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 .
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 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.
Introduction
Claims 21-40 are pending and have been examined in this Office Action.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs / columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the disclosure.
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) 21, 24-26, 28-30, 32-36, and 38-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0379437 to Reich in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0364824 to Bryant et al.
As per claim 21, Reich discloses a computer-implemented method (Reich; At least paragraph(s) 32 and 33) comprising:
receiving, at one or more servers from a passenger computing device associated with a passenger of a transportation system, a transportation request (Reich; At least paragraph(s) 7 and 8; an original transportation request must be received from the passenger in order to know the origin and destination of the passenger’s trip);
determining, via the one or more servers, that the transportation request corresponds to an event and an event location (Reich; At least paragraph(s) 9);
Reich does not explicitly disclose monitoring global position system (GPS) data corresponding to the passenger computing device to determine a location of the passenger computing device and movement of the passenger computing device;
determining, based on monitoring the GPS data, an updated location of the passenger computing device indicating that the passenger computing device has arrived at the event location corresponding to the event;
updating a pickup location associated with the transportation request based on monitoring the movement of the passenger computing device; and
However, the above feature(s) are taught by Bryant (Bryant; At least paragraph(s) 26, 32, and 33; the user’s location is tracked to determine the time and place of pickup). At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of Bryant into the invention of Reich with a reasonable expectation of success with the motivation of using a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way with predictable results. Tracking the user’s location would allow the transportation company to send the correct transportation vehicle at the correct time and place, similar to that discussed in at least paragraph(s) 3 of Bryant. For example, upon a flight arrival, tracking the users would allow the transportation vehicle to know the timing and location (especially if there are multiple pickup locations) of the passengers without passenger input, thus increasing customer satisfaction, similar to the end of paragraph(s) 15 of Bryant.
in response to determining the updated location indicating that the passenger computing device has arrived at the event location corresponding to the event:
providing, via the one or more servers for display to a user interface of the passenger computing device, a notification regarding the transportation request and the updated pickup location (Reich; At least paragraph(s) 25 and 28); and
pairing, via the one or more servers, and from among a plurality of driver computing devices associated with the transportation system, a driver computing device with the passenger computing device (Reich; At least paragraph(s) 13, 24, and 29); and
navigating the driver computing device to the updated pickup location to fulfill the transportation request to transport the passenger from the event location (Reich; At least paragraph(s) 13, 24, and 29).
As per claim 24, Reich discloses further comprising: monitoring a digital event information source corresponding to a time of the event; and upon detecting a change to the time of the event, transmitting a notification to the passenger computing device regarding the change to the time (Reich; At least paragraph(s) 27 and 28).
As per claim 25, Reich discloses wherein determining that the transportation request corresponds to the event comprises identifying event information for the event within the transportation request (Reich; At least paragraph(s) 21, 27, and 28).
As per claim 26, Reich discloses wherein determining that the transportation request corresponds to the event comprises: identifying event information within a digital file of the passenger computing device; and determining a likelihood that the passenger is going to attend the event based on the event information within the digital file (Reich; At least paragraph(s) 21).
As per claim 28, Reich discloses further comprising determining, via the one or more servers, that the transportation request corresponds to the event and the event location based on a destination location of the transportation request from the passenger computing device (Reich; At least paragraph(s) 9 and 21).
As per claim 29, Reich discloses further comprising selecting the driver computing device, via the one or more servers, from among the plurality of driver computing devices associated with the transportation system by reserving, based on a time of the event, the driver computing device by temporarily limiting transportation requests transmitted to the driver computing device (Reich; At least paragraph(s) 24; if the driver is reserved for a trip, then they are limited from performing other trips).
As per claims 30 and 32-35, and 36 and 38-40, Reich discloses computer readable medium (Reich; At least paragraph(s) 32) and a system (Reich; At least paragraph(s) 31) for performing the method of claims 21, 24, 25, and 29. Therefore, claims 30 and 32-35, and 36 and 38-40 are rejected using the same citations and reasoning as applied to claims 21, 24, 25, and 29.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 22, 23, 27, 31, and 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reich, in view of Bryant as applied to claim 21, and in further view of 2017/0169366 to Klein et al.
As per claim 22, Reich discloses further comprising upon determining that the transportation request corresponds to the event, transmitting a digital notification to the passenger computing device (Reich; At least paragraph(s) 28)
Although written as intended use in the claim, Reich does not explicitly disclose to confirm that the event is associated with the transportation request. However, the above feature(s) are taught by Klein (Klein; At least paragraph(s) 28). At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of Klein into the invention of Reich with a reasonable expectation of success with the motivation of using a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way with predictable results. Based on an event like a delayed flight, confirmation by the user would be beneficial to ensure, for example, that the user still requires the transportation.
As per claim 23, Reich does not explicitly disclose further comprising associating the event with the transportation request in response to receiving an indication of a user interaction with the digital notification from the passenger computing device.
However, the above feature(s) are taught by Klein (Klein; At least paragraph(s) 28). At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of Klein into the invention of Reich with a reasonable expectation of success with the motivation of using a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way with predictable results. Based on an event like a delayed flight, confirmation by the user would be beneficial to ensure, for example, that the user still requires the transportation.
As per claim 27, Reich does not explicitly disclose wherein determining that the transportation request corresponds to the event comprises: accessing previous transportation requests and historical location data associated with the passenger; and determining a likelihood that the passenger is going to attend the event based on the previous transportation requests and the historical location data.
However, the above feature(s) are taught by Klein (Klein; At least paragraph(s) 39). At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of Klein into the invention of Reich with a reasonable expectation of success with the motivation of using a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way with predictable results. Using previous transportation requests and historical data can help better predict future events to improve transportation scheduling and user experience. For example, routine transportation of a user from a hotel or on a flight to a hotel could be taken into consideration and used to plan future transportation needs.
As per claims 31 and 37, Reich discloses computer readable medium (Reich; At least paragraph(s) 32) and a system (Reich; At least paragraph(s) 31) for performing the method of claims 23 and 23. Therefore, claims 31 and 37 are rejected using the same citations and reasoning as applied to claims 23 and 23.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 17, filed 09/30/2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of the claims has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 17-19, filed 09/30/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection 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. Bryant is brought in to teach the amended limitations of updating a pickup location. Reich discloses determining a driver and navigating the driver to the pickup location, thus in view of Bryant, Reich would navigate to the updated location.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892. The prior art shows the state of the art.
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 DAVID P MERLINO whose telephone number is (571)272-8362. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:30am-3:00pm F 5:30-9:00 am ET.
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, Erin Bishop can be reached at 571-270-3713. 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.
/David P. Merlino/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665