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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/6/2026 has been entered.
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.
Status of Application
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim 4 has been withdrawn from consideration but is able to be rejoined once allowable subject matter is captured in the independent claims.
Claims 1-5, 7-9, 12, 15, and 18 have been amended.
Claims 1, 9, and 15 are the independent Claims.
Claims 1-3 and 5-20 are pending.
This Non-Final Office action is in response to the “Request for Continued Examination with Amendments and Remarks” received on 1/6/2026.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
With respect to Applicant’s remarks filed on 1/6//2026; Applicant's “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
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 Non-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.
Non-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
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 Objections
Claim 9 have typographical errors that need to be corrected.
Claim 9 states “extract one or more restriction signals corresponding to the transportation request, the one or more restriction signals comprising at least one of: transportation history, a number of previous requests for transportation associated with an account associated with the mobile device, an account-opening time” and should read “extract one or more restriction signals corresponding to the transportation request, the one or more restriction signals comprising at least one of: transportation history, a number of previous requests for transportation associated with an account associated with the mobile device, or an account-opening time”.
This Office suggests going through all claims and looking for similar errors as the above listed errors, as the above list was exemplary in nature and by no means exhaustive. Appropriate action 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 1-3, 5-8, and 18 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 states “extracting one or more restriction signals corresponding to the transportation request, the one or more restriction signals comprising at least one of: a transportation stage of the transportation service comprising an offline stage, an idling stage, a pickup stage, a transportation change request stage, an in-transit stage, or a drop-off stage” and this limitation is unclear and indefinite for two reasons. First, is this list inclusive or does any would any of the stages count. For example, are these the only possible stages allowed, or could there be more? Further, the list states “offline stage” yet based on the specification, in the Offline stage, the provider is unavailable to accept transportation requests, thus how would a change to a request to a provider that is not available to for transport function? As currently presented, Claim 1 fails to clearly recite the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter, therefore it is indefinite. The Office is going to interpret this as an exemplary list, thus one of the stages, based on definitions defined by the specification. Appropriate action is required.
Claim 2 states “extracting the one or more restriction signals comprising the transportation stage of the transportation service comprises detecting the mobile device in the pickup stage” and the metes and bounds of this claim limitation are unclear, thus indefinite. First, this claim appears to further limit one of the possible stages of the transportation stage, which itself is part of a list of possible restrictive signals. However, here the limitation is not definite the stage, yet a step of a stage, thus the metes and bounds are unclear thus indefinite. Does this mean that the restrictive signal is one of a transport stage when a mobile is detected, or does the pickup stage defined by detecting the mobile device? If so, how would in transit vs pickup stage, vs drop-off stage be different? As currently presented, Claim 2 fails to clearly recite the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter, thus is indefinite. The Office is going to interpret any type interaction with a mobile device as reading on a transportation stage, since no stages exist without a request. Appropriate action is required.
Claim 18 states “extract the one or more restriction signals corresponding to the transportation request comprises determining an account-opening time” and the metes and bounds of this limitation are unclear, thus indefinite. Does this new item from the list mean just one, as adding a new possibility, or is this adding a second value ,thus the restriction signal must be from at least one of the list in Claim 15, and further add in account-opening time? As currently presented, Claim 18 fails to clearly recite the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter, thus is indefinite. The Office is going to interpret this as adding to the list of “at least one” as recited previously and in Claim 1. Appropriate action is required.
Claims 3 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on rejected claim and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above
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 1-3 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (United States Patent Publication 2019/0360833), in further view of Katara et al. (United States Patent Publication 2016/0301698), and in further view of Miyazaki et al. (United States Patent Publication 2012/0109516).
With respect to Claim 1: While Liu discloses “A computer-implemented method comprising” [Liu, ¶ 0129, 0145, 0154-0159 and Figure 13];
“identifying, 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];
“extracting one or more restriction signals corresponding to the transportation request, the one or more restriction signals comprising at least one of: a transportation stage of the transportation service comprising an offline stage, an idling stage, a pickup stage, a transportation change request stage, an in-transit stage, or a drop-off stage, transportation history, a number of previous requests for transportation associated with an account associated with the mobile device, an account-opening time, card information corresponding to the transportation service, or a time between initiating the transportation request and initiating the request for the transportation change” [Liu, ¶ 0129, 0145, 0154-0159 and Figure 13];
“generating, utilizing a transportation-change model, a destination-restriction metric from the one or more restriction signals” [Liu, ¶ 0129, 0145, 0154-0159 and Figure 13];
“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” [Liu, ¶ 0129, 0145, 0154-0159 and Figure 13];
“and restricting the mobile application of the mobile device from executing the transportation” [Liu, ¶ 0129, 0145, 0154-0159 and Figure 13];
Liu does not specifically state restricting signals based on transportation stages or services, even though Liu states “if the service provider of the service order has accepted a carpooling order, or the service provider has pre-configured the provider terminal 140 to refuse modify destination” [Liu, ¶ 0157], which broadly could be interpreted as a transportation stage of the service.
Katara, 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 at least one of: a transportation stage of the transportation service comprising an offline stage, an idling stage, a pickup stage, a transportation change request stage, an in-transit stage, or a drop-off stage” [Katara, ¶ 0047].
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 Katara into the invention of Liu to not only include using transportation history and transportation stages which allow users to change destinations as Liu clearly discloses but to state the change requests come during stages such as “during the taxi ride” as taught by Katara with a reasonable expectation of success. A motivation of incorporating the teachings of Katara into the invention of Liu would be in creating a more robust system that allows for different levels of control based on local and global policies/authorization which increases safety [Katara, ¶ 0026]. 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.
Claim Construction
Claim language reciting an alternative format presents the Office with a choice of examining either alternative presented, but not both. Thus all claims that depend on the alternative not examined claim limitations are withdrawn from consideration.
Claim 1 states “one or more restricting signals comprising at least one
a transportation stage of the transportation service
transportation history
number of previous requests for transportation associated with an account associated with the mobile device
an account-opening time
card information corresponding to the transportation service
or a time between initiating the transportation request and initiating the
request for the transportation change.
Therefore only one of these restriction signals needs be mapped out to meet this list.
With respect to Claim 2: Liu discloses “The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein extracting the one or more restriction signals comprising the transportation stage of the transportation service comprises detecting the mobile device in the pickup stage” [Liu, ¶ 0129, 0145, 0154-0159 and Figure 13].
Office Note: Claim 2 states “pick up stage” however, Claim 1 in which Claim 2 depends, does not require “the pick-up stage” since this restriction signal is in a list of “at least one” of multiple stages. Regarding the conditional phrase “at least one of”, Applicants are reminded that optional or conditional elements do not narrow the claims because they can always be omitted. See e.g. MPEP §2106 II C: “Language that suggest or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. [Emphasis in original.]”; see also MPEP §2111.04; and In re Johnston, 435 F.3d 1381, 77 USPQ2d 1788, 1790 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“As a matter of linguistic precision, optional elements do not narrow the claim because they can always be omitted.”). Since Claim 2 is an extension of a not selected option, thus Claim 2 limitations are not required, and these limitations will be omitted as being not chosen.
With respect to Claim 3: While Liu discloses “The computer-implemented method of claim 1, comprising wherein extracting the one or more restriction signals comprising the transportation history comprises detecting one or more signals from a provider computing device associated with the transportation service comprising: a length of service of a provider associated with the provider computing device relative to the transportation service; or an average rating associated with the provider computing device” [Liu, ¶ 0129, 0145, 0154-0159 and Figure 13].
Office Note: Claim 3 states “the transportation history” however, Claim 1 in which Claim 3 depends, does not require “the transportation history” since this restriction signal is in a list of “at least one”. Regarding the conditional phrase “at least one of”, Applicants are reminded that optional or conditional elements do not narrow the claims because they can always be omitted. See e.g. MPEP §2106 II C: “Language that suggest or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. [Emphasis in original.]”; see also MPEP §2111.04; and In re Johnston, 435 F.3d 1381, 77 USPQ2d 1788, 1790 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“As a matter of linguistic precision, optional elements do not narrow the claim because they can always be omitted.”). Since Claim 3 is an extension of a not selected option, thus Claim 3 limitations are not required, and these limitations will be omitted as being not chosen.
With respect to Claim 5: Liu discloses “The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein extracting the one or more restriction signals comprising the account-opening time comprises determining a period of time from when a requestor computing device opened an account with a transportation matching system to when the requestor computing device submitted the transportation change” [Liu, ¶ 0129, 0145, 0154-0159 and Figure 13].
Office Note: Claim 5 states “determining the account-opening time” however, Claim 1 in which Claim 5 depends, does not require “account-opening time” since this restriction signal is in a list of “at least one”. Regarding the conditional phrase “at least one of”, Applicants are reminded that optional or conditional elements do not narrow the claims because they can always be omitted. See e.g. MPEP §2106 II C: “Language that suggest or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. [Emphasis in original.]”; see also MPEP §2111.04; and In re Johnston, 435 F.3d 1381, 77 USPQ2d 1788, 1790 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“As a matter of linguistic precision, optional elements do not narrow the claim because they can always be omitted.”). Since Claim 5 is an extension of a not selected option, thus Claim 5 limitations are not required, and these limitations will be omitted as being not chosen.
With respect to Claim 7: Liu discloses “The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein extracting the one or more restriction signals comprising the card information corresponding to the transportation service comprises determining payment card information comprising one or more of a payment-card type or an incremental processing stage associated with payment” [Liu, ¶ 0129, 0145, 0154-0159 and Figure 13].
Office Note: Claim 7 states “card information corresponding to the transportation service” however, Claim 1 in which Claim 7 depends, does not require “card information corresponding to the transportation service” since this restriction signal is in a list of “at least one”. Regarding the conditional phrase “at least one of”, Applicants are reminded that optional or conditional elements do not narrow the claims because they can always be omitted. See e.g. MPEP §2106 II C: “Language that suggest or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. [Emphasis in original.]”; see also MPEP §2111.04; and In re Johnston, 435 F.3d 1381, 77 USPQ2d 1788, 1790 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“As a matter of linguistic precision, optional elements do not narrow the claim because they can always be omitted.”). Since Claim 7 is an extension of a not selected option, thus Claim 7 limitations are not required, and these limitations will be omitted as being not chosen.
With respect to Claim 8: Liu discloses “The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising providing, 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 requester computing device associated with the transportation service” [Liu, ¶ 0129, 0145, 0154-0159 and Figure 13].
Claims 9-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (United States Patent Publication 2019/0360833) in further view of Miyazaki et al. (United States Patent Publication 2012/0109516).
With respect to Claim 9: While Liu discloses “A system comprising at least one processor and at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions thereon that when executed by the at least one processor, cause the 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 comprising at least one of: transportation history, a number of previous requests for transportation associated with an account associated with the mobile device, an account-opening time” [Liu, ¶ 0129, 0145, 0154-0159 and Figure 13 (if the CPU 340 determines that the service requestor is the first time to change the destination according to the processing procedure, the request may be determined as reasonable. If the CPU 340 determines that the service requestor changes the destination too frequently (e.g., the service requestor send the request for modifying destination for the fifth time), the request may be determined as unreasonable)];
“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 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.
Claim Construction
Claim language reciting an alternative format presents the Office with a choice of examining either alternative presented, but not both. Thus all claims that depend on the alternative not examined claim limitations are withdrawn from consideration.
Claim 9 states “one or more restricting signals comprising at least one
transportation history
number of previous requests for transportation associated with an account associated with the mobile device
an account-opening time
Therefore only one of these restriction signals needs be mapped out to meet this list.
With respect to Claim 10: While Liu discloses “The system of claim 9, further comprising instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to” [Liu, ¶ 0129, 0145, 0154-0159 and Figure 13];
“identifying 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 restricting 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 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.
Office Note: The Office is interpreting a new destination as a new waypoint.
With respect to Claim 11: While Liu discloses “The system of claim 9, further comprising instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to” [Liu, ¶ 0129, 0145, 0154-0159 and Figure 13];
“identifying 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 restricting 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 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 12: Liu discloses “The system of claim 9, further comprising instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to” [Liu, ¶ 0129, 0145, 0154-0159 and Figure 13];
“extract the one or more restriction signals corresponding to the transportation request comprises determining the account-opening time; and generating, utilizing a transportation-change model, a destination-restriction metric from the account-opening time” [Liu, ¶ 0129, 0145, 0154-0159 and Figure 13].
Office Note: Claim 12 states “determining the account-opening time” however, Claim 9 in which Claim 12 depends, does not require “account-opening time” since this restriction signal is in a list of “at least one”. Regarding the conditional phrase “at least one of”, Applicants are reminded that optional or conditional elements do not narrow the claims because they can always be omitted. See e.g. MPEP §2106 II C: “Language that suggest or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. [Emphasis in original.]”; see also MPEP §2111.04; and In re Johnston, 435 F.3d 1381, 77 USPQ2d 1788, 1790 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“As a matter of linguistic precision, optional elements do not narrow the claim because they can always be omitted.”). Since Claim 12 is an extension of a not selected option, thus Claim 12 limitations are not required, and these limitations will be omitted as being not chosen.
With respect to Claim 14: Liu discloses “The system of claim 9, further comprising instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the 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].
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 comprising at least one of: card information corresponding to the transportation service, or number of times of a request” [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];
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 at least one of: card information corresponding to the transportation service, or 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.
Claim Construction
Claim language reciting an alternative format presents the Office with a choice of examining either alternative presented, but not both. Thus all claims that depend on the alternative not examined claim limitations are withdrawn from consideration.
Claim 15 states “one or more restricting signals comprising at least one
card information corresponding to the transportation service
or a time between initiating the transportation request and initiating the request for the transportation change.
Therefore only one of these restriction signals needs be mapped out to meet this list.
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: 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];
“extract the one or more restriction signals corresponding to the transportation request comprises determining an account-opening time; and generating, utilizing a transportation-change model, a destination-restriction metric from the account-opening time” [Liu, ¶ 0129, 0145, 0154-0159 and Figure 13].
Office Note: Claim 18 states “determining the account-opening time” however, Claim 15 in which Claim 18 depends, does not require “account-opening time” since this restriction signal is in a list of “at least one”. Regarding the conditional phrase “at least one of”, Applicants are reminded that optional or conditional elements do not narrow the claims because they can always be omitted. See e.g. MPEP §2106 II C: “Language that suggest or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. [Emphasis in original.]”; see also MPEP §2111.04; and In re Johnston, 435 F.3d 1381, 77 USPQ2d 1788, 1790 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“As a matter of linguistic precision, optional elements do not narrow the claim because they can always be omitted.”). Since Claim 18 is an extension of a not selected option, thus Claim 18 limitations are not required, and these limitations will be omitted as being not chosen.
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
Claims 6, 13, and 19 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.
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).
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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESS G WHITTINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-7937. The examiner can normally be reached on 7-5.
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