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 .
Priority
Application 19/369,883 was filed on October 27, 2025 and claims priority to Japanese Patent Application No. 2023-074654 filed on April 28, 2023. This application is a Continuation of PCT/JP2024/013106 filed on March 29, 2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on October 27, 2025 was filed before the mailing date of this non-final action. The submission 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 § 112(b)
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.
Claims 1-13 are 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.
Claims 1, 12, and 13 recite, “and a first arrival date/time that indicates a date and time at which each of the one or more transportation objects arrives at the starting point” (emphasis added). This limitation is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear whether 1) there is a single arrival data and time at which one or more transportation objects arrive at the starting point or 2) there is a first arrival date/time for each of the transportation objects. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims are interpreted to read, “and a first arrival date/time that indicates a date and time at which the one or more transportation objects arrive at the starting point” (emphasis added). Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-11 are rejected by virtue of dependency on claim 1.
Claim 4 recites, “one or more operation costs required for moving from a first departure point to the ending point at a last end of the vehicle” (emphasis added). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1, upon which claim 4 depends, recites “an ending point for ending transportation”. However, it is unclear if this is the same ending point as “the ending point at a last end of the vehicle”. Furthermore, it is unclear what “a last end of the vehicle” is intended to refer to. For the purposes of examination, claim 4 is interpreted to read, “one or more operation costs required for moving from a first departure point to the ending point” (emphasis added). Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 6, 8, and 10 recite, “in the creating of the transportation plan, the transportation plan is created so that one of the holding cost or the transportation cost is smaller than another one of the holding cost or the transportation cost on a basis of …” (emphasis added). This limitation is unclear. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation can be interpreted to mean that the holding cost is smaller than the holding cost or the transportation cost is smaller than the transportation cost. As such it is unclear how something can be smaller than itself. For the purposes of examination, the claims are interpreted to mean that the holding cost is lower than the transportation cost or the transportation cost is lower than the holding cost. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is rejected by virtue of dependency on claim 6. Claim 9 is rejected by virtue of dependency on claim 8. Claim 11 is rejected by virtue of dependency on claim 10.
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Independent Claims
MPEP 2106 Step 2A- Prong 1:
Independent claims 1, 12, and 13 recite, acquiring a transportation request for each of one or more transportation objects, the transportation request including a starting point for starting transportation, an ending point for ending transportation, and a first arrival date/time that indicates a date and time at which each of the one or more transportation objects arrives at the starting point;
creating a transportation plan for transporting the one or more transportation objects on a basis of a sum of one or more holding costs that correspond to a difference between the first arrival date/time and a second arrival date/time that indicates a date and time at which one or more vehicles transporting the transportation objects arrive at the starting point for each of the one or more transportation objects, and one or more transportation costs required for transporting each of the one or more transportation objects from the starting point to the ending point; and
outputting the transportation plan created.
The limitations above are processes that under broadest reasonable interpretation cover “certain methods of organizing human activity” (including sales activities or behaviors, or business relations). Specifically, creating a transportation plan is establishing business relationships and performing sales activities (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). Examiner notes that the transport plan is for a “customer”, which illustrated the business relationships and sales activities.
Additionally, the limitations include mental processes (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion) because they can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper. Specifically, claims to acquire a transportation request and create a transportation plan based on a sum of costs can all be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
MPEP 2106 Step 2A- Prong 2:
The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1, 12, and 13 as a whole amount to: merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, or “apply it”.
Independent claims 1, 12, and 13 recite the following additional elements to perform the above recited steps: a computer (claims 1 and 13), an information processing device (claim 12), an acquisition part (claim 12), a creator (claim 12), an output part (claim 12), and a non-transitory computer readable recording medium (claim 13). These additional elements are generic computer components performing generic computer functions at a high level of generality, and are recited at a high level of generality. As such, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Examiner notes that “an acquisition part”, “a creator”, and “an output part” are interpreted to refer to logical/functional subsystems in the “information processing device”.
Individually and as a whole, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application because the claims do not: improve the functioning of the computer itself or any other technology or technical field; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; add meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment to transform the judicial exception into patent-eligible subject matter; amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer.
MPEP 2106 Step 2B:
Independent claims 1, 12, and 13 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements are generic computer components performing generic computer functions at a high level of generality and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Alone or in combination, the additional elements do not contribute significantly more than the judicial exception and as a result, the claims are ineligible.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 2-11, recite additional details that merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations, without adding any additional elements for analysis. Thus, claims 2-11 are also ineligible for the reasons stated above with respect to independent claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-5, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0256437 to Stayner et al. (Stayner) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0038440 to Hida at al. (Hida).
As to claim 1, Stayner teaches, acquiring a transportation request for each of one or more transportation objects (“… For example, the computing system 100 can communicate via an executing on-demand service application 196 on the computing devices 195 of the users 197 to enable the users 197 to configure and transmit transport requests for on-demand transport services …” and “… In response, a user application interface 222 can be generated on the display screen 220, which can display available transport options and enable the user to submit a transport request” [0021-0025 and 0039]),
the transportation request including a starting point for starting transportation, an ending point for ending transportation (“… The computing system may then remotely coordinate the transport for the stopping location (e.g., scooter and/or bicycle drop-off, transport invites to drivers and/or AVs, etc.), and transmit content data to the computing devices of the transiting users to confirm a dedicated transport option at the arrival location [i.e., a starting point] for the user to transport the user to an inferred or selected destination [i.e., an ending point] …” and “In one example, the transit monitor 140 can further receive utilization data from the computing devices 195 of the requesting users 197. The utilization data can correspond to the user's current interactions with the executing service application 196, which can indicate a future desire to request transport at an arrival location of the third-party transit means …” [0012-0013 and 0025-0029]),
and a first arrival date/time that indicates a date and time at which each of the one or more transportation objects arrives at the starting point (“… In some aspects, when utilization of the service application 196 is detected, the transmit monitor 140 can transmit a utilization trigger to a transport coordination engine 150 of the computing system 100. In further aspects, the transit monitor 140 can process the location data from the computing devices 195 of the cluster of transiting users 197 to update or confirm, at any time, an ETA of the third-party transit means (e.g., a train) to any particular arrival location (e.g., a train station), and transmit the updated ETA information to the transport coordination engine 150 …” and “… In various examples, the computing system 100 may then monitor the third-party transit means for supply shaping at the arrival location (315). For example, the computing system 100 can determine and update the ETA of the third-party transit means to account for any delays …” [0024-0027 and 0044-0046] Examiner notes that the “ETA” taught by Stayner is the date and time at which each of the one or more transportation objects arrives at the starting point because the users in Stayner are requesting additional transport after arriving on the third-party transit);
creating a transportation plan for transporting the one or more transportation objects on a basis of (“… In variations, the transport optimizer 155 can determine the most optimal configuration of transport modes [i.e., the transportation plan] at the arrival location such that a general or overall logical cost is minimized (e.g., factoring in user and driver wait times [i.e., a difference between the first arrival date/time and a second arrival date/time], financial cost [i.e., one or more transportation costs], transport resource disutility cost of unused scooters, bicycles, and/or drivers, and the like) …” and “… Specifically, upon confirming the users 197 that are to egress the third-party transit means at the arrival location, the computing system 100 can coordinate with proximate transport providers 190 to create optimal transport supply conditions at the arrival location, in order to, for example, minimize wait times for users 197 and transport providers 190, and improve traffic flow through mass transit egress areas” and “… Additionally, the computing system 100 can select and match the transiting users 197 with proximate transport providers 190 and/or personal transport vehicles (425). In certain examples, the computing system 100 can transmit transport invitations or instructions to each of the matched transport providers 190 to arrive at the arrival location of the third-party transit means at or near a particular time associated with the arrival of the transit means (430) (e.g., two minutes after arrival) …” [0031-0033 and 0046 and 0051-0053]);
and outputting the transportation plan created (“… The transport optimizer 155 can process the provider data and the cluster data to output optimization results indicating an optimal configuration of transport supply at the arrival location of the third-party transit means” and “… Upon egressing the transit means, each requesting user 197 can be provided with the match information and/or a granular walking route to travel in order to rendezvous with the matched transport provider 190” [0030 and 0035]).
Stayner does not teach, a sum of one or more holding costs and one or more transportation costs; one or more transportation costs required for transporting each of the one or more transportation objects from the starting point to the ending point. However, Hida teaches, a sum of one or more holding costs and one or more transportation costs (“The information processing apparatus 100 calculates a total cost for each of the delivery routes. The total cost is a total value of the value of the traveling cost [i.e., one or more transportation costs], the value of the stop cost, and the value of the storage cost [i.e., one or more holding costs]. The information processing apparatus 100 determines a route linking relay points and having the lowest total cost” and “… The total cost in a case where the item is temporarily stored for a storage period of one day at the relay point E of the route R1 is calculated such that the traveling cost (170+200+180)+the storage cost (100)=650 …” [0045 and 0049-0053])
one or more transportation costs required for transporting each of the one or more transportation objects from the starting point to the ending point (“… The traveling cost is a cost for moving an item. The traveling cost has, for example, a value based on a movement distance or the like over which the item is moved between a pair of adjacent relay points …” and “The information processing apparatus 100 determines an optimum delivery route, based on the traveling cost and the storage cost …” [0038-0039 and 0048-0052])
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, a sum of one or more holding costs and one or more transportation costs; one or more transportation costs required for transporting each of the one or more transportation objects from the starting point to the ending point, as taught by Hida with the method for creating a transportation plan of Stayner. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Hida that doing so would enable an appropriate point for temporal storage of an item and an appropriate route to be searched for [0025].
Regarding claim 12, this claim is essentially coextensive with claim 1 other than it recites a device instead of a method. Because Stayner teaches a device as well as a method (see at least Stayner [0018]), claim 12 can be rejected with the same rationale as claim 1, relying on the same combination of Stayner and Hida to render the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 13, this claim is essentially coextensive with claim 1 other than it recites a non-transitory computer readable recording medium instead of a method. Because Stayner teaches a non-transitory computer readable recording medium as well as a method (see at least Stayner [0019]), claim 13 can be rejected with the same rationale as claim 1, relying on the same combination of Stayner and Hida to render the claim obvious.
As to claim 2, Stayner in view of Hida teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Stayner does not teach, wherein in the creating of the transportation plan, the transportation plan that defines the one or more transportation objects to be transported by each of the one or more vehicles is created to minimize a sum of the one or more holding costs and the one or more transportation costs. However, Hida teaches, wherein in the creating of the transportation plan, the transportation plan that defines the one or more transportation objects to be transported by each of the one or more vehicles is created to minimize a sum of the one or more holding costs and the one or more transportation costs (“… The total cost is a total value of the value of the traveling cost, the value of the stop cost, and the value of the storage cost. The information processing apparatus 100 determines a route linking relay points and having the lowest total cost …” and “… It is assumed that in a case where the storage period is one day, the information processing apparatus 100 determines that the delivery route obtained through the route search in which the total cost is minimized by using the cost function ƒ(n) is the route A-B-C. In this case, it is assumed that the route selected in the approximate cost table 1300 corresponding to the approximate cost h(n) is the route A-B-C at the lowermost portion” [0045-0047 and 0180-0182]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, wherein in the creating of the transportation plan, the transportation plan that defines the one or more transportation objects to be transported by each of the one or more vehicles is created to minimize a sum of the one or more holding costs and the one or more transportation costs, as taught by Hida with the method for creating a transportation plan of Stayner. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Hida that doing so would enable an appropriate point for temporal storage of an item and an appropriate route to be searched for [0025].
As to claim 3, Stayner in view of Hida teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Stayner further teaches, wherein in the creating of the transportation plan, the transportation plan is created by arranging, for each of the one or more vehicles, the starting point and the ending point for the one or more transportation objects to be transported by each of the one or more vehicles in time series (“… In such implementations, the user 197 [i.e., one or more transportation objects] may have a common leg of a journey to the user's destination as compared to other transiting users 197, and may be carpool matched to those other users 197 up to an end point of the common leg—at which point the user 197 may be matched to an e-scooter or other personal transport vehicle (PTV) for a remainder of the journey [i.e., transported by each of the one or more vehicles in time series]” and “… For example, the computing system 100 can initially detect a cluster of users 197 moving in a common trajectory using mapping data and positioning data from the computing devices 195 of those users 197 to determine that they are riding a common mass transit vehicle …” [0033 and 0047-0048]).
As to claim 4, Stayner in view of Hida teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Stayner does not teach, wherein in the creating of the transportation plan, the transportation plan is created on a basis of a sum of one or more operation costs required for moving from a first departure point to the ending point at a last end of the vehicle, the one or more holding costs, and the one or more transportation costs for each of the one or more vehicles included in the transportation plan. However, Hida teaches, wherein in the creating of the transportation plan, the transportation plan is created on a basis of a sum of one or more operation costs required for moving from a first departure point to the ending point at a last end of the vehicle, the one or more holding costs, and the one or more transportation costs for each of the one or more vehicles included in the transportation plan (“The information processing apparatus 100 calculates a total cost for each of the delivery routes. The total cost is a total value of the value of the traveling cost [i.e., one or more transportation costs], the value of the stop cost, and the value of the storage cost [i.e., one or more holding costs] …” and “… The traveling cost is a cost for moving an item. The traveling cost has, for example, a value based on a movement distance (km) between a pair of adjacent relay points. The traveling cost includes a load capacity [i.e., operation costs] of a mobility device such as a truck for use in delivery of an item and an additional cost [i.e., operation costs] caused by passing through a specific road …” [0045-0053 and 0090-0091] Examiner notes that the transportation costs taught by Hida include the operation costs).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, wherein in the creating of the transportation plan, the transportation plan is created on a basis of a sum of one or more operation costs required for moving from a first departure point to the ending point at a last end of the vehicle, the one or more holding costs, and the one or more transportation costs for each of the one or more vehicles included in the transportation plan, as taught by Hida with the method for creating a transportation plan of Stayner. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Hida that doing so would enable an appropriate point for temporal storage of an item and an appropriate route to be searched for [0025].
As to claim 5, Stayner in view of Hida teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Stayner does not teach, wherein in the creating of the transportation plan, when there is a plurality of starting point candidates for one transportation object among the one or more transportation objects, the starting point candidate having the sum that is smallest among the plurality of starting point candidates is used as the starting point of the one transportation object. However, Hida teaches, wherein in the creating of the transportation plan, when there is a plurality of starting point candidates for one transportation object among the one or more transportation objects, the starting point candidate having the sum that is smallest among the plurality of starting point candidates is used as the starting point of the one transportation object (“The information processing apparatus 100 calculates a total cost for each of the delivery routes. The total cost is a total value of the value of the traveling cost, the value of the stop cost, and the value of the storage cost. The information processing apparatus 100 determines a route linking relay points and having the lowest total cost …” and “The information processing apparatus 100 searches for a route for which the value of the cost function represented by Equation (1) above is optimized. For example, the information processing apparatus 100 determines a route having the lowest total cost among a plurality of candidate routes retrieved at the time of the route search …” [0045-0047 and 0055-0060]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, wherein in the creating of the transportation plan, when there is a plurality of starting point candidates for one transportation object among the one or more transportation objects, the starting point candidate having the sum that is smallest among the plurality of starting point candidates is used as the starting point of the one transportation object, as taught by Hida with the method for creating a transportation plan of Stayner. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Hida that doing so would enable an appropriate point for temporal storage of an item and an appropriate route to be searched for [0025].
As to claim 8, Stayner in view of Hida teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Stayner further teaches, wherein the one or more transportation objects include one or more travelers (“… In doing so, the computing system described herein can anticipate transport demand at egress locations, such as train stations, bus stations, airports, ferry terminals, and the like, in order to provide seamless transport for transit riders [i.e., one or more travelers] and reduce congestion at such egress locations” and “FIGS. 3 and 4 are flow charts describing example methods of coordinating transport for transit riders and preemptive configuration of transport supply at transit egress areas, according to examples described herein …” [0012-0014 and 0044]),
and in the creating of the transportation plan, the transportation plan is created so that one of the holding cost or the transportation cost is smaller than another one of the holding cost or the transportation cost on a basis of a number of the one or more travelers included in the transportation request (“… In variations, the transport optimizer 155 can determine the most optimal configuration of transport modes at the arrival location such that a general or overall logical cost is minimized (e.g., factoring in user and driver wait times, financial cost, transport resource disutility cost of unused scooters, bicycles, and/or drivers, and the like) …” and “… Specifically, upon confirming the users 197 that are to egress the third-party transit means at the arrival location, the computing system 100 can coordinate with proximate transport providers 190 to create optimal transport supply conditions at the arrival location, in order to, for example, minimize wait times for users 197 and transport providers 190, and improve traffic flow through mass transit egress areas” and “As described herein, the optimization can comprise inputs corresponding to the number of transiting users 197 that will disembark from the transit means at the particular arrival location, each user's preferred and/or permitted transport option upon arriving (e.g., standard rideshare, carpool, personal transport, etc.), the final destinations of those users 197, the ETA of the transit means, and the transport supply conditions proximate to the arrival location …” [0031-0033 and 0046 and 0050]).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0256437 to Stayner et al. (Stayner) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0038440 to Hida at al. (Hida), as applied to claim 8 above, and in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2016/0048802 to Luwang at al. (Luwang).
As to claim 9, Stayner in view of Hida teaches all of the limitations of claim 8 as discussed above. Stayner in view of Hida does not teach, wherein in the creating of the transportation plan, the transportation plan is created so that the holding cost is smaller than the transportation cost when the number of the one or more travelers is equal to or more than a first threshold, and the transportation plan is created so that the transportation cost is smaller than the holding cost when the number of the one or more travelers is less than a second threshold. However, Luwang teaches, wherein in the creating of the transportation plan, the transportation plan is created so that the holding cost is smaller than the transportation cost when the number of the one or more travelers is equal to or more than a first threshold, and the transportation plan is created so that the transportation cost is smaller than the holding cost when the number of the one or more travelers is less than a second threshold (“… In some examples, the pickup plan module 102 may be configured to formulate and solve the vehicle routing problem using integer programming if the number of vehicles associated with the origin depot 134-1 and/or the number of customers 130 within its assigned customer area 132 is less than or equal to a threshold value. Also, the pickup plan module 102 may be configured to formulate and solve the vehicle routing problem using column generation if the number of vehicles associated with the origin depot 134-1 and/or the number of customers 130 is greater than or equal to the threshold value …” and “In some examples, the delivery plan module 114 is configured to formulate and solve the objective function using the integer programming approach (e.g., Eqs. (2)-(8)) if at least one of the number of vehicles associated with the destination depot 134-2 and the number of customers 130 with its customer area 132 is equal to or below a threshold value …” [0051 and 0085]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, wherein in the creating of the transportation plan, the transportation plan is created so that the holding cost is smaller than the transportation cost when the number of the one or more travelers is equal to or more than a first threshold, and the transportation plan is created so that the transportation cost is smaller than the holding cost when the number of the one or more travelers is less than a second threshold, as taught by Luwang with the method for creating a transportation plan of Stayner in view of Hida. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Luwang that doing so would reduce overall transportation cost while satisfying multiple constraints [0019].
Allowable over Prior Art
Available prior art, alone or in combination, fails to teach all of the limitations in dependent claims 6, 7, 10, and 11. Examiner notes that there are 112(b) and 101 rejections of the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2002/0019759 to Arunapuram et al. (Arunapuram) teaches a transport manager and related method for determining an optimal, cost-minimizing set of product transportation decisions based upon expected transportation costs.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0133655 to Suemitsu et al. (Suemitsu) teaches a transportation plan generation apparatus that can access transported item count information that stores a transportation date, a transported item, and a transported item count, transported item information that stores the transported item and a volume, and transportation fee information that stores a transportation means, a load volume, a fee for each period.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0044569 to Martin et al. (Martin) teaches systems, methods, and computer-readable media that utilize computing devices to model multi-outcome transportation-value metrics that account for spatio-temporal trajectories across locations, times and other contextual features, and then utilize computer networks to dispatch provider devices to locations based on the multi-outcome transportation-value metrics. The disclosed system can dynamically determine prioritized dispatch mode provider device slots, fill provider device slots based on performance metrics, and then select provider device from between a prioritized transportation dispatch mode and another transportation dispatch mode based on prioritization metrics corresponding to a transportation request.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0122004 to Takahara et al. (Takahara) teaches an information processing device configured to generate a plurality of operation plans, each of the plurality of operation plans being generated by grouping one or more passengers among a plurality of passengers into one or more respective clusters for sharing ride of a vehicle, based on passenger information of the plurality of passengers, and each of the plurality of operation plans providing a service route on which the one or more passengers in the one or more respective clusters get on or get off the vehicle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANIE S WALLICK whose telephone number is (703)756-1081. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571) 272-5587. 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.
/S.S.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/RUPANGINI SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights