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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/14/2025, 2/3/2026, and 6/23/2026 have been entered.
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to applicant’s amendments to application number 18/296,037 filed on 6/23/2026, in which Claims 1-7, 9-10, and 12 are presented for examination. Applicant amends Claim 1, 3-7, and 9-10 and cancels Claims 8 and 11.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. EP22167175.3, filed on 04/07/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/05/2023 and the IDS submitted on 7/9 2026 have been received and considered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments, see pgs. filed 6, with respect to objection to Claim 9 has been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the objection to Claim 9 set forth in the office action of 4/23/2206 has been withdrawn. However, in light of the amendments, a new objection to Claim 10 is introduced. Further details are provided below.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments, see pgs. filed 6, with respect to the rejection of Claims 1-7, 9-10, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered but are not fully persuasive. The rejection to Claim 3 is under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) set forth in the office action of 4/23/2026 has been withdrawn. In light of the amendments, the rejection of Claims 1, 4-7, 9, and 10, and by dependency, Claims 2-3, and 12, under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) set forth in the office action of 4/23/2026 are updated. Additionally, in light of the amendments, additional rejections to the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are introduced. Further details are provided below.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments, see pgs. filed 6/23/, with respect to rejection of Claims 1- under 35 U.S.C. 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection of Claims 1-7, 9-10, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in the office action of 4/23/2026 has been withdrawn. Examiner briefly addresses the arguments below.
Applicant argues that the amendments present claimed operations, specifically relating to the automatic generation of a service order, the synchronization of real-time position data, and the automatic updating of the service order, that cannot be practically performed in the human mind because they are technological functionality that require receiving data and automatically executing a real-time operation that is not directed to human thought. Applicant further argues that the claims present improved functioning of a computer system, beyond data analysis, by applying real-time synchronization to indicate a delay in estimated arrival time and, in response, automatically updating the service order, which optimizes navigation. Finally, Applicant argues that the amended claim language presents the recited steps in a specific order and using particular technology, to generate, confirm, and update service orders in real-time.
Examiner agrees that the amended claim language, specifically automatic generation of a service order, the synchronization of real-time position data, and the automatic updating of the service order, goes beyond a mental process and, therefore, amended Claims 1 and 10 are not directed towards a judicial exception.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments, see pgs. filed 6/23/2026, with respect to rejection of Claims 1- under 35 U.S.C. have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection of 1- under 35 U.S.C. set forth in the office action of 4/23/2026 have been withdrawn. A summary of the allowable subject matter is provided below.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 10 (line 14) recites “the communication system is arranged to communicate, via the communication system,” which is redundant and would be more clear as “the communication is arrange to communicate
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1- rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 (line 23) recites the limitation “the service order” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, Claim 1 (line 23) will be read as “the at least one generated service order.”
Similarly, Claim 4 (lines 1-2), Claim 5 (lines 1-2), Claim 6 (lines 1-2), Claim 7 (lines 1-2), and Claim 10 (line 26) recite the limitation “the at least one service order.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. For examination purposes Claim 4 (lines 1-2), Claim 5 (lines 1-2), Claim 6 (lines 1-2), Claim 7 (lines 1-2), and Claim 10 (line 26) will be read as “the at least one generated service order.”
Similarly, Claim 9 (line 3) recites the limitation “an updated service order.” Based on the amendments and the interpretation provided above, “updating the at least one generated service order” is already defined in Claim 1 (line 23). Therefore, for clarity and for examination purposes, Claim 9 (line 3) should recite “the updated at least one generated service order.”
Claims 2-3 and 12 are rejected by dependency on Claims 1 and 10, respectively.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7, 9-10, and 12 contain allowable subject matter.
Reasons’s for Allowance
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Claims 1 and 10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 4-7 and 9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 2-3 and 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The arts of record, especially Delorme et al., WO-9748065-A1, and Mimassi, PG Pub US-2021/0158407-A1, do not singularly or in combination a vehicle operator service method and system, comprising a processing unit of a host vehicle, a navigation system, a communication system of the host vehicle, and a user interface, wherein: the processing unit comprises one or more application programming interfaces (APIs) executing on the processing unit and specifying interactions with available service providers; the navigation system is arranged to determine a driving route between a host vehicle starting destination and a host vehicle target destination, and arranged to determine the available service providers along the driving route; the processing unit is arranged to send, via the one or more APIs, a request to automatically generate at least one service order; the communication system is arranged to communicate, via the communication system, specific host vehicle information or host vehicle operator information from the host vehicle to at least one service provider of the available service providers along the route, and receive, via the one or more APIs, an API response to the at least one generated service order, the API response including a confirmation status of the at least one generated service order; the communication system further arranged to, subsequent to receiving the confirmation status, synchronize real-time position data of the host vehicle with the at least one service provider, and in response to the synchronized real-time position data, indicate a delay in estimated arrival time received from the at least one service provider; and the processing unit further arranged to automatically update the at least one service order, from the host vehicle via an additional request using the one or more APIs, with a new estimated arrival time for the host vehicle to the at least one service provider in response to the delay in the estimated arrival time, as recited in independent Claims 1 and 10.
The uniqueness of the claimed invention is all of the combined elements of Claims 1 and 10 specifically a vehicle operator service method and system, wherein the processing unit is arranged to send, via the one or more APIs, a request to automatically generate at least one service order; the communication system is arranged to communicate, via the communication system, specific host vehicle information or host vehicle operator information from the host vehicle to at least one service provider of the available service providers along the route; the communication system further arranged to, subsequent to receiving the confirmation status, synchronize real-time position data of the host vehicle with the at least one service provider, and in response to the synchronized real-time position data, indicate a delay in estimated arrival time received from the at least one service provider; and the processing unit further arranged to automatically update the at least one service order, from the host vehicle via an additional request using the one or more APIs, with a new estimated arrival time for the host vehicle to the at least one service provider in response to the delay in the estimated arrival time. Examiner further notes the interpretations, relating to the bolded language, including that the information is communicated from the host vehicle to the service provider, the communication system receives confirmation from the service provider, the real-time position data of the host vehicle is synchronized with the service provider, the delay in the estimated arrival time comes from the service provider to the communication system, and the processor uses the delay to automatically update the service order request from the host vehicle to the service provider using the API.
Delorme being one of the closest prior arts discloses a system for determining a travel route along waypoints including an origin, a destination, and intermediate waypoints such as points of interest selected by the user and presenting a user-customized travel log.
Mimassi being one of the closest prior arts discloses a system and method for automated en-route business establishment selection, ordering, and routing, including a cloud based network containing an optimization server, portals for entering information and preferences, and an optimization engine.
However, there are no teachings in, or obvious combination of, Delorme and Mimassi pertaining to all of the combined elements of Claims 1 and 10 specifically a vehicle operator service method and system, wherein the processing unit is arranged to send, via the one or more APIs, a request to automatically generate at least one service order; the communication system is arranged to communicate, via the communication system, specific host vehicle information or host vehicle operator information from the host vehicle to at least one service provider of the available service providers along the route; the communication system further arranged to, subsequent to receiving the confirmation status, synchronize real-time position data of the host vehicle with the at least one service provider, and in response to the synchronized real-time position data, indicate a delay in estimated arrival time received from the at least one service provider; and the processing unit further arranged to automatically update the at least one service order, from the host vehicle via an additional request using the one or more APIs, with a new estimated arrival time for the host vehicle to the at least one service provider in response to the delay in the estimated arrival time, as interpreted by the Examiner.
Therefore, the allowable subject matter found in the claims that has not been found to have been taught or disclosed in the prior art found at this time is all the claimed limitations of independent Claim 1 and 10. All the dependent claims, Claims 2-7, 9, and 12, also contain allowable subject matter by virtue of their dependency on their base claim.
Therefore, Claims 2-7, 9, and 12 contain allowable subject matter by dependency on Claims 1 and 10, respectively.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Reference A, Luke et al., PG Pub US-2013/0030580-A1, discusses a network of charging and distribution stations available on a map to a user to reserve and a system for tracking the charging station reservations and availability.
Reference C, DeLuca et al., PG Pub US-2020/0217679-A1, discusses a method, system, and a computer program product for determining directional guidance for a vehicle including receiving, using, for example, an API, a destination and user information for determining a distance a vehicle can travel and predicting availability of charging stations along a route, including determining and reserving, using, for example, the API, locations of interest near the charging station.
Reference D, Davies et al., PG Pub US-2018/0336611-A1, discusses a method and system for scheduling transportation service provider breaks by communicating service requests, confirmations, and changes between a service requestor and a service provider, using a network interface or an API.
Reference E, Yien et al., Patent No. US-11,295,322-B1, discusses an online order management service for interface between merchants and users using an API.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIN MARIE HARTMANN whose telephone number is (571)272-5309. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-5.
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, Kito Robinson can be reached at (571) 270-3921. 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.
/E.M.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/KITO R ROBINSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664
