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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10/29/2025, and 6/12/2025 are being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-16, 20, 22-24 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 8-11, 13-17, 19-20, 22 of U.S. Patent No. 12422266B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference anticipates the examined claims. The entire scope of the references claims falls within the scope of the examined claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the user's location". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-14, 16-21, and 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20210097866A1 (“Leary”) in view of US20200191593A1 (“Herman”).
As per claims 1 and 24, Leary teaches:
A method comprising: generating, by one or more processors for presentation in a region of a user interface of a client device, an augmented reality view presenting imagery related to a meeting location for a user of the client device and a vehicle operating in an autonomous driving mode overlaid with at least one augmented reality element to guide the user to the meeting location; updating, by the one or more processors, the at least one augmented reality element as the user approaches the meeting location; (Leary at least the abstract, [0044], FIG. 2, [0062], [0019], [0045], [0054], FIGs. 4A-4D, [0080], [0051], [0064-0066], [0074])
modifying the augmented reality view in the user interface to indicate an adjusted meeting location. (Leary at least FIG. 1, [0097], FIG. 4D)
Leary does not disclose:
upon dynamic adjustment to the meeting location by the vehicle based on imagery obtained in real time, modifying the augmented reality view in the user interface to indicate an adjusted meeting location.
Herman teaches the aforementioned limitation (Herman at least the abstract, [0082-0089]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Leary with the aforementioned limitations taught by Herman with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to provide a pickup location for a ride request (Herman abstract).
Regarding claim 2, Leary in combination with the other references teaches the invention as described above. Leary additionally teaches:
the at least one augmented reality element includes a contextual signal indicating where a way point is between the user's current location and the meeting location. (Leary at least [0097-0098] )
Regarding claim 3, Leary in combination with the other references teaches the invention as described above. Leary additionally teaches:
the at least one augmented reality element includes an icon associated with an object related to the meeting location. (Leary at least [0090])
Regarding claim 4, Leary in combination with the other references teaches the invention as described above. Leary additionally teaches:
the object is either a physical landmark or a point of interest. (Leary at least [0090])
Regarding claim 5, Leary in combination with the other references teaches the invention as described above. Leary additionally teaches:
the augmented reality view includes an augmented reality representation of the vehicle at the meeting location. (Leary at least FIG. 4D)
Regarding claim 6, Leary in combination with the other references teaches the invention as described above. Leary additionally teaches:
determining, by the one or more processors, at least one of a size, orientation or placement of the augmented reality representation of the vehicle; and arranging for display, based on the determining, the augmented reality representation of the vehicle at the meeting location. (Leary at least FIGs. 4A-4D, [0060])
Regarding claim 7, Leary in combination with the other references teaches the invention as described above. Leary additionally teaches:
determining the orientation or placement includes selecting an alignment of the augmented reality representation relative to a curb of a roadway in the imagery of the meeting location. (Leary at least FIG. 4D)
Regarding claim 8, Leary in combination with the other references teaches the invention as described above. Leary additionally teaches:
adjusting the augmented reality representation of the vehicle when the user's location changes or the meeting location changes. (Leary at least [0039], [0047])
Regarding claim 9, Leary in combination with the other references teaches the invention as described above. Leary additionally teaches:
customizing the at least one augmented reality element in response to a user selection or user preference. (Leary at least [0091])
Regarding claim 10, Leary in combination with the other references teaches the invention as described above. Leary additionally teaches:
the at least one augmented reality element includes an icon representing the meeting location; and the method further comprises requesting a change to the meeting location in response to receiving user input modifying a position of the icon. (Leary at least FIG. 2, [0097])
Regarding claim 11, Leary in combination with the other references teaches the invention as described above. Leary additionally teaches:
generating information for presentation to the user regarding a component of the vehicle, the information including at least one of a description of the component or what the component is configured to detect. (Leary at least [0095-0097])
Regarding claim 12, Leary in combination with the other references teaches the invention as described above. Leary additionally teaches:
upon the user arrival at the meeting location, generating boarding instructions to the user for entering the vehicle. (Leary at least FIG. 4C, [0118])
Regarding claim 13, Leary in combination with the other references teaches the invention as described above. Leary additionally teaches:
upon the user boarding the vehicle, generating an augmented reality object for presentation in the user interface of the client device, the augmented reality object providing contextual information about a trip. (Leary at least [0085], [0097])
Regarding claim 14, Leary in combination with the other references teaches the invention as described above. Leary additionally teaches:
the augmented reality object includes at least one of i) a waypoint along the vehicle's route or ii) a landmark of interest along the vehicle's route. (Leary at least [0090])
Regarding claim 16, Leary in combination with the other references teaches the invention as described above. Leary additionally teaches:
generating, by the one or more processors for presentation in a further region of the user interface, trip information regarding a trip by the vehicle. (Leary at least [0075], FIGs. 4A-4D)
Regarding claim 17, Leary in combination with the other references teaches the invention as described above. Leary additionally teaches:
the at least one augmented reality element includes an indication on the vehicle that the user is looking at the vehicle. (Leary at least FIGs. 4A-4D, [0019], [0039], [0064])
Regarding claim 18, Leary in combination with the other references teaches the invention as described above. Leary additionally teaches:
the indication on the vehicle is generated based at least in part on a determination by the vehicle that a pedestrian is the user. (Leary at least [0019], [0039], [0064])
Regarding claim 19, Leary in combination with the other references teaches the invention as described above. Leary additionally teaches:
generating a virtual information stand in the augmented reality view, the virtual information stand providing at least information related to the vehicle's location and an estimated time of arrival of the vehicle. (Leary at least FIG. 2)
Regarding claim 20, Leary in combination with the other references teaches the invention as described above. Leary additionally teaches:
generating an augmented reality object in the augmented reality view pertaining to a package being loaded or removed from the vehicle by the user. (Leary at least [0040])
Regarding claim 21, Leary in combination with the other references teaches the invention as described above. Leary additionally teaches:
the augmented reality object pertains to at least one of placement of the package, weight of the package, size of the package, information about the package's contents, or the package's temperature. (Leary at least [0040])
Regarding claim 23, Leary in combination with the other references teaches the invention as described above. Leary additionally teaches:
the imagery obtained in real time is obtained from the vehicle. (Leary at least [0097])
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leary and Herman in view of US20190017839A1 (“Eyler”).
Regarding claim 15, Leary in combination with the other references teaches the invention as described above. Leary does not disclose:
upon the user boarding the vehicle, causing information displayed in the user interface of the client device to be sent to the vehicle for presentation on one or more display devices of the vehicle during a trip.
Eyler teaches the aforementioned limitation (Eyler at least FIG. 8, [0045], [0064], [0073], [0077]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Leary with the aforementioned limitations taught by Eyler with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references in order to improve pick-up and drop-off experience and efficiency (Eyler [0002]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 22 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As per claim 22, Leary in combination with the other reference teaches the invention as described above. The system taught by Leary allows the vehicle to reroute the user’s path to avoid obstructions sensed by the vehicle’s own sensors. The prior art teaches systems that allow changing the pickup location on the user interface device side using the user device sensors. The system taught by Herman allow the vehicle to determine changes to the pickup location using the vehicle’s onboard sensors. The prior art is silent on dynamic adjustment to the meeting location by the vehicle based on imagery obtained in real time from the user device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLIVER TAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4728. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-7.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/O.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights