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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/6/2026 was in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of the Claims
Claims 40, 42, 57, 59, 61-62, 64, 68-69 and 71 were previously pending and subject to a final office action mailed November 6, 2025. Claims 40, 57, 59, 61-62 and 68 were amended, claims 42, 64-67, 69 and 71 were left as previously presented, claims 72-75 was newly added and claims 45-56, 58, 60 and 63 were canceled. Claims 40, 42, 57, 59, 61-62, 64, 68-69 and 71-75 are currently pending and subject to the non-final office action below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks filed May 6, 2026, with respect to claims 40, 42, 58-59, 61-62, 64 and 68-70 under USC 101 are improper because the claims recite a technical element that integrate the claimed features into a practical application.
Examiner respectfully notes that the test to subject matter eligibility under 35 USC 101 for product and process is: first, determine whether the claims are directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Second, (part I of the Mayo test), determining whether the claims are directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea (judicially recognized exceptions). Third, (Part II of the Mayo test), determining whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Examiner also states that the claims are receiving, determining and providing data from a user to a server in order to determine if there is an availability for a transportation. Moreover, the claims do not recite how the computer elements help improve the method of receiving, determining and providing data to a server. Adding generic computer elements to the claims is not sufficient to improve the technology. see MPEP 2106.05(a). Applicant also states that the specification paragraph 124 recites that there is an interaction between the mobile phone and the provider device using cellular network or wide area wireless network, which is considered as an improvement to the technology. Examiner states that the interaction between the devices using wide area wireless network is well known in the art. In addition, the subject matter eligibility memo states that “even if the specifications set forth an improvement in technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement”. The improvement is not incorporated in the claims. Therefore, the recited claims do not improve the technology and are ineligible under prong 2.
Applicant arguments with respect to the 102/103 rejection has been fully considered and moot in view of the new grounds of rejection below.
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 40, 42, 57, 59, 61-62, 64-69 and 71-75 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite “receiving a service request at a transportation server from a user, the service request including an initial location and a final location and including a user preference; determining a set of available vehicles based on proximity to the initial location; providing the drive-time environment preference options available with a vehicle of the set of available vehicles; and; receiving at the transportation server from the user mobile device a drive-time environmental preference.”
The recited limitations above are a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation done by a human but for the recitation of generic computer components under mental process under human using pen and paper. That is, other than reciting “user device”, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “receiving”, “determining”, “determining”, “providing” and “receiving” in the context of this claim encompasses the user to manually submit a transportation request and determine available drivers to match the request.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the following additional elements- a “service provider device” and “user device” to perform the above recited steps. The computer elements recited at a high-level of generality (generic computer elements performing a generic computer function of receiving information, identifying solutions and determining what should be presented to a user) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, the additional elements recited do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using the computer elements to perform the steps of claim 40 amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
The limitations of the dependent claims 42, 57, 59, 61-62, 64-69 and 71-75, further describe the identified abstract idea. In addition, the limitations of claims 42, 57, 59, 62 and 71-75 define how the transportation request is processed which further describes the abstract idea. The generic computer component of claims 61, 64 and 68-69 (remote server, hub device, media device and user device) merely serve as the generic computer component and the functions performed by the generic computer components essentially amount to the abstract idea identified above. None of the dependent claims when taken separately in combination with each dependent claims parent claim overcome the above analysis and are therefore similarly rejected as being ineligible.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 40, 61-62, 64 and 71-75 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Truong et al. referred herein as Truong (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0011324) in view of Simoudis (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0236033).
As to claim 40, Truong teaches a method comprising:
receiving from user device a service request, the service request including an initial location and a final location and including a user preference; (para 10, 12, 33-34, 51, 57 and fig. 3A item 300)
determining with the transportation server a set of available vehicles based on proximity to the initial location; (para 31 and 57)
providing to the user mobile device user preference options available with a vehicle of the set of available vehicles. (para 24 and 26)
Truong does not teach providing drive-time environmental preferences.
However, Simoudis teaches determining a user experience inside a vehicle (para 128)
Truong also does not teach:
receiving at the transportation server from the user mobile device a drive-time environmental preference.
However, Simoudis teaches:
receiving at the transportation server from the user mobile device a drive-time environmental preference. (para 128)
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to obtain a drive-time preference in Truong as taught by Simoudis. Motivation to do so comes from the knowledge taught by Simoudis that doing so would create a personalized transportation experience for a user.
As to claim 64, Truong in view of Simoudis teach the method of claim 40 as discussed above.
Truong further teaches:
establishing a connection between a hub device and a media device; (para 17 and 18)
establishing a first network connection between a service provider device and the hub device; (para 14, 18 and 20)
establishing a second network connection between the user mobile device and the hub device;(para 14, 18 and 20)
directing media content to the media device through the hub device from the user device in response to permission received from the service provider device. (para 17 and 18)
As to claim 62, Truong in view of Simoudis teach all the limitations of claim 40 as discussed above.
Truong further teaches:
monitoring which user preference options are used. (para 34 and 41, the system determines the preference that should be used in order to determine the transportation request)
Truong does not teach providing drive-time environmental preferences.
However, Simoudis teaches determining a user experience inside a vehicle (para 128)
As to claim 71, Truong in view of Simoudis teach the method of claim 40 as discussed above.
Truong further teaches:
determining a driver benefit score for each of the set of available drivers, wherein the recommendation is based on the driver benefit score of the driver; (para 57)
providing to service provider devices associated with the set of available vehicles, the service request and a recommendation based on the driver benefit score of a driver associated with a service provider device of the service provider devices. (para 47 and 57)
As to claim 61, Truong in view of Simoudis teach all the limitations of claim 71 as discussed above.
Truong does not teach:providing the user preference from the transportation server to the service provider device.
However, Simoudis teaches:
providing the user preference from the transportation server to the service provider device. (para 70)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to use user preference during a transportation service in Truong as taught by Simoudis. Motivation to do so comes from the knowledge taught by Simoudis that doing so would create a personalized transportation experience for a user.
As to claim 72, Truong in view of Simoudis teach all the limitations of claim 40 as discussed above.
Truong does not teach:
providing the drive-time environment preference from the transportation server to a device associated with a vehicle of the set of available vehicles.
However, Simoudis teaches:
providing the drive-time environment preference from the transportation server to a device associated with a vehicle of the set of available vehicles. (para 70 and 127-128)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to use user preference during a transportation service in Truong as taught by Simoudis. Motivation to do so comes from the knowledge taught by Simoudis that doing so would create a personalized transportation experience for a user.
As to claim 73, Truong in view of Simoudis teach all the limitations of claim 72 as discussed above.
Truong does not teach:
implementing the drive-time environment preference on the vehicle.
However, Simoudis teaches:
implementing the drive-time environment preference on the vehicle. (para 70 and 127-128)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to use user preference during a transportation service in Truong as taught by Simoudis. Motivation to do so comes from the knowledge taught by Simoudis that doing so would create a personalized transportation experience for a user.
As to claim 74, Truong in view of Simoudis teach all the limitations of claim 40 as discussed above.
Truong does not teach:
providing the user mobile device access to control a drive-time environment of the vehicle.
However, Simoudis teaches:
providing the user mobile device access to control a drive-time environment of the vehicle. (para 70 and 127-128)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to use user preference during a transportation service in Truong as taught by Simoudis. Motivation to do so comes from the knowledge taught by Simoudis that doing so would create a personalized transportation experience for a user.
As to claim 75, Truong in view of Simoudis teach all the limitations of claim 74 as discussed above.
Truong does not teach:
providing the user mobile device access to control the drive- time environment includes providing network access parameters to the user mobile device.
However, Simoudis teaches:
providing the user mobile device access to control the drive- time environment includes providing network access parameters to the user mobile device. (para 70 and 127-128)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to use user preference during a transportation service in Truong as taught by Simoudis. Motivation to do so comes from the knowledge taught by Simoudis that doing so would create a personalized transportation experience for a user.
Claim 42 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Truong et al. referred herein as Truong (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0011324) in view of Simoudis (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0236033), further in view of Khunger et al. referred herein as Khun (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0145089).
As to claim 42, Truong in view of Simoudis teach all the limitations of claim 71 as discussed above.
Truong and Simoudis do not teach:
wherein the service request includes an initial time and wherein the driver benefit score is determined based on the final location and an estimated final time.
However, Khun teaches:
wherein the service request includes an initial time and wherein the driver benefit score is determined based on the final location and an estimated final time. (para 41-43)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to determine the benefit score of the driver based on the destination and time of arrival in Truong in view of Simoudis as taught by Khun. Motivation to do so comes from the knowledge well known in the art that doing so would create a more organized interface.
Claim 59 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Truong et al. referred herein as Truong (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0011324) in view of Simoudis (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0236033), further in view of Rostamian et al referred herein as Rost (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0204684).
As to claim 59, Truong in view of Simoudis teach all the limitations of claim 40 as discussed above.
Truong and Simoudis does not teach:wherein the drive-time environment preference includes a temperature preference.
However, Rost teaches:
wherein the drive-time environment preference includes a temperature preference. (para 44)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to use user preference during a transportation service in Truong in view of Simoudis as taught by Rost. Motivation to do so comes from the knowledge well known in the art that doing so would make the system user friendly.
Claim 68 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Truong et al. referred herein as Truong (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0011324) in view of Simoudis (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0236033), further in view of Burger (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0025705).
As to claim 68, Truong teaches all the limitations of claim 64 as discussed above.
Truong does not teach:
communicating an identifier of the hub device to the user mobile device from a remote server through a third network connection.
However, Burger teaches:
communicating an identifier of the hub device to the user device from a remote server through a third network connection. (para 14, 16 and 17)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include an identifier for the devices in Truong as taught by Burger. Motivation to do so comes from the knowledge taught by Burger that doing so would allow controlling the operation of media device based on user control settings.
Claim 69 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Truong et al. referred herein as Truong (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0011324) in view of Simoudis (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0236033), further in view of Burger (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0025705), further in view of Thiyagarajan et al referred herein as Thiya (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0047465).
As to claim 69, Truong in view of Simoudis, further in view of Burger teach all the limitations of claim 68 as discussed above.
Truong, Simoudis and Burger do not teach:
disabling the second network connection in response to a command from the remote server.
However, Thiya teaches:
disabling the second network connection in response to a command from the remote server (para 16, 17, 34 and 35)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to disable connections in Truong in view of Simoudis, further in view of Burger as taught by Thiya. Motivation to do so comes from the knowledge taught by Thiya that doing so would allow the system to establish a better connection with the devices.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZEINA ELCHANTI whose telephone number is (313)446-6561. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-5:00 PM EST.
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, Jeffrey Zimmerman can be reached at 571-272-4602. 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.
/ZEINA ELCHANTI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
