DETAILED ACTION
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.
Information Disclosure Statements
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 2/1/2024 has been acknowledged.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware of, in the specification.
Rejoinder of Restricted Claims
Claim 1 is directed to an allowable process. Pursuant to the procedures set forth in MPEP § 821.04(B), Claim 4, directed to dependent claims, previously withdrawn from consideration as a result of a restriction requirement are hereby rejoined and fully examined for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104.
Because all claims previously withdrawn from consideration under 37 CFR 1.142 have been rejoined, the restriction requirement as set forth in the Office action mailed on 3/31/2025 is hereby withdrawn. In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement as to the rejoined inventions, applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a continuation or divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or non-statutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Once the restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
Status of Application
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim 4 has been rejoined.
Claims 1-5, 9, 15, and 18 have been amended.
Claims 1, 9, and 15 are the independent Claims.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
This Final Office action is in response to the “Amendments and Remarks” received on 5/1/2026.
Response to Arguments
With respect to applicant’s “Amendments and Remarks or Request for Continued Examination” filed on 5/1/2026:. Applicant’s remarks have been fully considered. Applicants remarks will be addressed in the order they were presented.
With respect to the Claims 6, 9, and 13 objection, applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of Claims 6, 9, and 13 have been withdrawn.
With respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (b), applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered and were persuasive. Therefore the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (b) have been withdrawn.
With respect to the previous claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103, applicant has amended the independent claim and these amendments have changed the scope of the original application and the Office has supplied new grounds for rejection attached below in the FINAL office action and therefore the prior arguments are considered moot.
It is the Office’s stance that all of applicant arguments have been considered and the rejections remain.
Final Office Action
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
During examination, claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP §2111, MPEP §2111.01 and In re Yamamoto et al., 222 USPQ 934 10 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. See MPEP 2111.01 (I). It is further noted it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification, i.e., a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See 15 MPEP 2111.01 (II).
A first exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the Applicant for patent has provided a lexicographic definition for the term. See MPEP §2111.01 (IV). Following a review of the claims in view of the specification herein, the Office has found that Applicant has not provided any lexicographic definitions, either expressly or implicitly, for any claim terms or phrases with any reasonable clarity, deliberateness and precision. Accordingly, the Office concludes that Applicant has acted as his/her own lexicographer.
Offline Stage = unavailable to accept transportation requests
Idling stage = awaiting transportation requests
Pick-up stage = Picking up a requestor at a pick up location
Transportation-change request stage = optional transportation stages 308e and 308h, the provider client device 110a optionally changes a destination, route, or waypoint in response to an in-person communication (e.g., a verbal request by a requestor to a provider) or a request from the requestor client device 116a-either before or after pickup.
In-transit stage = in which the provider client device or the transportation vehicle travels to a pickup location or destination associated with a transportation request;
Drop off stage = Drops off the requestor at destination
Account Opening Time = a number of minutes and/or days in the period of time from when the requestor opened an account to when the requestor submitted the present transportation-change request
Card Information corresponding to the transportation service = chargebacks, concessions, bad actor investigations
A second exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the claimed feature is written as a means-plus-function. See 35 U.S.C. §112(f) and MPEP §2181-2183. As noted in MPEP §2181, a three prong test is used to determine the scope of a means-plus-function limitation in a claim:
the claim limitation uses the term "means" or "step" or a term used as a substitute for "means" that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function
the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word "for" (e.g., "means for") or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"
the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
The Office has found herein that the claims do not contain limitations of means or means type language that must be analyzed under 35 U.S.C. §112 (f).
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 15-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (United States Patent Publication 2019/0360833), in view of Kim et al. (United States Patent Publication 2018/0136655), and in further view of Miyazaki et al. (United States Patent Publication 2012/0109516).
With respect to Claim 15: While Liu discloses “A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions thereon that, when executed by at least one processor, cause a computer system to:” [Liu, ¶ 0129, 0145, 0154-0159 and Figure 13];
“identify, during a transportation service resulting from a transportation request, an indication of a request for a transportation change via a mobile application of a mobile device” [Liu, ¶ 0129, 0145, 0154-0159 and Figure 13];
“extract one or more restriction signals corresponding to the transportation request, the one or more restriction signals[Liu, ¶ 0129, 0145, 0154-0159 and Figure 13];
“generate, utilizing a transportation-change model, a destination-restriction metric from the one or more restriction signals” [Liu, ¶ 0129, 0145, 0154-0159 and Figure 13];
“provide, for display within a graphical user interface of the mobile device based on the destination-restriction metric, a notification indicating a restriction preventing the transportation change” [Liu, ¶ 0129, 0145, 0154-0159 and Figure 13];
“and restrict the mobile application of the mobile device from executing the transportation” [Liu, ¶ 0129, 0145, 0154-0159 and Figure 13];
Liu does not specifically state that there is a timing between the start and answer for a restriction signal.
Kim, which is also a taxi system that allows and denies users from making changes to the destinations further teaches “extracting one or more restriction signals corresponding to the transportation request, the one or more restriction signals comprising the one or more restriction signals comprising a time between initiating the transportation request and initiating the request for the transportation change” [Kim, ¶ 0225-0227 (within a predetermined time)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Kim into the invention of Liu to not only include using transportation history and transportation stage which allow users to change destinations as Liu clearly discloses but to also allow stages of service, such as sharing a vehicles, as taught by Kim with a reasonable expectation of success. A motivation of incorporating the teachings of Kim into the invention of Liu would be in creating a more robust system that allows for users consent during travel to changes in the stages of travel of multiple users [Kim, ¶ 0228]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements of vehicle control and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Liu also does not specifically state restricting, rather not allowing and notifying.
Miyazaki, which is also a vehicle navigation system with touch screen control teaches “provide, for display within a graphical user interface of a device, the notification indicating a restriction preventing a change and a visual graphic indicating that a mobile application of the device is restricted from changing the transportation” [Miyazaki, ¶ 0028 and Figures 4a-e];
“and restricting the mobile application of the mobile device from executing the transportation” [Miyazaki, ¶ 0028 and Figures 4a-e].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Miyazaki into the invention of Liu to not only include using transportation history and transportation stage which allow users to change destinations as Liu clearly discloses but to also notify a user of restrictions possible controls with graphical displays and disabling control of touchscreens as taught by Miyazaki with a reasonable expectation of success. A motivation of incorporating the teachings of Miyazaki into the invention of Liu would be in creating a more robust system that allows for users to know what possible controls are available and what are not (more informed users). Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements of vehicle control and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claim 16: While Liu discloses “The non-transitory computer-readable medium as recited in claim 15, further comprising instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the computer system to:” [Liu, ¶ 0129, 0145, 0154-0159 and Figure 13];
“identify the indication of the request for the transportation change via the mobile application of the mobile device by detecting a user interaction via the mobile application selecting an additional waypoint for the transportation service” [Liu, ¶ 0129, 0145, 0154-0159 and Figure 13];
“and restrict the mobile application of the mobile device from adding the additional waypoint” [Liu, ¶ 0129, 0145, 0154-0159 and Figure 13];
Liu does not specifically state restricting, rather not allowing and notifying.
Miyazaki, which is also a vehicle navigation system with touch screen control teaches “provide, for display within a graphical user interface of a device, the notification indicating a restriction preventing a change and a visual graphic indicating that a mobile application of the device is restricted from changing the transportation” [Miyazaki, ¶ 0028 and Figures 4a-e];
“and restrict the mobile application of the mobile device from executing the transportation” [Miyazaki, ¶ 0028 and Figures 4a-e].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Miyazaki into the invention of Liu to not only include using transportation history and transportation stage which allow users to change destinations as Liu clearly discloses but to also notify a user of restrictions possible controls with graphical displays and disabling control of touchscreens as taught by Miyazaki with a reasonable expectation of success. A motivation of incorporating the teachings of Miyazaki into the invention of Liu would be in creating a more robust system that allows for users to know what possible controls are available and what are not (more informed users). Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements of vehicle control and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Office Note: The Office is interpreting a new destination as a new waypoint.
With respect to Claim 17: While Liu discloses “The non-transitory computer-readable medium as recited in claim 15, further comprising instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the computer system to:” [Liu, ¶ 0129, 0145, 0154-0159 and Figure 13];
“identify the indication of the request for the transportation change via the mobile application of the mobile device by detecting a user interaction via the mobile application modifying a destination of the transportation service” [Liu, ¶ 0129, 0145, 0154-0159 and Figure 13];
“and restrict the mobile application of the mobile device from adding the additional waypoint” [Liu, ¶ 0129, 0145, 0154-0159 and Figure 13];
Liu does not specifically state restricting, rather not allowing and notifying.
Miyazaki, which is also a vehicle navigation system with touch screen control teaches “provide, for display within a graphical user interface of a device, the notification indicating a restriction preventing a change and a visual graphic indicating that a mobile application of the device is restricted from changing the transportation” [Miyazaki, ¶ 0028 and Figures 4a-e];
“and restrict the mobile application of the mobile device from executing the transportation” [Miyazaki, ¶ 0028 and Figures 4a-e].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Miyazaki into the invention of Liu to not only include using transportation history and transportation stage which allow users to change destinations as Liu clearly discloses but to also notify a user of restrictions possible controls with graphical displays and disabling control of touchscreens as taught by Miyazaki with a reasonable expectation of success. A motivation of incorporating the teachings of Miyazaki into the invention of Liu would be in creating a more robust system that allows for users to know what possible controls are available and what are not (more informed users). Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements of vehicle control and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claim 18: While Liu discloses “The non-transitory computer-readable medium as recited in claim 15, wherein extracting the one or more restriction signals corresponding” [Liu, ¶ 0129, 0145, 0154-0159 and Figure 13];
Liu does not specifically state that there is a timing between the start and answer for a restriction signal.
Kim, which is also a taxi system that allows and denies users from making changes to the destinations further teaches “wherein extracting the one or more restriction signals comprising the time between initiating the transportation request and initiating the request for the transportation change comprises determining whether the request for the transportation change was received within a threshold time after initiation of the transportation request” [Kim, ¶ 0225-0227 (within a predetermined time)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Kim into the invention of Liu to not only include using transportation history and transportation stage which allow users to change destinations as Liu clearly discloses but to also allow stages of service, such as sharing a vehicles, as taught by Kim with a reasonable expectation of success. A motivation of incorporating the teachings of Kim into the invention of Liu would be in creating a more robust system that allows for users consent during travel to changes in the stages of travel of multiple users [Kim, ¶ 0228]. Additionally, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old, well known elements of vehicle control and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
With respect to Claim 20: Liu discloses “The non-transitory computer-readable medium as recited in claim 15, further comprising instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the computer system to provide” [Liu, ¶ 0129, 0145, 0154-0159 and Figure 13];
“for display within the graphical user interface of the mobile device based on the destination restriction metric, the notification indicating the restriction preventing the transportation change by providing the notification for display via a provider computing device associated with the transportation service” [Liu, ¶ 0129, 0145, 0154-0159 and Figure 13].
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is 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.
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).
Allowable Subject Matter
With respect to Claims 1-14: Claims 1 and 9 have been found to contain allowable subject matter. Any claims that depend there from are also found to contain allowable subject matter due to their dependency on the allowable subject matter.
Reasons for Allowance
The allowable subject matter found in the Claim 1 that has not been found to have been anticipated or taught in the prior art, in combination with the other claim limitations is as follows: “extracting one or more restriction signals corresponding to the transportation request, the one or more restriction signals comprising card information corresponding to the transportation service; generating, utilizing a transportation-change model, a destination-restriction metric from the one or more restriction signals; providing, for display within a graphical user interface of the mobile device based on the destination-restriction metric, a notification indicating a restriction preventing the transportation change; and restricting the mobile application of the mobile device from executing the transportation change”.
The allowable subject matter found in the Claim 9 that has not been found to have been anticipated or taught in the prior art, in combination with the other claim limitations is as follows: “extracting one or more restriction signals corresponding to the transportation request, the one or more restriction signals comprising an account-opening time, utilizing a transportation-change model, a destination-restriction metric from the one or more restriction signals; providing, for display within a graphical user interface of the mobile device based on the destination-restriction metric, a notification indicating a restriction preventing the transportation change; and restricting the mobile application of the mobile device from executing the transportation change”.
The closest prior art of reference is Liu et al. (United States Patent Publication 2019/0360833). Liu is also system and method for providing navigation, however Liu does not specifically state a system with the limitations as stated above.
Another prior art of reference is Katara et al. (United States Patent Publication 2016/0301698). Katara is also system and method for in vehicle authorization, however Katara does not specifically state the limitations as stated above.
Both of these references either independently or in combination fail to anticipate or teach the limitations as stated above in combination with the other claimed limitations. Therefore Claims 1 and 9 contain allowable subject matter and any claims that depend there from are also found to contain allowable subject matter.
Prior Art (Not relied upon)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the attached form 892.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESS WHITTINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-7937. The examiner can normally be reached on 7am -4pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Browne can be reached on (571)-270-0151. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JESS WHITTINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666c
Prosecution Insights