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 .
Claim Interpretation
Based upon Applicant’s remarks in response to the previous 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection, the “determined location of the transit vehicle” in claim 1, is interpreted as being determined from stored data, not real-time sensor data like the location of a mobile device. The user’s mobile device location is determined using real-time sensor data which is then compared with the stored transit system data previously received by the ordering system, i.e. via a push notification from the transit system. For example, “Therefore, the ordering system determines the locations and speeds of the transit vehicle from, for example, the obtained transit data that may be stored in database 120 of ordering system 104.”, (see Remarks 5/13/24, page 11). Applicant’s arguments clarify that the determination is made after comparing the current location of the user with stored transit information such as historical data associated with previous travel trips, (See Remarks 5/13/24, page 9).
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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. A broad limitation together with a narrow limitation that falls within the broad limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claims 1, 9 and 17 recites the broad recitation “without utilizing sensor data from a mobile device operated by the customer”, and the claim also recites: (1) a location of the mobile device, or (2) a movement speed of the mobile device; which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation, i.e. utilizing location and/or speed sensor data from a mobile device to anticipate time of arrival. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language, i.e. sensor data including location and speed from a mobile device, is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are directed to statutory systems and methods under Step 1 of the eligibility analysis. However, the claims are further directed toward a judicial exception under Step 2A Prong One of the eligibility analysis, namely an abstract idea. Under Step 2A Prong Two of the eligibility analysis, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements to integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. Under Step 2B of the eligibility analysis, the claims are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because nothing in the asserted claims purports to improve the functioning of the computer itself or effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. The claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea of (1) a location of a mobile device operated by the customer, at a plurality of different first times, is determined to substantially corresponds to a determined location of the transit vehicle confirming that the customer has boarded the transit vehicle, (2) a movement speed of the mobile device, at a plurality of different second times, is determined to be substantially equal to a rate of travel of the transit vehicle confirming that the customer has boarded the transit vehicle. This is “organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations, Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The patentee in Digitech claimed methods of generating first and second data by taking existing information, manipulating the data using mathematical functions, and organizing this information into a new form. The court explained that such claims were directed to an abstract idea because they described a process of organizing information through mathematical correlations, like Flook's method of calculating using a mathematical formula. 758 F.3d at 1350, 111 USPQ2d at 1721”, (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A)(iv)). Here the determination of whether the coordinates and/or speed of the mobile device and transit vehicle are substantially equal or substantially correspond is a mathematical correlation and an abstract idea.
The claim(s) is/are also directed to the abstract idea wherein the anticipated time of arrival of the customer is determined utilizing transit data; associated with a transit vehicle on which the customer has boarded or will board, and without utilizing sensor data from a mobile device operated by the customer. This is a mental process (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) like collecting and comparing known information, which is an abstract idea, (see Classen Immunotherapies Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 2011)). It is also like collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis, (see Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). “Here, the claims are clearly focused on the combination of those abstract-idea processes. The advance they purport to make is a process of gathering and analyzing information of a specified content, then displaying the results, and not any assertedly inventive technology for performing those functions. They are therefore directed to an abstract idea”, (see Electric Power Group). The claims recite not utilizing sensor data from a mobile device operated by the customer. This is a mental process similar reading a record that someone paid a transit vehicle fare.
The additional element(s) or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se, i.e. processor, memory, vendor device, mobile device, order placement software, transit data, speed and location data, etc., amount(s) to no more than implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer system, (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)(1)). Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea, (See 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception: “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements 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. As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’". Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983.”)
Other examples where the courts have found the additional elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome include: Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017). This is similar to the claimed invention wherein a mobile device is used to communicate with a vendor device to communicate current mobile device location data for comparison with previously stored transit data. Like Intellectual Ventures, here there is no description of how the vendor device retrieves the previously stored transit data.
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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,227,347 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims at issue are broader and/or substantially similar to the claims of the issued patent.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haynes et al., WO 2016/166708 A1, in view of Bodin et al., U.S. 2005/0096811 A1, and further in view of Judge et al., US 20160379141 A1.
1. (Currently Amended) A system, comprising:
a vendor device, (see Haynes, ¶ 171(food truck vendor), including a processor and a memory, (see Haynes, ¶ 306), the vendor device configured to (1) receive a customer order including one or more items, (see Haynes, ¶ 282-84)(pizza), and (2) execute order placement software, wherein the order placement software is configured to place the customer order at a particular position within an order queue based on at least the anticipated time of arrival of the customer, (see Haynes, ¶ 38)(intelligent order queueing information can include information that takes into account estimated times of arrival for customers, such as customers who will be picking-up the food at a provider's location, as well as the time for fulfilling items included in food orders).
Haynes fails to disclose the following limitations taught by reference to Bodin:
wherein the anticipated time of arrival of the customer is determined utilizing transit data, (see Bodin, ¶ 77)( two successive GPS measurements can be made, which can be used to calculate vehicle direction and velocity, which can also be included in the DTC and used by the opportunity in conjunction with a digital map to determine upcoming towns on the vehicle's path. An estimated time of arrival can also be either calculated using this information, or provided directly by the vehicle operator), associated with a transit vehicle, (see Bodin, ¶ 6)(automated and preemptive service determination, brokering and scheduling for moving systems such as automobiles, trains, trucks, ships, and aircraft), on which the customer has boarded or will board, (See Bodin, ¶ 30)(“in a mobile system and upon the system's location and direction of travel, one or more potential geographic points of service, preferably within the scheduled itinerary of travel, is determined”). A scheduled itinerary is considered to include transit that a customer “has boarded or will board” at a future time as planned and the “transit vehicle” is the automobile the customer is traveling in and/or with to be repaired, when:
(1) a location of a mobile device operated by the customer, (see Bodin, ¶ 35)(Location Based Sevices “LBS”), at a plurality of first times, (see Bodin, ¶ 43)(A mobile system…initially is a location or position p.sub.0 at an initial time t.sub.0), is determined to substantially corresponds to a determined location of the transit vehicle, confirming that the customer has boarded the transit vehicle, (see Bodin,¶ 69)(the opportunity server proceeds to check the user's profile and the provider profiles (18, 19) which are in the area of the next expected point of service (e.g. next or closest town, port, airport, etc.). Then, the DTC's are processed (45) to create requests for bids for the needed service repair, and are transmitted via the computer network to one or more provider servers). The service provider servers are considered to be a “vendor” device as claimed. The presentation of an offer to the customer that corresponds to their itinerary is considered to be a form of “confirming” as claimed.
(2) a movement speed of the mobile device, (see Bodin, claim 18: “conditions of said mobile system selected from the group of location of the mobile system, direction and speed of travel of the mobile system”) at a plurality of different second times, (see Bodin, ¶ 54)(“mobile system arrives at the anticipated location p.sub.2 on or about the anticipated time of arrival t.sub.2”), is determined to be substantially equal to a rate of travel of the transit vehicle confirming that the customer has boarded the transit vehicle, (see Bodin, ¶ 77)( two successive GPS measurements can be made, which can be used to calculate vehicle direction and velocity, which can also be included in the DTC and used by the opportunity in conjunction with a digital map to determine upcoming towns on the vehicle's path. An estimated time of arrival can also be either calculated using this information, or provided directly by the vehicle operator), or
(3) input is received at a user interface of the mobile device indicating that the customer has boarded or will board the transit vehicle at a future time, (See Bodin, ¶ 72)(The user can then accept an offer (400), such as by making a verbal election or touching an icon on a touchscreen, which results in the selection being transmitted to the opportunity server, which in turn performs a confirmation transaction (400) with the winning provider server.). In this case the user touching an icon on a screen and accepting a service offer is considered to be a form of declaring that the customer has boarded or will board the “transit vehicle”, i.e. the automobile the customer is traveling in and/or with to be repaired. A time and place for service is then scheduled according to the customer’s anticipated time of arrival.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the features of Haynes and Bodin because of the following findings of fact:
F. Known Work in One Field of Endeavor May Prompt Variations of It for Use in Either the Same Field or a Different One Based on Design Incentives or Other Market Forces if the Variations Are Predictable to One of Ordinary Skill in the Art
(1) the scope and content of the prior art in the same field of endeavor as that of the applicant’s invention include a similar or analogous device (method, or product), i.e. H04W 4/027, using movement velocity, acceleration information;
(2) there were design incentives or market forces which would have prompted adaptation of the known device (method, or product), (see Bodin, ¶ 81 “allows an operator of a mobile system or vehicle to effectively schedule and negotiate for service actions while in transit, with minimized delay and perturbation to a desired itinerary or schedule”);
(3) the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art were encompassed in known variations or in a principle known in the prior art;
(4) one of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the identified design incentives or other market forces, could have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art, and the claimed variation would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
This motivation is applied to all claims below by reference.
The combination of Bodin and Haynes fails to disclose: without utilizing sensor data from a mobile device operated by the customer. However, this feature is taught by reference to Judge, (see Judge, ¶ 85 “Turning to FIG. 2, this figure illustrates a system 200 that automatically detects and tracks transit journeys taken by users of mobile devices registered for such a service…facilitates calculation of respective fares and payment collection… a transit data processing and journey detection engine 254. The engine 254 is configured to analyze and integrate sensory data detected by and received from mobile devices that are registered for the journey detection, tracking, and validation services, such as a mobile device 220. The engine 254 is further configured to correlate such data with transit data, pre-determined (e.g., services timetables) and/or live updates (e.g., actual departures and arrivals) received from transit agencies subscribed for the journey detection and tracking services, such as a transit servers). The system described by Judge is capable of operating without mobile device sensor data by relying only upon pre-determined (e.g., services timetables) and/or live updates (e.g., actual departures and arrivals) received from transit agencies. Using whatever data is available at the time would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the features of Haynes and Bodin with Judge because of the following findings of fact:
F. Known Work in One Field of Endeavor May Prompt Variations of It for Use in Either the Same Field or a Different One Based on Design Incentives or Other Market Forces if the Variations Are Predictable to One of Ordinary Skill in the Art
(1) the scope and content of the prior art in the same field of endeavor as that of the applicant’s invention include a similar or analogous device (method, or product), i.e. H04W 4/027, using movement velocity, acceleration information;
(2) there were design incentives or market forces which would have prompted adaptation of the known device (method, or product), (see Bodin, ¶ 81 “allows an operator of a mobile system or vehicle to effectively schedule and negotiate for service actions while in transit, with minimized delay and perturbation to a desired itinerary or schedule”);
(3) the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art were encompassed in known variations or in a principle known in the prior art;
(4) one of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the identified design incentives or other market forces, could have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art, and the claimed variation would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
This motivation is applied to all claims below by reference.
9. A method, comprising:
receiving, at a vendor device, (see Haynes, ¶ 171(food truck vendor) including a processor and a memory, (see Haynes, ¶ 306), a customer order including one or more items, (see Haynes, ¶ 282-84)(pizza); and
placing, by order placement software executing on the vendor device, the customer order at a particular position within an order queue, based on at least the anticipated time of arrival of the customer, (see Haynes, ¶ 38)(intelligent order queueing information can include information that takes into account estimated times of arrival for customers, such as customers who will be picking-up the food at a provider's location, as well as the time for fulfilling items included in food orders),
Haynes fails to disclose the following limitations taught by reference to Bodin:
wherein the anticipated time of arrival of the customer is determined utilizing transit data, (see Bodin, ¶ 77)( two successive GPS measurements can be made, which can be used to calculate vehicle direction and velocity, which can also be included in the DTC and used by the opportunity in conjunction with a digital map to determine upcoming towns on the vehicle's path. An estimated time of arrival can also be either calculated using this information, or provided directly by the vehicle operator), associated with a transit vehicle, (see Bodin, ¶ 6)(automated and preemptive service determination, brokering and scheduling for moving systems such as automobiles, trains, trucks, ships, and aircraft), on which the customer has boarded or will board, (See Bodin, ¶ 30)(“in a mobile system and upon the system's location and direction of travel, one or more potential geographic points of service, preferably within the scheduled itinerary of travel, is determined”). A scheduled itinerary is considered to include transit that a customer “has boarded or will board” at a future time as planned, when
(1) a location of a mobile device operated by the customer, (see Bodin, ¶ 35)(Location Based Sevices “LBS”), at a plurality of first times, (see Bodin, ¶ 43)(A mobile system…initially is a location or position p.sub.0 at an initial time t.sub.0), is determined to substantially corresponds to a determined location of the transit vehicle, confirming that the customer has boarded the transit vehicle, (see Bodin,¶ 69)(the opportunity server proceeds to check the user's profile and the provider profiles (18, 19) which are in the area of the next expected point of service (e.g. next or closest town, port, airport, etc.). Then, the DTC's are processed (45) to create requests for bids for the needed service repair, and are transmitted via the computer network to one or more provider servers). The service provider servers are considered to be a “vendor” device as claimed. The presentation of an offer to the customer that corresponds to their itinerary is considered to be a form of “confirming” as claimed.
(2) a movement speed of the mobile device, (see Bodin, claim 18: “wherein said opportunity server further comprises a set of user profiles and a set of provider profiles, and a profile analyzer for selecting one or more providers to receive requests for bids according to provider profiles matching preferences specified in said user profiles, and conditions of said mobile system selected from the group of location of the mobile system, direction and speed of travel of the mobile system, and make-and-model of the mobile system.”) at a plurality of different first times, (see Bodin, ¶ 54)(“mobile system arrives at the anticipated location p.sub.2 on or about the anticipated time of arrival t.sub.2”), is determined to be substantially equal to a rate of travel of the transit vehicle confirming that the customer has boarded the transit vehicle, (see Bodin, ¶ 77)( two successive GPS measurements can be made, which can be used to calculate vehicle direction and velocity, which can also be included in the DTC and used by the opportunity in conjunction with a digital map to determine upcoming towns on the vehicle's path. An estimated time of arrival can also be either calculated using this information, or provided directly by the vehicle operator), or
(3) customer input is received at a user interface of the mobile device indicating that the customer has boarded or will board the transit vehicle at a future time, (See Bodin, ¶ 72)(The user can then accept an offer (400), such as by making a verbal election or touching an icon on a touchscreen, which results in the selection being transmitted to the opportunity server, which in turn performs a confirmation transaction (400) with the winning provider server.).
The combination of Bodin and Haynes fails to disclose: without utilizing sensor data from a mobile device operated by the customer. However, this feature is taught by reference to Judge, (see Judge, ¶ 85 “Turning to FIG. 2, this figure illustrates a system 200 that automatically detects and tracks transit journeys taken by users of mobile devices registered for such a service…facilitates calculation of respective fares and payment collection… a transit data processing and journey detection engine 254. The engine 254 is configured to analyze and integrate sensory data detected by and received from mobile devices that are registered for the journey detection, tracking, and validation services, such as a mobile device 220. The engine 254 is further configured to correlate such data with transit data, pre-determined (e.g., services timetables) and/or live updates (e.g., actual departures and arrivals) received from transit agencies subscribed for the journey detection and tracking services, such as a transit servers). The system described by Judge is capable of operating without mobile device sensor data by relying upon pre-determined (e.g., services timetables) and/or live updates (e.g., actual departures and arrivals) received from transit agencies. Using whatever data is available at the time would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the features of Haynes and Bodin with Judge because of the following findings of fact:
F. Known Work in One Field of Endeavor May Prompt Variations of It for Use in Either the Same Field or a Different One Based on Design Incentives or Other Market Forces if the Variations Are Predictable to One of Ordinary Skill in the Art
(1) the scope and content of the prior art in the same field of endeavor as that of the applicant’s invention include a similar or analogous device (method, or product), i.e. H04W 4/027, using movement velocity, acceleration information;
(2) there were design incentives or market forces which would have prompted adaptation of the known device (method, or product), (see Bodin, ¶ 81 “allows an operator of a mobile system or vehicle to effectively schedule and negotiate for service actions while in transit, with minimized delay and perturbation to a desired itinerary or schedule”);
(3) the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art were encompassed in known variations or in a principle known in the prior art;
(4) one of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the identified design incentives or other market forces, could have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art, and the claimed variation would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
This motivation is applied to all claims below by reference.
10. The method of claim 9, further comprising placing, by the order placement software, the customer order at the particular position within the order queue based on the anticipated time of arrival of the customer and a fulfillment time of the order, (see Haynes, ¶ 92)(coffee pickup time moved from 9AM to 9:10AM based upon estimated arrival time).
11. The method of claim 9, wherein the transit data indicates at least times when a transit vehicle is scheduled to stop at one or more predetermined stops along a route of the transit vehicle and rate of travel information for the transit vehicle, (see Haynes, ¶ 40)(The estimated time of arrival can be determined further based on the one or more transit delays).
12. The method of claim 11, wherein the transit data further includes a delay time indicating an amount of time the transit vehicle is delayed in arriving at a particular predetermined stop along the route, (see Haynes, ¶ 40)(The estimated time of arrival can be determined further based on the one or more transit delays).
13. The method of claim 9, wherein the sensor data from the mobile device is utilized to (1) determine the location of the mobile device, or (2) the movement speed of the mobile device, (see Haynes, ¶ 92)(the location of the user's device indicates that the user 112 is traveling slower than expected).
14. The method of claim 9, wherein the anticipated time of arrival is based on the transit data and a distance between a particular predetermined stop along a route of the transit vehicle and a vendor associated with the vendor device, (see Haynes, ¶ 92)(coffee pickup time moved from 9AM to 9:10AM based upon estimated arrival time) (see Haynes, ¶ 209)(The provider identification component 824 can initially identify providers based on the travel patterns for the user by identifying providers that are located within a threshold distance of one or more of: the current location of the mobile computing device 802, a starting location for the mobile computing device 802, a destination location for the mobile computing device 802, and locations along one or more routes from the starting location to the destination location.).
15. The method of claim 9, further comprising changing, by the order placement software, the position of the order within the order queue based on update transit data indicating that that transit vehicle is delayed along a route or indicating that the transit vehicle is to arrive at a particular predetermined stop earlier than scheduled, (see Haynes, ¶ 92)(coffee pickup time moved from 9AM to 9:10AM based upon estimated arrival time) (see Haynes, ¶ 213)(In some implementations, the order prediction module 826 can override and/or modify a ranking of candidate orders based on confidence values/scores. For example, the order prediction module 826 may override/modify the rankings when there is a strong correlations between one or more details of a candidate order and a current context for the mobile computing device 802, such as the mobile computing device 802 being located at a particular location. For instance, the order prediction module 826 can select a candidate order based on the current location of the mobile computing device 802 being a particular location that has a high correlation with a particular provider and/or a particular item).
16. The method of claim 9, wherein the transit vehicle is one of a bus-line, a train-line, a shuttle line, a subway, or an air transportation vehicle, (see Haynes, ¶ 229-30)(The computer system 1104 can augment the base travel time based on events that are occurring along the route 1112 that may affect, positively or negatively, the travel time along the route 1112, such as traffic delays, light traffic conditions, weather delays, and/or mass transit (e.g., bus, subway) delays.).
As per claims 2-8 and 17-20, these claims contain the same or similar features as claims 1, 9-16 rejected above, and therefore the above rejections are applied against the remaining claims herein by reference.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s recent amendment “without utilizing sensor data from a mobile device operated by the customer” does not obviate the 101 rejection. Calculating a time of arrival based upon a known speed and location can easily be done with a pen and paper and is not considered to be “significantly more” than the abstract idea.
The Double Patenting rejection is maintained under previous rationale.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to recently amended claim(s) 1, 9 and 17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection relies on, Judge US 20160379141 A1, to teach the newly amended features.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUSSELL S GLASS whose telephone number is (571)272-7285. The examiner can normally be reached weekdays between 10 and 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, Florian Zeender can be reached on 571-272-6790. 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.
/RUSSELL S GLASS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights