route assignment for a freight transport assignment may be sub-optimal for the freight, for example the assigned geographic road route is not the shortest route between a geographic start point and a geographic end point, but an optimal route for the eco-system to enable charging of the self-propelled vehicle asset and/or positioning of non self-propelled vehicle assets and Arnas, [65]; In other words, the first self-propelled vehicle asset has not taken the direct geographic road route from A to B, but instead the geographic road route A to E to F to E to B in order to transport a mobile electric asset from E to another geographic position F and Arnas, [87]; receiving a plurality of transport assignments, wherein each transport assignment comprises a geographic start point and a geographic end point, a pick-up time and a drop-off time and a weight and/or volume of the freight).
the at least one processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to compute, based on the transportation task, the requisite power required in a case where the transportation task is carried out by using the predetermined electric vehicle. (Arnas, [95]; Methods can include wherein the method further comprises determining for each geographic road route between the geographic start point and the geographic end point information about expected power consumption for each transport assignment or an electric energy requirement for fulfilling each received transport assignment).
Regarding Claims 3, 14, and 18, Arnas/Padan teaches: The processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to: acquire a plurality of the transmission tasks carried out by each of the transportation vehicles, compute the requisite power in each of a plurality of the transportation tasks carried out by each of the transportation vehicles, and (Arnas, [16-17]; Receive a plurality of freight transport assignments including at least the following criteria for each: a pick-up point, a pick-up time, a drop-off point, a drop-off time and a weight and/or volume…Determine an electric energy requirement for fulfilling each received freight transport assignment).
decide, based on the requisite power in each of a plurality of the transportation tasks carried out by each of the transportation vehicles, whether each of the transportation vehicles is replaceable with the predetermined electric vehicle. (Arnas, [17-18]; Determine an electric energy requirement for fulfilling each received freight transport assignment, [0018] Determine a set of mobile electric assets, route assignments and charging assignments for those mobile electric assets which meet both the determined electric energy requirement and the criteria of the received freight transport assignment and Arnas, [25]; For example, in a situation where two or more self-propelled vehicle assets are eligible to perform a transport assignment in terms of that both are capable to perform the task within a predefined time frame, the system may be configured to select the geographic road route and self-propelled vehicle asset which will execute the assignment based on other criteria, for example based on electric energy required for carrying out another transport assignment).
Regarding Claims 4, 15, and 19, Arnas/Padan teaches: The processing apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to decide, in a case where a predetermined number or more or a predetermined ratio or more of a plurality of the transportation tasks carried out by each of the transportation vehicles satisfies a predetermined condition based on the requisite power, whether each of the transportation vehicles is replaceable with the predetermined electric vehicle (Arnas, [17-18]; Determine an electric energy requirement for fulfilling each received freight transport assignment… Determine a set of mobile electric assets, route assignments and charging assignments for those mobile electric assets which meet both the determined electric energy requirement and the criteria of the received freight transport assignment and Arnas, [25]; For example, in a situation where two or more self-propelled vehicle assets are eligible to perform a transport assignment in terms of that both are capable to perform the task within a predefined time frame, the system may be configured to select the geographic road route and self-propelled vehicle asset which will execute the assignment based on other criteria, for example based on electric energy required for carrying out another transport assignment).
Claims 5, 16, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arnas et al. (US 20230377065 A1) in view of Padan et al. (US 20090276267 A1), and Betancourt (US 20120078743 A1).
Regarding Claims 5, 16, and 20, While Arnas/Padan teach a set of vehicles capable (i.e. replaceable) of performing a task and further a predetermined vehicle, neither appear to explicitly teach variations of requisite power. However, Arna/Padan in view of the analogous art of : The processing apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to decide, based on a variation degree of the requisite powers in a plurality of the transportation tasks each carried out by each of the transportation vehicles, whether each of the transportation vehicles is replaceable with the predetermined electric vehicle. (Betancourt, [25]; the system may subsequently determine a total amount of fuel required for transporting the cargo or load from the origin to the destination along the selected route. Since the amount of fuel required may vary from vehicle to vehicle, different amounts of required fuel may be determined for different vehicle types. In one or more arrangements, the amount of fuel required may be calculated based on historical records of fuel efficiency for the different types of vehicles, an advertised fuel efficiency, the weight of the cargo, total transport distance, expected terrain and the like. Additionally, in step 320, the system may further determine locations along the selected route where fueling is projected to be needed. The system, a carrier and/or a shipper may define a time or remaining amount of fuel when refueling will be required or should be performed. For example, the system may schedule refueling whenever the vehicle's fuel is projected to be at or below 5 gallons, 2 gallons, 1.5 gallons, 1 gallon, 4 gallons, etc. The location may be defined by a zipcode, a city, a county, an address and the like. The locations may be determined based on the projected fuel efficiency of the vehicle transporting the cargo. Again, if a vehicle and/or carrier has not yet been selected for transporting the cargo, multiple projected locations may be determined, one for each type of vehicle. In one particular example, if a type of transport vehicle has a fuel efficiency of 10 miles/gallon and a fuel tank capacity of 100 gallons, the system may identify a city, zipcode or other type of location identifier 980 miles after the origin of the transport route as a first refueling point).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to have combined the teachings of Arnas/Padan teach a set of vehicles capable of performing a task and further a predetermined vehicle with the teachings of Betancourt including power variations in order to account for energy efficiency of a vehicle when assigning task (Betancourt, [25]; Since the amount of fuel required may vary from vehicle to vehicle, different amounts of required fuel may be determined for different vehicle types. In one or more arrangements, the amount of fuel required may be calculated based on historical records of fuel efficiency for the different types of vehicles, an advertised fuel efficiency, the weight of the cargo, total transport distance, expected terrain and the like. Additionally, in step 320, the system may further determine locations along the selected route where fueling is projected to be needed. The system, a carrier and/or a shipper may define a time or remaining amount of fuel when refueling will be required or should be performed. For example, the system may schedule refueling whenever the vehicle's fuel is projected to be at or below 5 gallons, 2 gallons, 1.5 gallons, 1 gallon, 4 gallons, etc… if a type of transport vehicle has a fuel efficiency of 10 miles/gallon and a fuel tank capacity of 100 gallons, the system may identify a city, zipcode or other type of location identifier 980 miles after the origin of the transport route as a first refueling point. The 980 miles is calculated based on a 2 gallon tolerance (e.g., refuel when at or below 2 gallons).
Claims 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arnas et al. (US 20230377065 A1) in view of Padan et al. (US 20090276267 A1), and Zhang et al. (US 20220341744 A1)
Regarding Claims 6, While Arnas/Padan teach determining energy requirements for vehicles and replaceable vehicles, neither appears to explicitly teach thresholds. However, Arnas/Padan in view of the analogous art of Zhang (i.e. vehicle routing) does teach: The processing apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the predetermined condition includes at least one of a matter that the requisite power is equal to or less than a first threshold value, and (Zhang, [82]; If determining that a difference obtained by subtracting an estimated power consumption required by the safe alternative route from the current remaining power of the service vehicle is less than the safe power threshold, the power assurance module 340 notifies the order management module 350 to send the safe alternative route to the service vehicle, and notifies the service vehicle to terminate the order and go to the safe point for charging according to the safe alternative route).
a matter that the requisite power is larger than the first threshold value and equal to or less than a second threshold value, and (Zhang, [71]; determine whether a remaining power of the candidate vehicle is sufficient to complete the safe driving route. If a difference obtained by subtracting the estimated power consumption required by the safe driving route from the remaining power of the candidate vehicle is greater than the safe power threshold, it indicates that the remaining power of the candidate vehicle can complete the safe driving route).
charge processing for a predetermined amount of power is possible while the transportation task is carried out. (Zhang, [114]; The first safe alternative route may be a route from the current location of the service vehicle to a location of a charging point closest to the current location of the service vehicle, and the second safe alternative route may be a route from the current location of the service vehicle to a location of a private safe point of the driver closest to the current location of the service vehicle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to have combined the teachings of Arnas/Padan including determining energy requirements for vehicles, with the teachings of Zhang including power requisite thresholds in order to track vehicle energy and determine efficient charging plans. (Zhang, [114]; a difference obtained by subtracting an estimated power consumption required by any safe alternative route from the current remaining power of the service vehicle is less than the safe power threshold, step 505 is performed. The first safe alternative route may be a route from the current location of the service vehicle to a location of a charging point closest to the current location of the service vehicle, and the second safe alternative route may be a route from the current location of the service vehicle to a location of a private safe point of the driver closest to the current location of the service vehicle).
Regarding Claims 7, Arnas/Padan/Zhang teaches: The processing apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to compute, based on a difference between the requisite power and the first threshold value, the predetermined amount of power. (Zhang, [114]; a difference obtained by subtracting an estimated power consumption required by any safe alternative route from the current remaining power of the service vehicle is less than the safe power threshold, step 505 is performed. The first safe alternative route may be a route from the current location of the service vehicle to a location of a charging point closest to the current location of the service vehicle, and the second safe alternative route may be a route from the current location of the service vehicle to a location of a private safe point of the driver closest to the current location of the service vehicle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to have combined the teachings of Arnas/Padan including determining energy requirements for vehicles, with the teachings of Zhang including power requisite thresholds in order to track vehicle energy and determine efficient charging plans. (Zhang, [114]; a difference obtained by subtracting an estimated power consumption required by any safe alternative route from the current remaining power of the service vehicle is less than the safe power threshold, step 505 is performed. The first safe alternative route may be a route from the current location of the service vehicle to a location of a charging point closest to the current location of the service vehicle, and the second safe alternative route may be a route from the current location of the service vehicle to a location of a private safe point of the driver closest to the current location of the service vehicle).
Regarding Claims 8, While Arnas/Padan teach determining energy requirements for vehicles and replaceable vehicles, neither appears to explicitly teach thresholds. However, Arnas/Padan in view of the analogous art of Zhang (i.e. vehicle routing) does teach: The processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to decide, as being replaceable with the predetermined electric vehicle, at least one of the transportation vehicle involved in the transportation task in which the requisite power is equal to or less than a first threshold value, and (Zhang, [82]; If determining that a difference obtained by subtracting an estimated power consumption required by the safe alternative route from the current remaining power of the service vehicle is less than the safe power threshold, the power assurance module 340 notifies the order management module 350 to send the safe alternative route to the service vehicle, and notifies the service vehicle to terminate the order and go to the safe point for charging according to the safe alternative route).
the transportation vehicle involved in the transportation task in which the requisite power is larger than the first threshold value and equal to or less than a second threshold value, and charge processing for a predetermined amount of power is possible while the transportation task is carried out. (Zhang, [71]; determine whether a remaining power of the candidate vehicle is sufficient to complete the safe driving route. If a difference obtained by subtracting the estimated power consumption required by the safe driving route from the remaining power of the candidate vehicle is greater than the safe power threshold, it indicates that the remaining power of the candidate vehicle can complete the safe driving route and Zhang, [114]; a difference obtained by subtracting an estimated power consumption required by any safe alternative route from the current remaining power of the service vehicle is less than the safe power threshold, step 505 is performed. The first safe alternative route may be a route from the current location of the service vehicle to a location of a charging point closest to the current location of the service vehicle, and the second safe alternative route may be a route from the current location of the service vehicle to a location of a private safe point of the driver closest to the current location of the service vehicle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to have combined the teachings of Arnas/Padan including determining energy requirements for vehicles, with the teachings of Zhang including power requisite thresholds in order to track vehicle energy and determine efficient charging plans. (Zhang, [114]; a difference obtained by subtracting an estimated power consumption required by any safe alternative route from the current remaining power of the service vehicle is less than the safe power threshold, step 505 is performed. The first safe alternative route may be a route from the current location of the service vehicle to a location of a charging point closest to the current location of the service vehicle, and the second safe alternative route may be a route from the current location of the service vehicle to a location of a private safe point of the driver closest to the current location of the service vehicle).
Claims 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arnas et al. (US 20230377065 A1) in view of Padan et al. (US 20090276267 A1), Thakkar et al. (US 20130054281 A1), and Wang et al. (US 20170178070 A1)
Regarding Claims 9, While Arnas/Padan teaches replacement vehicles, neither appear to explicitly teach cost for alternatives. However, Arnas/Padan in view of the analogous art of Wang (i.e. vehicle routing) does teach: The processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to compute at least one of a cost in a case where replacement of a computed number of vehicles is performed, and (Wang, [79]; the dispatch schedule optimizer 134 may be configured to attempt to obtain additional cost improvements by selecting an individual delivery assignment (416), as just referenced. As also just referenced, if a replacement vehicle with an improved unit cost is available for use within the selected delivery assignment (418), then the dispatch schedule optimizer 134 may proceed to make the vehicle replacement and store the resulting, updated dispatch schedule within the schedule database 126).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to have combined the teachings of Arnas/Padan including replacement vehicles with the teachings of Wang including cost of replacement vehicles in order to determine if more cost efficient options are available (Wang, [79]; the dispatch schedule optimizer 134 may be configured to attempt to obtain additional cost improvements by selecting an individual delivery assignment (416), as just referenced. As also just referenced, if a replacement vehicle with an improved unit cost is available for use within the selected delivery assignment (418), then the dispatch schedule optimizer 134 may proceed to make the vehicle replacement and store the resulting, updated dispatch schedule within the schedule database 126).
While Arnas/Padan/Wang teach replacement vehicles and cost savings, they do not appear to teach a c02 reduction. However, Arnas/Padan/Wang in view of the analogous art of Thakker (i.e. vehicle routing) does teach: a CO2 reduction effect. (Thakkar, [90]; a passenger participant, if his alternative choice vehicle is more efficient (the value of Vi is higher, alternative choice vehicle's emission co-efficient V/Vi is lower), i.e. an alternative choice vehicle with higher Vehicle Green Score 230 not used as a rideshare vehicle during a rideshare trip, the less carbon emission reduction credit may be generated for him).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to have combined the teachings of Arnas/Padan/Wang including replacement vehicles and cost savings with the teachings of Thakkar including c02 reductions in order to reduce global warming (Thakkar, [03]; Researches have shown that the increasing amount of fuel burning carbon emission may have contributed to the greenhouse effect of global warming. To easy road congestion and to reduce the greenhouse effect, many rideshare systems have been proposed by various entities, including academia, governments and corporations, to encourage people to rideshare).
Claims 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arnas et al. (US 20230377065 A1) in view of Padan et al. (US 20090276267 A1), and Sankavaram et al. (US 20190066398 A1).
Regarding Claims 10, While Arnas/Padan teach vehicle states, neither appear to teach monitoring vehicle states. However, Arnas/Padan in view of the analogous art of Sankavaram (i.e. vehicle routing) does teach: The processing apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to: monitor a change in a state of the predetermined electric vehicle replaced from the transportation vehicle; and generate and output, based on the state at a current time and the transportation tasks carried out by the predetermined electric vehicle so far, advice information relating to a future usage method of the predetermined electric vehicle (Sankavaram, [02]; A method and associated device for automated maintenance scheduling for an autonomous vehicle is described, and includes monitoring, via a controller, a state of health (SOH) of an on-vehicle subsystem and monitoring an appointment log associated with a vehicle operator, wherein the appointment log includes a trip associated with a scheduled upcoming engagement for the vehicle operator. Upon detecting a change in the SOH of the on-vehicle subsystem, the method includes communicating, via a telematics controller, with a service center to determine a recommended maintenance action associated with the change in the SOH of the on-vehicle subsystem and to determine a proposed service appointment for the autonomous vehicle to effect the recommended maintenance action. The proposed service appointment is coordinated with the appointment log associated with the vehicle operator. The method then includes communicating with the vehicle operator to verify the proposed service appointment and communicating with the service center to schedule a service appointment based upon the proposed service appointment when verified by the vehicle operator. The appointment log is updated to include the service appointment).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to have combined the teachings of Arnas/Padan including vehicle states, with the teachings of Sankavaram including monitoring vehicle states in order to properly maintenance vehicles based on actual usage data. (Sankavaram, [02]; Upon detecting a change in the SOH of the on-vehicle subsystem, the method includes communicating, via a telematics controller, with a service center to determine a recommended maintenance action associated with the change in the SOH of the on-vehicle subsystem and to determine a proposed service appointment for the autonomous vehicle to effect the recommended maintenance action).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMY L GUNN whose telephone number is (571)270-1728. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 6:30-4:30.
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, Jerry O'Connor can be reached on (571) 272-6787. 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.
/JEREMY L GUNN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights