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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Examiner has thoroughly reviewed each of the claims and concluded that claims 1-20 do not invoke 35 USC 101 subject matter ineligibility rejection. Particularly, additional element of claimed limitation “displaying…” integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional element (e.g. displaying… limitation) provides improvement in an existing technology of ride sharing by better enabling the user to select the most optimal pickup spot through displaying list of potential pickup locations (applicant’s specification, paragraphs 27 and 107). Thus, the rejection has not been invoked.
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.
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 1-5, 10-14, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over COLIJN P et al. (US 20160370194 A1) in view of Dyer; John Wesley et al. (US 20200111370 A1)
In regards to claim 1, Colijn teaches, A method comprising: (See abstract)
sending, by one or more processors of a client computing device to one or more server computing devices, a request for a trip identifying a pickup location; (See paragraph 42, each client computing device 120, 130, 140 may be a personal computing device intended for use by a user 122, 132, 142,… including one or more processors (e.g., a central processing unit (CPU))…paragraph 51, user 132 may use client computing device 130 to send a request to one or more server computing devices 110 for a vehicle. As part of this, the user may identify a pickup location. Also see paragraph 52)
receiving, by the one or more processors from the one or more server computing devices, a set of potential pickup locations … (See paragraph 62, The set of suggested locations may then be provided to the client computing devices…paragraph 21, the centralized dispatching system may provide a set of one or more suggested locations corresponding to locations that an autonomous vehicle can pick up a passenger (pickup location. Also see fig. 12, block 1260, paragraph 74, provide the set of one or more suggested locations to the client computing device.
displaying, by the one or more processors on a display of the client computing device, … a map identifying each of the potential pickup locations of the set; (See figs.4A-4B, paragraph 52, user 122 may use his or her finger 422 to tap on a map 424 displayed on the display 114 of client computing device 120. In response, as shown in FIG. 4B, the location of the tap on the map, displayed as map marker 426, may be identified as a requested location…See figs. 6-7, paragraph 56, As shown in FIG. 6, map marker 426 is now highlighted to indicate that the location of map marker 426 is a suggested location returned from the one or more server computing devices 110…paragraph 59, map marker 710 identifies a received location from a client computing device. Area 720 may define areas that are within a 500 foot walking distance of map marker 710. In some instances, this area may be limited to areas within a roadway where a vehicle can actually travel. Thus, point 326 may be included in the set of suggested locations while points 320-24 are not.)
receiving, by the one or more processors, input selecting one of the potential pickup locations of the set; and (See paragraph 62, a user may then select or reject any suggested location as either a pick up or destination location…paragraph 74, fig. 12, block 1270)
in response to the received input, sending a signal to one or more server computing devices, in order to dispatch an autonomous vehicle to the selected one of the potential pickup locations for the trip. (See paragraph 4, receive, from the client computing device, a selection of a suggested location of the set of one or more suggested locations and dispatch a vehicle of the one or more autonomous vehicles to the selected suggested location…paragraph 56, If the location is a pickup location, the server may then dispatch a vehicle, such as vehicle 100A or vehicle 100B, to the selected location to pick up the user for a trip)
Colijn teaches set of potential pickup locations, however, does not specifically teach, …each associated with a wait time corresponding to an estimated amount of time an autonomous vehicle can wait for a user at that potential pickup location; displaying, by the one or more processors on a display of the client computing device, at least one of the wait times…;
Dyer further teaches, …each associated with a wait time corresponding to an estimated amount of time an autonomous vehicle can wait for a user at that potential pickup location; (See paragraph 28, the vehicle's computing devices may determine an amount of time to wait for the passenger at the designated spot…The vehicle's computing devices may determine the amount of time to wait based on the map information, such as the type of the location…paragraph 101, if the map information 200 indicate that the location 210 is an airport, computing devices 110 may determine the appropriate amount of time 1010 to wait at the designated spot 910 before exiting the queue 710 is up to 1 minute… if the map information 200 indicate that the location is a school, computing devices 110 may determine the appropriate amount of time to wait at the designated spot 910 is up to 5 minutes before exiting the queue 710…paragraph 91, such data and predetermined pause times may be stored on server computing devices 410 and accessible by the computing devices 110.)
displaying, by the one or more processors on a display of the client computing device, at least one of the wait times…; (See paragraph 99, the computing devices 110 may be configured to send a message to a client computing device of the passenger, such as client computing device 420 of user 422, or client computing device 430 of user 432, indicating that the vehicle is waiting in the queue 710. For example, the message may include the expected wait-time…paragraph 30, configured to communicate with the passenger. For example, to keep the passenger apprised of the vehicle's whereabouts while the vehicle waits in the queue, the vehicle's computing devices may be configured to send a message to a user device of the passenger indicating that the vehicle is waiting in the queue and the expected wait-time…paragraph 100, user 432, who requested the pickup, is not at or near the designated spot 910 in the queue 710 when vehicle 100 arrives at the designated spot 910, computing devices 110 may then determine an amount of time to wait for user 432 at the designated spot 910, and exit the queue 710 after waiting that amount of time.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious by one of ordinary skilled in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the method of Colijn to further comprise method taught by Dyer because inconvenience to other drivers/users in and around the queue can be reduced especially for autonomous vehicles from blocking the traffic (paragraphs 85-87, 103).
In regards to claim 2, Colijn-Dyer teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising, displaying with the at least one of the wait times and a label for the potential pullover location associated with the at least one of the wait times. (It is noted that the claim does not require simultaneous/concurrent display of both wait time and label. See Colijn fig. 6, See Dyer paragraph 99, the message may include the expected wait-time)
In regards to claim 3, Colijn-Dyer teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the label includes a street name. (Term “includes” does not necessarily indicate “street name” display. See Colijn paragraph 52, a pickup location can be defaulted to current location of the user's client computing device, or can be input by the user at the user's client device. For instance, the user may enter an address … to select a pickup location.)
In regards to claim 4, Colijn-Dyer teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the displaying includes differentiating the potential pullover location associated with the at least one of the wait times from other potential pickup locations of the set identified by the map. (See Colijn fig. 4B, 6, paragraph 56, map marker 426 is now highlighted to indicate that the location of map marker 426 is a suggested location returned from the one or more server computing devices 110…paragraph 60, points having locations within the set of suggested locations are shown as darkened circles and those not included have only a dark outline.)
In regards to claim 5, Colijn-Dyer teaches the method of claim 4, wherein the differentiating includes highlighting a location of the potential pullover location associated with the at least one of the wait times in the map. (See Colijn fig. 6, paragraph 56. Also see Dyer regarding wait times)
Claims 10-14 are similar in scope to claims 1-5, therefore, they are rejected under similar rationale as set forth above.
In regards to claim 19, Colijn-Dyer teaches the system of claim 10, further comprising the one or more server computing devices. (See Colijn paragraph 40, one or more computing devices 110 may include a server having a plurality of computing devices… server computing devices)
Claim 20 is similar in scope to claim 1, therefore, it is rejected under similar rationale as set forth above.
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over COLIJN P et al. (US 20160370194 A1) in view of Dyer; John Wesley et al. (US 20200111370 A1), and further in view of IKEDA; Takuro et al. (US 20160117610 A1)
In regards to claim 6, Colijn-Dyer teaches the method of claim 1.
Colijn-Dyer discloses “pullover location associated with the at least one of the wait times.” (See rejection of claim 1 set forth above) however, does not specifically disclose, wherein the displaying includes displaying a walking distance in time for the potential pullover location…
Ikeda further teaches, wherein the displaying includes displaying a walking distance in time for the potential pullover location…(See paragraph 80, A travel time required to walk to the pick-up location or to walk from the drop-off location may also be displayed with respect to the mini-bus service)
Therefore, it would have been obvious by one of ordinary skilled in the art before the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the method of Colijn-Dyer to further comprise method taught by Ikeda because user attempting to request for a transportation can plan ahead accordingly when walking distance time to the pickup location is provided on the display, reducing chance or user missing the ride, and improving user convenience.
Claim 15 is similar in scope to claim 6, therefore, it is rejected under similar rationale as set forth above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9 and 16-18 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN S LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-2674. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5.
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, JAMES J LEE can be reached at (571)270-5965. 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.
/JUSTIN S LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights