DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the amendments filed 7/21/2025.
Claims 1-4 and 8-23 are pending. Claims 1, 8 and 15 are currently amended; Claims 5-7 are cancelled and Claims 21-23 are new.
All prior rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are withdrawn as necessitated by amendment.
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.
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 1-4, 8-13 and 15-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over West, et al., U.S. PGPUB No. 2018/0156623 (“West”), in view of Amin, et al., U.S. PGPUB No. 2013/0132140 (“Amin”).
With regard to Claim 1, West teaches a method in a computing device for providing travel directions on a digital map, the method comprising:
presenting, by one or more processors executing a mapping application, a map display that includes a geographic area surrounding a user's current location (Fig. 3 shows a user interface including a map display of an area in which a user is located);
receiving, at the one or more processors, a geographic search query from the user ([0073]-[0074] describe that a user can submit a transportation query for a ride through the interface specifying an origin and destination location);
presenting, by the one or more processors via the mapping application, a search result in response to the geographic search query ([0075] and Fig. 4 show a response to a user-submitted query indicating a vehicle and estimated fare);
presenting, by the one or more processors via the mapping application, a user control for selecting a mode of transportation from a plurality of modes of transportation including a ride service mode of transportation ([0073] describes that the interface includes a control which allows a user to select from public transportation and ride sharing as modes of transportation;
receiving, at the one or more processors, a selection of the ride service mode of transportation via the user control ([0074] describes the user selecting the ride sharing option for the transportation search request); and
in response to receiving the selection of the ride service mode of transportation from the plurality of modes of transportation: requesting, by the mapping application from a ride service provider of a ride service application separate from the mapping application, indications of a plurality of types of ride services from the ride service provider ([0022] describes that a client device includes a route client, which receives requests for transportation from the user. [0024] describes that when a user generates a request, the route client submits the request to the ride sharing service, which responds with ride sharing data. [0023] describes that ride sharing services provide fare estimates and allow users to request different classes or types of vehicles. Fig. 1 shows that the route client is remote from the ride sharing service and accessed through a network); and
overlaying, by the one or more processors via the mapping application, a ride service component on the map display, wherein at least one recommendation of a user action is provided in association with at least one of the types of ride services (Fig. 4 shows a map overlay for a ride service component, which includes a recommendation to walk part of the way in order to save time and money. Fig. 5 shows a number of alternatives for a user to walk to, and the related reduction in fare).
West does not teach wherein the ride service component includes (i) the plurality of types of ride services from the ride service provider, and (ii) a plurality of wait times for the plurality of types of ride services. Amin teaches at Figs. 3C and 3D and [0069]-[0071] a map interface with overlays that allow a user to select from a plurality of vehicle types, where the interface displays the wait times for each of the plurality of ride services as the user operates the slider to select each type.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Amin with West. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve user experience by allowing users the ability to select a type of vehicle on the map interface, thereby giving users greater control over their ride share by implementing the ride service data described in West into the ride searching interface.
Claim 8 recites a computing device (West, Fig. 10) which carries out the method of Claim 1, and is similarly rejected. Claim 15 recites a medium storing an application (West, Fig. 10) which carries out the method of Claim 1, and is likewise rejected.
With regard to Claim 2, Amin teaches presenting, by the one or more processors via the mapping application, a user control for selecting one of the plurality of types of ride services. [0069] describes that the interface includes a slider allowing a user to select from among the plurality of types of ride services.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Amin with West. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve user experience by allowing users the ability to select a type of vehicle on the map interface, thereby giving users greater control over their ride share by implementing the ride service data described in West into the ride searching interface.
Claim 9 recites a computing device (West, Fig. 10) which carries out the method of Claim 2, and is similarly rejected. Claim 16 recites a medium storing an application (West, Fig. 10) which carries out the method of Claim 2, and is likewise rejected.
With regard to Claim 3, West teaches presenting, by the one or more processors via the mapping application, a user control for selecting a pick-up location. Fig. 5 shows that the user can select in the interface one of the pick-up locations recommended in order to reduce the cost of the ride.
Claim 10 recites a computing device (West, Fig. 10) which carries out the method of Claim 3, and is similarly rejected. Claim 17 recites a medium storing an application (West, Fig. 10) which carries out the method of Claim 3, and is likewise rejected.
With regard to Claim 4, Amin teaches in response to receiving a selection of one of the plurality of types of ride services from the ride service provider, receiving, by the one or more processors from the ride service provider, status information indicating a current status of a ride corresponding to the selected type of ride service; and presenting, by the one or more processors, a status indicator in accordance with the received status information. [0075] describes that a map display can include indicators of current positions of vehicles matching the selected type, and [0079]-[0080] describe that the overlay can include ETA, price, and seating information for a vehicle of the selected type.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Amin with West. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve user experience by allowing users the ability to select a type of vehicle on the map interface, thereby giving users greater control over their ride share by implementing the ride service data described in West into the ride searching interface.
Claim 11 recites a computing device (West, Fig. 10) which carries out the method of Claim 4, and is similarly rejected. Claim 18 recites a medium storing an application (West, Fig. 10) which carries out the method of Claim 4, and is likewise rejected.
With regard to Claim 12, Amin teaches that the status information includes a current location of a driver, and the status indicator includes an indication of the current location of the driver. [0075] describes that a map display can include indicators of current positions of vehicles matching the selected type.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Amin with West. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve user experience by allowing users the ability to select a type of vehicle on the map interface, thereby giving users greater control over their ride share by implementing the ride service data described in West into the ride searching interface.
Claim 19 recites a medium storing an application (West, Fig. 10) which implements the system of Claim 12, and is similarly rejected.
With regard to Claim 13, Amin teaches that the status indicator includes an indication of an estimated wait time for a driver to arrive at a pick-up location. [0079]-[0080] describe that the overlay can include ETA, price, and seating information for a vehicle of the selected type.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Amin with West. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve user experience by allowing users the ability to select a type of vehicle on the map interface, thereby giving users greater control over their ride share by implementing the ride service data described in West into the ride searching interface.
Claim 20 recites a medium storing an application (West, Fig. 10) which implements the system of Claim 13, and is similarly rejected.
With regard to Claim 21, West teaches that the recommendation reduces travel costs. Figs. 5 provides a recommendation for a user to walk part of the way to save money, where Fig. 6 shows that the system suggest alternative pick-up locations and indicates the associated fares.
With regard to Claim 22, Amin teaches that the ride service component further includes a plurality of prices for each of the plurality of types of ride services. Fig. 3D shows that the information for a selected ride service type includes a range of prices, thereby indicating both a lowest and highest fare for the trip.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Amin with West. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve user experience by allowing users the ability to select a type of vehicle on the map interface, thereby giving users greater control over their ride share by implementing the ride service data described in West into the ride searching interface.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over West, in view of Amin, and in view of Yamashita, et al., U.S. PGPUB No. 2018/0088749 (“Yamashita”).
With regard to Claim 14, Yamashita teaches that the current status of the ride includes at least one of: waiting for a driver to accept the ride, waiting for the driver to arrive at the pick-up location, ride in progress, or ride completed. Fig. 6A shows that the status of the ride indicates that the user is waiting for the driver to arrive at the pickup location.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Yamashita with West and Amin. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve user experience by providing significant additional information to users who arrange shared rides.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over West, in view of Amin, and in view of Newlin, et al., U.S. PGPUB No. 2016/0298974 (“Newlin”).
With regard to Claim 23, Newlin teaches that the plurality of ride service types is ranked on the ride service component. [0023] describes that various options from each of a plurality of transportation modes can be compared and ranked according to one or more criteria, where Fig. 2 shows that ride share is available as an option for types of transportation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Newlin with West and Amin. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve user experience by providing additional controls for users to ensure the rides they book are the best match for their preferences.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot, because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 KEITH D BLOOMQUIST whose telephone number is (571)270-7718. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30-5 PM.
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, Matthew Ell can be reached at 571-270-3264. 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.
/KEITH D BLOOMQUIST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171
9/24/2025