CTNF 18/268,999 CTNF 98271 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims This action is in reply to the Application Number 18/647,518 filed on 4/26/2024. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined. This action is made NON-FINAL in response to the “Amendment” and “Remarks” filed on 12/24/2025. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim contains the limitation of “a computer readable medium,” and can encompass non-statutory transitory forms of signal transmission, such as a propagating an electrical or electromagnetic signal per se. (See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 84 USPQ2d 1495 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The Specification, in particular Paragraph 19, describes the computer readable storage medium without disclosing a non-transitory nature. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-01 AIA The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. 07-31-01 Claims 2, 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 2, 4 disclose “wherein the one or more predetermined destinations are located within a predetermined travel time or distance threshold.” The Examiner could not find support for this limitation. The Applicant highlighted page 11 of the Specification as containing support, but the Examiner disagrees. The Specification does not contain the terms “threshold,” or “travel time,” and the Examiner could not find any sections disclosing analogous terms. These claims should be amended to be more consistent with the Specification. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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 of this title, 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-3, 6-15, 17, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shoval (U.S. Patent Publication 2022/0003561 A1) in view of Uber (Full title and bibliographical is as follows: screen captures from YouTube video clip entitled "Uber Riders - How To Add Multiple Stops To Your Ride [Joe Explains]," 2 pages, uploaded on December 7, 2017 by user "The Rideshare Guy" [retrieved on 2025-09-12], retrieved from the internet: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yapYhBuyvc>, hereinafter referred to as Uber) . In regard to Claim 1, Shoval teaches a computer-implemented method, the method comprising: Receiving a request from a user for a ride from a start location to an end location (see Abstract lines 1-9 teaching a ride sharing system wherein a communications interface receives ride requests, including pick-up and a drop-off locations, from devices associated with users), the start location being located within a predetermined zone associated with one or more predetermined destinations accessible from the predetermined zone (see Paragraph 208 lines 31-35, Paragraph 295 lines 1-4 teaching that the user may request a ride from New York City, and that the driving routes may be predetermined, fixed-line routes), the end location being restricted to one of the predetermined destinations (see Paragraph 208 lines 31-35, Paragraph 295 lines 1-4 teaching that the user may request a ride to Boston, and that the driving routes may be predetermined, fixed-line routes), the predetermined zone comprising at least one other user having requested a ride to at least one other end location from at least one other start location within the predetermined zone (see Paragraph 116 lines 1-3, Paragraph 295 lines 4-7 teaching that the rideshare server may guide the vehicle to a second pick-up location to pick up a second user, and that there may be a predetermined number of drop-off locations). Shoval fails to teach calculating a route from a location of a vehicle to the end location, the route comprising the start location and the at least one other start location; and Dispatching, via a vehicle computing device associated with the vehicle, the vehicle to follow the route. However, Uber teaches calculating a route from a location of a vehicle to the end location, the route comprising the start location and the at least one other start location (see 1:47-2:30 teaching a rideshare system that calculates a route from the pickup location, where the vehicle arrives to pick up the user, to an end location); and Dispatching, via a vehicle computing device associated with the vehicle, the vehicle to follow the route (see 1:15-1:47 teaching that the system allows a user to input a route into a computing device that will then dispatch a vehicle associated with the system to the user’s location for transport according to the desired route). Shoval and Uber are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of ground vehicle transportation that can be scheduled via an electronic device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shoval’s invention to incorporate a vehicle computing device associated with a transportation service vehicle, wherein the vehicle can be dispatched to transport a user according to a desired route from a start location to a destination as taught by Uber. Doing so could improve a transportation system by enabling a user to dispatch a vehicle to their specific location, decreasing the user’s travel time, and distance required to manually walk in order to meet up with the transportation vehicle. In regard to Claim 2, Shoval further teaches wherein the one or more predetermined destinations are located within a predetermined travel time or distance threshold from one another (see Paragraph 259 lines 19-21 teaching that the first pick-up location and second pick-up location may be located within a certain proximity of each other). In regard to Claim 3, Shoval further teaches wherein the one or more predetermined destinations are located within the predetermined zone (see Paragraph 295 lines 4-14 teaching that the full route, including a predetermined number of drop-off locations, may be located in a single city). In regard to Claim 6, Shoval further teaches wherein the user and another user request rides to a same end location (see Paragraph 113 lines 12-16 teaching that the second drop-off location may be set at substantially the same location as the first drop off location). In regard to Claim 7, Shoval further teaches wherein the predetermined zone is one of a plurality of predetermined zones in a city (see Paragraph 208 lines 31-35, Paragraph 113 lines 1-5 teaching that the second pick-up location may be half a block away, or 100 meters away from the first pick-up location, within a city, like New York City). Here, the Examiner is interpreting various starting locations within a geographic area to represent the “predetermined zones,” based on the following language from Claim 1: “the start location being located within a predetermined zone.” In regard to Claim 8, Shoval further teaches wherein locations and areas of the plurality of predetermined zones are determined based on locations of commercial destinations, population distribution and size, shopping patterns, or traffic patterns (see Paragraph 113 lines 1-5, Paragraph 221 lines 15-18 teaching that the system may set the pick-up location, and that the starting point may be a bus station). Here, the Examiner is interpreting various starting locations within a geographic area to represent “locations and areas of the plurality of predetermined zones,” based on the following language from Claim 1: “the start location being located within a predetermined zone.” The Examiner is further interpreting a bus station to be a “commercial destination,” since most bus station visitors engage in either purchasing a service (a bus ticket), or using a purchased service (boarding or disembarking a bus). In regard to Claim 9, Shoval further teaches wherein two or more of the plurality of predetermined zones overlap (see Paragraph 295 lines 14-16 teaching that there may be some or no overlap between the predetermined routes of the fixed-line vehicles operating in separate geographical regions). In regard to Claim 10, Shoval further teaches calculating a pickup time for the user based on traffic patterns, availability of the vehicle, availability of the at least one other user, or a level of busyness at the end location (see Paragraph 59 lines 3-7 teaching that historical traffic data may may be used to calculate pick-up times). In regard to Claim 11, Shoval further teaches wherein at least one of the predetermined destinations is a commercial destination or a transportation hub (see Paragraph 208 lines 35-38 teaching that the drop-off location is a bus station). In regard to Claim 12, Shoval further teaches wherein at least one of the predetermined destinations is a mall, a shopping centre, a pharmacy, a grocery store, a big box store, a department store, a restaurant, a bar, a cinema, a university, a school, an event, a festival, a main street, or a downtown shopping district (see Paragraph 105 lines 17-21 teaching that the drop-off location may be along a main street). In regard to Claim 13, Shoval further teaches wherein the vehicle is restricted to providing rides to users located within the predetermined zone (see Paragraph 295 lines 9-14 teaching that the predetermined driving routes may be a type of fixed-line ridesharing, and that certain bus lines may include routes within a certain geographical region). In regard to Claim 14, Shoval fails to teach sending the route to the vehicle computing device for display on a graphical user interface thereof. However, Uber teaches sending the route to the vehicle computing device for display on a graphical user interface thereof (see 1:47-2:30 teaching that the route is sent to a display associated with the vehicle). Shoval and Uber are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of ground vehicle transportation that can be scheduled via an electronic device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shoval’s invention to incorporate a feature wherein a user’s desired route is sent to a display associated with the transportation vehicle as taught by Uber. Doing so could improve a public transportation system by enabling an operator of a transportation vehicle to become aware of the user’s desired route. This could increase the accuracy of the transportation system, by decreasing mistakes made by the vehicle operator. In regard to Claim 15, Shoval fails to teach displaying the one or more predetermined destinations accessible from the predetermined zone on a graphical user interface of a user computing device associated with the user; and Receiving an input via the graphical user interface selecting one of the one or more predetermined destinations as the end location. However, Uber teaches displaying the one or more predetermined destinations accessible from the predetermined zone on a graphical user interface of a user computing device associated with the user (see 1:15-1:40 teaching that the user can view selected destinations via a display on their personal device); and Receiving an input via the graphical user interface selecting one of the one or more predetermined destinations as the end location (see 1:15-1:40 teaching that the user can input selected destinations via a display on their personal device). Shoval and Uber are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of ground vehicle transportation that can be scheduled via an electronic device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shoval’s invention to incorporate a feature wherein a user can view and input selected destinations via a display on their personal device as taught by Uber. Doing so could improve a transportation system by enabling a user to view one or more destinations and select those destinations, enabling the user to see proximities between locations, and verifying that potential routes are correct. In regard to Claim 17, the Instant Application teaches receiving a further request from the user for a further ride from a second start location to a second end location, wherein the second start location is a predetermined location associated with a second predetermined zone, and wherein the second end location is within the second predetermined zone. Shoval teaches receiving a request from a user for a ride from a start location to an end location, wherein the two locations are in difference cities (see Paragraph 208 lines 31-35 teaching that the user may request a ride from New York City to Boston). Uber teaches receiving a further request from the user for a further ride from a second start location to a second end location, and wherein the second end location is within a predetermined zone (see 1:15-1:40 teaching that the user can input additional destinations within several minutes of driving time to the initial destination, wherein all of the destination are located in the vicinity of the Minneapolis-St. Paul region). In combination, Shoval and Uber teach receiving a further request from the user for a further ride from a second start location to a second end location, wherein the second start location is a predetermined location associated with a second predetermined zone, and wherein the second end location is within the second predetermined zone. Shoval and Uber are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of ground vehicle transportation that can be scheduled via an electronic device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shoval’s invention to incorporate a feature wherein a user can input additional destinations, wherein the first destination constitutes the second start point, and wherein that point is associated with a different predetermined zone as the initial starting location, such as a city or metropolitan area, as taught by Uber. Doing so could improve a transportation system by enabling a user to add smaller itinerary legs at the end of a larger itinerary leg, without having to book a completely new trip. In regard to Claim 18, Shoval further teaches determining the boundaries of the predetermined zones (see Paragraph 208 lines 31-35, Paragraph 295 lines 1-4 teaching that the user may request a ride from New York City to Boston). Here, the Examiner is interpreting New York City to be the “predetermined zone,” based on the following language from Claim 1: “the start location being located within a predetermined zone.” The Examiner is also interpreting an input request from New York City to Boston to indicate that the system can identify some line of demarcation between New York City and Boston that differentiates the two locations, such as city limits, state limits, etc. In regard to Claim 19, Shoval further teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising computer instructions stored thereon, wherein the computer instructions, when executed by one or more processors, causes the one or more processors to perform a method (see Paragraph 14 lines 1-5 teaching that a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium may store instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause at least one processor to perform the method). The rest of Claim 19 is substantially similar to Claim 1 (the bulk of both claims). Please see the rejection of Claim 1 above for analysis. In regard to Claim 20, Shoval further teaches a computing device comprising one or more processors operable to perform a method (see Paragraph 14 lines 1-5 teaching that a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium may store instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause at least one processor to perform the method). The rest of Claim 20 is substantially similar to Claim 1 (the bulk of both claims). Please see the rejection of Claim 1 above for analysis . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shoval (U.S. Patent Publication 2022/0003561 A1) in view of Uber (Full title and bibliographical is as follows: screen captures from YouTube video clip entitled "Uber Riders - How To Add Multiple Stops To Your Ride [Joe Explains]," 2 pages, uploaded on December 7, 2017 by user "The Rideshare Guy" [retrieved on 2025-09-12], retrieved from the internet: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yapYhBuyvc>, hereinafter referred to as Uber), in further view of Tao (U.S. Patent Publication 2023/0063152 A1) . In regard to Claim 4, Shoval fails to teach wherein the one or more predetermined destinations are located within a predetermined travel time or distance threshold to the predetermined zone. However, Tao teaches wherein the one or more predetermined destinations are located within a predetermined travel time or distance threshold to the predetermined zone (see Paragraph 20 lines 3-6 teaching an autonomous vehicle delivery system that travels to a first destination before releasing a second vehicle that travels to a second destination that is within a distance threshold from the first destination). Shoval and Tao are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of transportation systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shoval’s invention to incorporate a feature capable of implementing travel to destinations that are within certain distance thresholds of each other as taught by Tao. Doing so could improve a transportation system by combining trips or itineraries that have destinations that are close to each other, reducing fuel costs and increasing efficiency . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shoval (U.S. Patent Publication 2022/0003561 A1) in view of Uber (Full title and bibliographical is as follows: screen captures from YouTube video clip entitled "Uber Riders - How To Add Multiple Stops To Your Ride [Joe Explains]," 2 pages, uploaded on December 7, 2017 by user "The Rideshare Guy" [retrieved on 2025-09-12], retrieved from the internet: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yapYhBuyvc>, hereinafter referred to as Uber), in further view of Nostry (U.S. Patent Publication 2017/0263137 A1) . In regard to Claim 5, Shoval fails to teach wherein the predetermined zone is associated with only one predetermined destination. However, Nostry teaches wherein the predetermined zone is associated with only one predetermined destination (see Paragraph 271 lines 3-5 teaching a method for managing a multi-destination flight of an aircraft, wherein each conventional flight plan consists of a waypoint set connecting a single departure airport or heliport to a single destination airport or heliport). Shoval and Nostry are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of transportation systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shoval’s invention to incorporate a feature wherein a predetermined zone is associated with only one predetermined destination as taught by Nostry. Doing so could improve a transportation system by integrating itinerary legs that involve departure locations associated with a single final destination . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shoval (U.S. Patent Publication 2022/0003561 A1) in view of Uber (Full title and bibliographical is as follows: screen captures from YouTube video clip entitled "Uber Riders - How To Add Multiple Stops To Your Ride [Joe Explains]," 2 pages, uploaded on December 7, 2017 by user "The Rideshare Guy" [retrieved on 2025-09-12], retrieved from the internet: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yapYhBuyvc>, hereinafter referred to as Uber), in further view of Manzoor (U.S. Patent Publication 2018/0089783 A1) . In regard to Claim 16, Shoval fails to teach receiving a further request from the user for a further ride from a second start location to a second end location, wherein the second start location is the same as the end location, and wherein the second end location is another one of the one or more predetermined destinations, a location within the predetermined zone, or the start location. However, Manzoor teaches receiving a further request from the user for a further ride from a second start location to a second end location, wherein the second start location is the same as the end location, and wherein the second end location is another one of the one or more predetermined destinations, a location within the predetermined zone, or the start location (see Paragraph 6 teaching a vehicle for hire service system wherein a user can input a request from a starting location to an end location, and can further selected a round-trip request). Shoval and Manzoor are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of ground vehicle transportation that can be scheduled via an electronic device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shoval’s invention to incorporate a roundtrip booking feature as taught by Manzoor. Doing so could improve a transportation system by enabling a user to book a return trip back to their original destination at the time of booking the outbound trip, simplifying and accelerating the booking process. Response to Arguments The Applicant’s arguments and remarks with regard to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of Claims 1-20 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. All claim objections have been withdrawn in light of the amendments. All 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections have been withdrawn in light of the arguments. All 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn in light of the amendments, but new 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejections have been introduced. The Examiner could not find support in the spec for the amendments incorporated to traverse the 112(b) rejections of Claims 2, 4. With regard to Claim 1, the Applicant argues that the Shoval reference does not disclose “the start location being located within a predetermined zone associated with one or more predetermined destinations accessible from the predetermined zone, the end location being restricted to one of the predetermined destinations.” The Examiner disagrees. While the Applicant has provided contextual information in regard to Claim 1 in their arguments, the plain language of the claim discloses a start location in a zone, and an end location that is restricted to a finite amount of end locations accessible from the start location. Shoval Paragraph 295 teaches “predetermined driving routes of a plurality of fixed-line ridesharing vehicles . . . the plurality of fixed-line ridesharing vehicles may . . . [include] . . . predetermined drop-off locations.” Paragraph 208 teaches wherein “a user may currently be in New York City and transmit to the vehicle management system a ride request including a location in Boston as the desired destination via the device associated with the user. Ride request module may determine a central bus station in New York City as the drop-off location such that the user can take a bus at the bus station to Boston.” In essence, Shoval teaches a system wherein a user can request transportation from a “zone,” such as a city, to a destination associated with a departure location within the zone, wherein the transportation operates via a “fixed-line.” Shoval teaches the limitations that the Applicant has discussed in their arguments. A new reference (Tao) has been introduced to reject amended Claim 4. Claims 2, 3, 5-20 remain rejected under the rationales provided in the previous office action. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL W ARELLANO whose telephone number is (571)270-0102. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30 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, Ramon Mercado, can be reached on (571) 270-5744. 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. /PAUL W ARELLANO/Examiner, Art Unit 3658 /Ramon A. Mercado/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3658 Application/Control Number: 18/268,999 Page 2 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 18/268,999 Page 3 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 18/268,999 Page 4 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 18/268,999 Page 5 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 18/268,999 Page 6 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 18/268,999 Page 7 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 18/268,999 Page 8 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 18/268,999 Page 9 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 18/268,999 Page 10 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 18/268,999 Page 11 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 18/268,999 Page 12 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 18/268,999 Page 13 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 18/268,999 Page 14 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 18/268,999 Page 15 Art Unit: 3658 Application/Control Number: 18/268,999 Page 16 Art Unit: 3658
Prosecution Insights