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 Claims
This office action is in response to the patent application filed on April 7, 2025. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application 17/550,969 under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on April 7, 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 § 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.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 12-17, & 20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0136656 A1, to Rasmusson et al., hereafter Rasmusson in view of US 2023/0058007 A1, to Somanath et. al, hereafter Somanath.
Regarding Claim 1, Rasmusson discloses A system comprising: one or more processors; and a memory storing processor-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to perform operations comprising (Rasmusson [0056], Examiner Note: Rasmusson discloses a processor, 602, for executing instructions which are stored in the memory, 604):
receiving a request associated with a vehicle and identifying a location; determining, based at least in part on the location, an endpoint for controlling the vehicle (Rasmusson [0015], Examiner Note: Rasmusson discloses receiving a ride request from a user to facilitate transportation (i.e. vehicle) which includes rider information which includes pick-up and drop-off locations (i.e. endpoint));
However, Rasmusson does not specifically disclose receiving sensor data associated with operation of the vehicle; determining, based at least in part on the sensor data and a region around the location, a trajectory; and based at least in part on one or more of the trajectory, the location, or the region, preventing a door of the vehicle from being opened.
Somanath, in the same field of endeavor, teaches receiving sensor data associated with operation of the vehicle (Somanath [0013], Examiner Note: Somanath discloses a vehicle perception system (VPS), 181, used to detect critical objects or other hazards surrounding the vehicle); determining, based at least in part on the sensor data and a region around the location, a trajectory (Somanath [0075] & Fig. 4, Examiner Note: Somanath discloses arriving at the destination in which a detection zone is created to determine which location near the destination to drop off the user (i.e. trajectory)); and based at least in part on one or more of the trajectory, the location, or the region, preventing a door of the vehicle from being opened (Somanath [0075] & Fig. 4, Examiner Note: Somanath discloses step 415 in which a hazard is detected at the destination. [0018] discloses one of the mitigating actions for experiencing hazards being locking the doors (i.e. preventing a door from being opened)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the pickup service of Rasmusson with the capability to detect hazardous destinations of Somanath in order to assist the rider in avoiding unsafe hazards (Somanath [0001]).
With respect to Claim 2, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 8, below, and it has been determined that claim 2 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in Claim 8 aside from where shown below. Therefore, claim 2 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 8.
Regarding Claim 3, as shown above, Rasmusson in view of Somanath teaches The system of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise:
However, the modification does not specifically disclose determining, based at least in part on the sensor data, a safety confidence score associated with at least one of the location or the region; and altering the operation of the vehicle based at least in part on determining that the safety confidence score is less than a threshold confidence score.
Somanath further teaches determining, based at least in part on the sensor data, a safety confidence score associated with at least one of the location or the region; and altering the operation of the vehicle based at least in part on determining that the safety confidence score is less than a threshold confidence score (Somanath [0084] & Fig. 5, Examiner Note: Somanath teaches a second probability threshold (i.e. safety confidence score) based on risk associated with hazards in the area of a vehicle (i.e. based on sensor data) wherein the vehicle goes to a secondary location when it is determined that the risk is greater than the threshold so the vehicle is taken to the second drop-off location (i.e. alter the operation of the vehicle)).
With respect to Claim 4, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 3, and it has been determined that claim 4 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in Claim 3 aside from where shown below. Therefore, claim 4 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 3.
Regarding Claim 6, Rasmusson in view of Somanath teaches The system of claim 3, wherein determining the safety confidence score comprises:
However, the modification does not specifically teach determining, based at least in part on the sensor data, a predicted trajectory associated with an object proximate the vehicle; and determining a path between at least one of a passenger and the location, the passenger and the vehicle, or the vehicle and the location, wherein the safety confidence score is based at least in part on the path and the predicted trajectory.
Somanath further teaches determining, based at least in part on the sensor data, a predicted trajectory associated with an object proximate the vehicle; and (Somanath [0075] & Fig. 4, Examiner Note: Somanath discloses arriving at the destination in which a detection zone is including identifying hazards (i.e. proximate object) with respect to the vehicle (i.e. predicted trajectory)); and determining a path between at least one of a passenger and the location, the passenger and the vehicle, or the vehicle and the location, wherein the safety confidence score is based at least in part on the path and the predicted trajectory (Somanath [0084] & Fig. 5, Examiner Note: Somanath teaches the vehicle goes to a secondary location when it is determined that the risk is greater than the threshold so the vehicle is taken to the second drop-off location (i.e. path between the passenger and the location) which is based in part on the second probability of a chosen drop off spot that the user can walk (i.e. path) and a nearby hazard).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the pickup service of Rasmusson in view of Somanath with the capability to detect hazardous destinations of Somanath in order to assist the rider in avoiding unsafe hazards (Somanath [0001]).
Regarding Claim 7, Rasmusson in view of Somanath teaches The system of claim 1,
However, the modification does not specifically teach wherein the endpoint is based at least in part on determining an estimated path that a passenger is likely to take between the location and the vehicle.
Somanath further teaches wherein the endpoint is based at least in part on determining an estimated path that a passenger is likely to take between the location and the vehicle (Somanath [0084] & Fig. 5, Examiner Note: Somanath teaches the vehicle goes to a secondary location when it is determined that the risk is greater than the threshold so the vehicle is taken to the second drop-off location which is based in part on the second probability of a chosen drop off spot that the user can walk and a nearby hazard (i.e. endpoint based in part on a path that the passenger will take between the location and the vehicle)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the pickup service of Rasmusson in view of Somanath with the capability to detect hazardous destinations of Somanath in order to assist the rider in avoiding unsafe hazards (Somanath [0001]).
With respect to Claim 8, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 1, and it has been determined that claim 8 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in Claim 1 aside from where shown below. Therefore, claim 8 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 1.
Somanath further teaches determining, based at least in part on the sensor data and a region associated with the endpoint, a safety confidence score; and based at least in part on the safety confidence score, preventing an aperture of the vehicle to be opened (Somanath [0077], Examiner Note: Somanath discloses using the probability (i.e. confidence score) of the drop off area (i.e. endpoint region) to determine if the drop off area is unsafe. If the area is deemed as safe, the vehicle door actuation allows the user to open the door and exit the vehicle, meaning inversely if it is unsafe, the vehicle cannot open the door and exit the vehicle).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the pickup service of Rasmusson in view of Somanath with the capability to detect hazardous destinations of Somanath in order to assist the rider in avoiding unsafe hazards (Somanath [0001]).
Regarding Claim 12, the modification teaches The method of claim 8, further comprising:
However, the modification does not specifically teach transmitting a notification to a computing device associated with the request indicating one or more of: an unsafe condition associated with the location, altering an operation of the vehicle, an updated location, or a time delay for the request.
Somanath further teaches transmitting a notification to a computing device associated with the request indicating one or more of: an unsafe condition associated with the location, altering an operation of the vehicle, an updated location, or a time delay for the request (Somanath [0076], Examiner Note: Somanath teaches notifying the user when there is an alternate drop-off location).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the pickup service of Rasmusson in view of Somanath with the notification of drop-off changes of Somanath in order to assist the rider in avoiding unsafe hazards (Somanath [0001]).
With respect to Claim 13, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 7, and it has been determined that claim 13 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in Claim 7. Therefore, claim 13 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 7.
Regarding Claim 14, Rasmusson in view of Somanath teaches The method of claim 8, wherein determining the safety confidence score comprises:
Rasmusson further discloses providing input data to a machine-learned model; and receiving the safety confidence score as output from the machine-learned model Rasmusson [0044]-[0046], Examiner Note: Rasmusson teaches a characterization score and a historical score which are used to make up the viability score (i.e. safety score), both of which may be determined and weighed by machine-learning algorithms).
Regarding Claim 15, Rasmusson in view of Somanath teaches The method of claim 8, wherein determining the safety confidence score comprises:
Rasmusson further discloses determining a weighted sum of one or more of: average speed of traffic, a speed of an object detected in the sensor data, or a classification of the object (Rasmusson], Examiner Note: [0031], Examiner Note: Rasmusson discloses the sensor data used to calculate the characterization score to be classified).
With respect to Claim 16, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 6, and it has been determined that claim 16 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in Claim 6. Therefore, claim 16 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 6.
With respect to Claim 17, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claim 8, and it has been determined that claim 17 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in Claim 8. Therefore, claim 17 is also rejected over the same rationale as claim 8.
With respect to Claim 20, all the limitations have been analyzed in view of claims 3 & 12, and it has been determined that claim 20 does not teach or define any new limitations beyond those previously recited in Claims 3 & 12. Therefore, claim 20 is also rejected over the same rationale as claims 3 & 12.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0136656 A1, to Rasmusson et al., hereafter Rasmusson in view of US 2023/0058007 A1, to Somanath et. al, hereafter Somanath. as applied to claims 1, 8, & 17 above, and further in view of US 11,897,514 B2, to Gavardhanam.
Regarding Claim 19, Rasmusson in view of Somanath teaches The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 17, wherein the safety confidence score is a first safety confidence score determined at a first time, and
However, the modification does not specifically teach preventing the aperture from being opened comprises one or more of: preventing the aperture from being opened until a second safety confidence score, determined at a second time after the first time, is determined that meets or exceeds a threshold confidence score, preventing the aperture from being opened until an object passes the vehicle, or preventing the aperture from being opened until an aperture control is actuated more than once.
Govardhanam, in the same field of endeavor, teaches preventing the aperture from being opened comprises one or more of: preventing the aperture from being opened until a second safety confidence score, determined at a second time after the first time, is determined that meets or exceeds a threshold confidence score, preventing the aperture from being opened until an object passes the vehicle, or preventing the aperture from being opened until an aperture control is actuated more than once (Govardhanam Col. 3, rows 57, 65, Examiner Note: Govardhanam teaches when objects impede the door opening, the drop-off feasibility score, preventing the door from opening, therefore, when the object no longer increases, the feasibility score rises, thereby allowing the door to open).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the pickup service of Rasmusson in view of Somanath with the capability to allow the door to open once an object passes of Govardhanam in order to improve transportation efficiency and safety (Govardhanam Col. 1 Rows 14-28).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 9-11, & 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2007/0136063 A1 (Grost, Timothy) discloses a method of speech recognition which uses confidence score to perform actions such as unlocking or opening doors of a vehicle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL T DOWLING whose telephone number is (703)756-1459. The examiner can normally be reached M-T: 8-5:30, First F: Off, Second F: 8-4:30.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at (571) 270-7429. 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.
/MICHAEL T DOWLING/Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights