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 .
Status of Claims
This action is responsive to Applicant’s claims filed 07/15/2026.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Claims 1-14 have been examined here.
Claims 15-20 have been withdrawn.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-14, in the reply filed on 07/15/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 8 merely recites the system of claim 1, wherein. No further limitations are recited. Therefore, claim 8 fails to further limit claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The claims are drawn to ineligible patent subject matter, because the claims are directed to a recited judicial exception to patentability (an abstract idea), without claiming something significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Claims are ineligible for patent protection if they are drawn to subject matter which is not within one of the four statutory categories, or, if the subject matter claimed does fall into one of the four statutory categories, the claims are ineligible if they recite a judicial exception, are directed to that judicial exception, and do not recite additional elements which amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 375 U.S. ___ (2014). Accordingly, claims are first analyzed to determine whether they fall into one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter. Then, if the claims fall within one of the four statutory categories, it must be determined whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). In determining whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception, the claim is first analyzed to determine whether the claim recites a judicial exception. If the claim does not recite one of these exceptions, the claim is directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. If the claim recites one of these exceptions, the claim is then analyzed to determine whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. Claims which integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception are directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. If the claim fails to integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Finally, if the claims are directed to a judicial exception to patentability, the claims are then analyzed determine whether the claims are directed to patent eligible subject matter by reciting meaningful limitations which transform the judicial exception into something significantly more than the judicial exception itself. If they do not, the claims are not directed towards eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding independent claim 1 the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories (a machine). The claimed invention of independent claim 1 is directed to a judicial exception to patentability, an abstract idea. The claims include limitations which recite elements which can be properly characterized under at least one of the following groupings of subject matter recognized as abstract ideas by MPEP 2106.04(a):
Mathematical Concepts: mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity: fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes: concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)
Claim 1, as a whole, recites the following limitations:
determining. . . that the transportation requestor device is likely to initiate a request for autonomous vehicle transportation; (claim 1; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could determine that a requestor is likely to initiate a transportation request; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial car sharing entities would perform this step in arranging car sharing services for customers)
determining that an available autonomous vehicle is located within a pickup range of the transportation requestor device; (claim 1; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could determine that an available AV is within a pickup range of a requestor device; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial car sharing entities would perform this step in arranging car sharing services for customers)
predicting whether the available autonomous vehicle is likely to be matched with another transportation requestor device that is closer to the available autonomous vehicle than the transportation requestor device within a time window; (claim 1; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could make this prediction; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial car sharing entities would perform this step in arranging car sharing services for customers)
and in response to predicting that the available autonomous vehicle is not likely to be matched with the other transportation requestor device within the time window, matching the transportation requestor device with the available autonomous vehicle and causing the transportation requestor device to display an option to request transportation via the available autonomous vehicle. (claim 1; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could match a user in response to this prediction indicating that another match is not likely; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial car sharing entities would perform this step in arranging car sharing services for customers)
The above elements, as a whole, recite certain methods of organizing human activity since the limitations set forth and describe a set of steps for arranging ridesharing service for a user, which comprise a commercial sales activity and a business relation. Furthermore, as a whole, the above elements recite mental processes since, but for the requirement to implement the set of steps on a set of generic computer components, the entirety of the set of steps could be performed by a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, or judgment.
Moving forward, the above recited abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
The added limitations do not represent an integration of the abstract idea into a practical application because:
the claims represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, and merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
the claims merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (activity which can be characterized as incidental to the primary purpose or product that is merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim). See MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or
the claims represent mere general linking of the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2016.05(h)
Beyond those limitations which recite the abstract idea, the following limitations are added:
A system comprising: a non-transitory memory; (claim 1; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
and one or more hardware processors configured to execute instructions from the non- transitory memory to perform operations comprising: (claim 1; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
. . . causing the transportation requestor device to. . . (claim 1; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
. . . based on one or more signals associated with a transportation requestor device. . . (claim 1; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
The claims, as a whole, are directed to the abstract idea(s) which they recite. The claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)). Therefore, because the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea) and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claims, as a whole, are directed to the judicial exception.
Turning to the final prong of the test (Step 2B), independent claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because there are no meaningful limitations which transform the exception into a patent eligible application.
As outlined above, the claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)).
Furthermore, no specific limitations are added which represent something other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Besides performing the abstract idea itself, the generic computer components only serve to perform the court-recognized well-understood computer functions of receiving or transmitting data over a network, performing repetitive calculations, electronic record keeping, and storing and retrieving information in memory. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. The specification details any combination of a generic computer system program to perform the method. Generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be routine in any computer implementation and because the Alice decision noted that generic structures that merely apply the abstract ideas are not significantly more than the abstract ideas. Therefore, independent claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to ineligible subject matter.
Claims 2-14, recite the same abstract idea as their respective independent claims.
The following additional features are added in the dependent claims:
Claim 2:
wherein determining that the transportation requester device is likely to initiate the request for the autonomous vehicle transportation is based on at least one of: an opening of a session of a transportation application on the transportation requestor device, a location of the transportation requestor device, a time of day, or a transportation request history associated with the transportation requestor device.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could determine that this event is likely based on these factors; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial car sharing entities would perform this step in arranging car sharing services for customers.
Claim 3:
wherein determining that the transportation requestor device is likely to initiate the request comprises calculating a probability that the transportation requestor device will select the option, and wherein the operations further comprise displaying the option when the probability exceeds a predetermined threshold.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could calculate a probability in this fashion; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial car sharing entities would perform this step in arranging car sharing services for customers.
Claim 4:
wherein the predetermined threshold varies based on an availability of autonomous vehicles within a region.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could calculate a probability in this fashion; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial car sharing entities would perform this step in arranging car sharing services for customers.
Claim 5:
wherein the predetermined threshold comprises at least one of: 20%, 30%, 50%, 80%, or 90%.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could calculate a probability in this fashion; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial car sharing entities would perform this step in arranging car sharing services for customers.
Claim 6:
wherein predicting whether the available autonomous vehicle is likely to be matched with the other transportation requestor device is based on at least one of: a travel time from the other transportation requestor device to a pickup location for the available autonomous vehicle, a distance to the available autonomous vehicle, or a predicted pickup estimated time of arrival.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could predict a likelihood based on these factors; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial car sharing entities would perform this step in arranging car sharing services for customers.
Claim 7:
wherein predicting whether the available autonomous vehicle is likely to be matched with the other transportation requestor device comprises analyzing historical request patterns.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could analyze historical request patterns to make this prediction; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial car sharing entities would perform this step in arranging car sharing services for customers.
Claim 8:
Please see above rejection of claim 1.
Claim 9:
wherein the option is not displayed in response to predicting that the available autonomous vehicle is likely to be matched with the other transportation requestor device within the time window.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could refrain from displaying an option if a vehicle is not likely to be matched; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial car sharing entities would perform this step in arranging car sharing services for customers.
Claim 10:
wherein the operations further comprise calculating a maximum travel distance to an AV pickup zone that is predicted to be accepted by the transportation requestor device.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could calculate a maximum travel distance in this fashion; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial car sharing entities would perform this step in arranging car sharing services for customers.
Claim 11:
wherein the operations further comprise predicting an expected destination for the transportation requestor device based at least in part on a transportation request history, and wherein the option is displayed further based on the expected destination being within a predicted acceptable travel distance of a drop-off zone associated with the available autonomous vehicle.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could predict and expected destination based on a request history and display an option based on a drop-off zone being within a predictable acceptable travel distance; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial car sharing entities would perform this step in arranging car sharing services for customers.
Claim 12:
wherein causing the transportation requestor device to display the option comprises causing the transportation requestor device to display an option to select a pickup zone associated with the available autonomous vehicle.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could display an option to select a pickup zone; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial car sharing entities would perform this step in arranging car sharing services for customers.
Claim 13:
wherein the option to select the pickup zone is displayed in response to determining that the transportation requestor device is not located within the pickup zone and that the pickup zone is within a predicted acceptable travel distance of the transportation requestor device.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could display an option in response to a determination, and make this determination; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial car sharing entities would perform this step in arranging car sharing services for customers.
Claim 14:
wherein the predicted acceptable travel distance is based on at least one of: historical transportation behavior of a transportation requestor associated with the transportation requestor device, a time of day, weather, terrain, or an indicated level of interest in autonomous vehicles.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could determine a predictable travel distance based on these factors; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial car sharing entities would perform this step in arranging car sharing services for customers.
The above limitations do not represent a practical application of the recited abstract idea. The claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)). Therefore, because the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea) and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claims are also directed to the judicial exception.
Furthermore, the added limitations do not direct the claim to significantly more than the abstract idea. No specific limitations are added which represent something other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, none of the dependent claims 2-14, individually, or as an ordered combination, are directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Please see MPEP §2106.05(d)(II) for a discussion of elements that the Courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional, activity in particular fields.
Please see MPEP §2106 for examination guidelines regarding patent subject matter eligibility.
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 1-3 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nickels et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,813,510; hereinafter "Nickels") in view of Cheng et al. (U.S. PG Pub. No. 20160180346; hereinafter "Cheng").
As per claim 1, Nickels teaches:
A system comprising: a non-transitory memory;
Nickels teaches a system and method for arranging ridesharing services. (Nickels: abstract)
and one or more hardware processors configured to execute instructions from the non- transitory memory to perform operations comprising:
Nickels teaches a processor which may execute code stored in physical memory in order to perform the functions of the system. (Nickels: col. 14 lines 1-34, Fig. 6)
determining, based on one or more signals associated with a transportation requestor device, that the transportation requestor device is likely to initiate a request for autonomous vehicle transportation;
Nickels teaches a ghost selection service which may determine the likelihood that a user will request a ridesharing service. (Nickels: col. 7 line 6-67; col. 8 lines 1-6; col. 8 lines 64-67; col. 9 lines 1-24, col. 10 lines 39-46) Nickels further teaches the use of an autonomous vehicle to transport the user. (Nickels: col. 3 lines 12-20; col. 6 lines 1-6 col. 14 line 1)
determining that an available autonomous vehicle is located within a pickup range of the transportation requestor device;
Nickels teaches that the system may determine available service providers within a threshold distance, time, or geofence of the user device GPS. (Nickels: col. 3 lines 12-20, col. 5 lines 54-66; col. 7 lines 42-61) Nickels further teaches the use of an autonomous vehicle to transport the user. (Nickels: col. 3 lines 12-20; col. 6 lines 1-6 col. 14 line 1)
Nickels does not appear to explicitly teach:
predicting whether the available autonomous vehicle is likely to be matched with another transportation requestor device that is closer to the available autonomous vehicle than the transportation requestor device within a time window;
Cheng, however, teaches that a system may determine the probability that another taxi which is closer to the user will respond to a user's request for a ride within a given time window, and, if the probability is high, the system will wait for another taxi to respond, and if the probability is low, the system will match the user with the first taxi. (Cheng: paragraphs [0015-16, 19-29]) Cheng teaches combining the above elements with the teachings of Nickels for the benefit of reducing an average customer or passenger waiting time. (Cheng: paragraph [0015]) Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Cheng with the teachings of Nickels to achieve the aforementioned benefits.
Nickels in view of Cheng further teaches:
and in response to predicting that the available autonomous vehicle is not likely to be matched with the other transportation requestor device within the time window, matching the transportation requestor device with the available autonomous vehicle and causing the transportation requestor device to display an option to request transportation via the available autonomous vehicle.
Cheng, as outlined above, teaches that a system may determine the probability that another taxi which is closer to the user will respond to a user's request for a ride within a given time window, and, if the probability is high, the system will wait for another taxi to respond, and if the probability is low, the system will match the user with the first taxi. (Cheng: paragraphs [0015-16, 19-29]) The motivation to combine Cheng persists.
As per claim 2, Nickels in view of Cheng teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein determining that the transportation requester device is likely to initiate the request for the autonomous vehicle transportation is based on at least one of: an opening of a session of a transportation application on the transportation requestor device, a location of the transportation requestor device, a time of day, or a transportation request history associated with the transportation requestor device.
Nickels further teaches that the likelihood of a user placing a request may be dependent upon the user opening an application. (Nickels: col. 3 lines 46-54) Nickels further teaches that this triggering may be based on historical service requests of the user. (Nickels: col. 9 lines 1-24)
As per claim 3, Nickels in view of Cheng teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein determining that the transportation requestor device is likely to initiate the request comprises calculating a probability that the transportation requestor device will select the option, and wherein the operations further comprise displaying the option when the probability exceeds a predetermined threshold.
Nickels further teaches that a user's probability of choosing an option to request service may be determined, wherein if the probability meets a threshold, a service request may be sent. (Nickels: col. 8 lines 64-67; col. 9 lines 1-24)
As per claim 6, Nickels in view of Cheng teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein predicting whether the available autonomous vehicle is likely to be matched with the other transportation requestor device is based on at least one of: a travel time from the other transportation requestor device to a pickup location for the available autonomous vehicle, a distance to the available autonomous vehicle, or a predicted pickup estimated time of arrival.
Cheng, as outlined above, teaches that a system may determine the probability that another taxi which is closer to the user will respond to a user's request for a ride within a given time window, and, if the probability is high, the system will wait for another taxi to respond, and if the probability is low, the system will match the user with the first taxi. (Cheng: paragraphs [0015-16, 19-29]) The motivation to combine Cheng persists.
As per claim 7, Nickels in view of Cheng teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein predicting whether the available autonomous vehicle is likely to be matched with the other transportation requestor device comprises analyzing historical request patterns.
Cheng, as outlined above, teaches that a system may determine the probability that another taxi which is closer to the user will respond to a user's request for a ride within a given time window, and, if the probability is high, the system will wait for another taxi to respond, and if the probability is low, the system will match the user with the first taxi. (Cheng: paragraphs [0015-16, 19-29]) Cheng further teaches that the probability may be based on historical response patterns of drivers. Id. The motivation to combine Cheng persists.
As per claim 8, Nickels in view of Cheng teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above.
As per claim 9, Nickels in view of Cheng teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the option is not displayed in response to predicting that the available autonomous vehicle is likely to be matched with the other transportation requestor device within the time window.
Cheng, as outlined above, teaches that a system may determine the probability that another taxi which is closer to the user will respond to a user's request for a ride within a given time window, and, if the probability is high, the system will wait for another taxi to respond, and if the probability is low, the system will match the user with the first taxi. (Cheng: paragraphs [0015-16, 19-29]) The motivation to combine Cheng persists.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nickels in view of Cheng further in view of West et al. (U.S. PG Pub. No. 20180156623; hereinafter "West").
As per claim 10, Nickels in view of Cheng teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above. With respect to the following limitation:
wherein the operations further comprise calculating a maximum travel distance to an AV pickup zone that is predicted to be accepted by the transportation requestor device.
Nickels further teaches the use of an autonomous vehicle to transport the user. (Nickels: col. 3 lines 12-20; col. 6 lines 1-6 col. 14 line 1) Nickels, however, does not appear to explicitly teach calculating a maximum acceptable walking distance to the pickup zone.
West, however, teaches that a system may determine a maximum distance that a user is willing to walk based on user behavior and weather conditions. (West: paragraph [0050, 57-58]) West teaches combining the above elements with the teachings of Nickels in view of Cheng for the benefit of minimizing wait times and costs for a user in multimodal transportation scenarios. (West: paragraph [0007]) Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of West with the teachings of Nickels in view of Cheng to achieve the aforementioned benefits.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nickels in view of Cheng further in view of Farelly et al. (U.S. PG Pub. No. 20150310379; hereinafter "Farelly").
As per claim 11, Nickels in view of Cheng teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above. With respect to the following limitation:
wherein the operations further comprise predicting an expected destination for the transportation requestor device based at least in part on a transportation request history, and wherein the option is displayed further based on the expected destination being within a predicted acceptable travel distance of a drop-off zone associated with the available autonomous vehicle.
Nickels further teaches the use of an autonomous vehicle to transport the user. (Nickels: col. 3 lines 12-20; col. 6 lines 1-6 col. 14 line 1) Nickels teaches that transportation history may be used for predictions, but does not appear to explicitly teach predicting an expected destination based on transportation history of a user. (Nickels: col. 7 lines 1-17)
Farelly, however, teaches that a system may predict a user's likely destination based on historical trips made by the user, wherein a trip may be offered to a user if the predicted destination is within a predicted acceptable travel distance (a region) of the drop-off home of the vehicle. (Farelly: paragraph [0010, 17, 30]) Farelly teaches combining the above elements with the teachings of Nickels in view of Cheng for the benefit of providing a good mix of flexibility, cost, ease of use, and environmental impact. (Farelly: paragraph [0003]) Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Farelly with the teachings of Nickels in view of Cheng to achieve the aforementioned benefits.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nickels in view of Cheng further in view of Colijn et al. (U.S. PG Pub. No. 20160370194; hereinafter "Colijn").
As per claim 12, Nickels in view of Cheng teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above. With respect to the following limitation:
wherein causing the transportation requestor device to display the option comprises causing the transportation requestor device to display an option to select a pickup zone associated with the available autonomous vehicle.
Nickels further teaches the use of an autonomous vehicle to transport the user. (Nickels: col. 3 lines 12-20; col. 6 lines 1-6 col. 14 line 1) Nickels further teaches that a user may select a service location and pickup location (a pickup zone) associated with the request. (Nickels: col. 3 lines 12-20; col. 5 lines 10-53; col. 13 lines 35-40)
To be thorough, and to the extent that Nickels does not explicitly teach displaying an option to select a pickup zone, Colijn teaches this element. Colijn teaches displaying an option to select a drop-off zone associated with an available autonomous vehicle. (Colijn: paragraphs [0022-23, 50, 54], Fig. 12) It can be seen that each element is taught by either Nickels in view of Cheng or by Colijn. Adding the elements taught by Colijn regarding the pickup zone does not affect the normal functioning of the elements of the claim which are taught by Nickels in view of Cheng. Because the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of their combination would have been predictable. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Colijn with the teachings of Nickels in view of Cheng, since the result is merely a combination of old elements, and, since the elements do not affect the normal functioning of each other, the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nickels in view of Cheng further in view of Colijn further in view of West.
As per claim 13, Nickels in view of Cheng further in view of Colijn teaches all of the limitations of claim 12, as outlined above. With respect to the following limitation:
wherein the option to select the pickup zone is displayed in response to determining that the transportation requestor device is not located within the pickup zone and that the pickup zone is within a predicted acceptable travel distance of the transportation requestor device.
Nickels further teaches the use of an autonomous vehicle to transport the user. (Nickels: col. 3 lines 12-20; col. 6 lines 1-6 col. 14 line 1) Nickels further teaches that a user may select a service location and pickup location (a pickup zone) associated with the request. (Nickels: col. 3 lines 12-20; col. 5 lines 10-53; col. 13 lines 35-40) Colijn teaches displaying an option to select a drop-off zone associated with an available autonomous vehicle. (Colijn: paragraphs [0022-23, 50, 54], Fig. 12) Colijn further teaches doing so in response to a determination that the user is not within a pickup zone. (Colijn: paragraph [0022, 24-27], Fig. 12) The motivation to combine Colijn persists.
West, however, teaches that a system may determine a maximum distance that a user is willing to walk based on user behavior and weather conditions before determining a pickup location for the user. (West: paragraph [0050, 57-58]) West teaches combining the above elements with the teachings of Nickels in view of Cheng for the benefit of minimizing wait times and costs for a user in multimodal transportation scenarios. (West: paragraph [0007]) Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of West with the teachings of Nickels in view of Cheng to achieve the aforementioned benefits.
As per claim 14, Nickels in view of Cheng further in view of Colijn and further in view of West teaches all of the limitations of claim 13, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the predicted acceptable travel distance is based on at least one of: historical transportation behavior of a transportation requestor associated with the transportation requestor device, a time of day, weather, terrain, or an indicated level of interest in autonomous vehicles.
Nickels further teaches the use of an autonomous vehicle to transport the user. (Nickels: col. 3 lines 12-20; col. 6 lines 1-6 col. 14 line 1) West, as outlined above, teaches that a system may determine a maximum distance that a user is willing to walk based on user behavior and weather conditions. (West: paragraph [0050, 57-58]) The motivation to combine West persists.
Novelty/Non-obviousness
Regarding claim 3 (and its dependent claim 4), the prior art does not appear to teach that a predetermined threshold for determining whether a user will select an option may be used to determine whether to present an option to a user, wherein that predetermined threshold varies based on an availability of autonomous vehicles within a region.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMETT K WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2624. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 6 a.m. - 4:45 p.m..
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at 571-270-3445. 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.
/EMMETT K. WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
