Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/29/2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 are canceled. Claims 21 and 39 have been amended. Claims 21-40 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/29/2026 regarding 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that their claims and invention provides an improvement to technology or technical field, specifically fraud detection and prevention and that their solution is unconventional as identified by “Claims 21 and 39 recit[ing] a particular way to achieve the solution (i.e., requesting a first GPS signal including a third location of the mobile device at the first time, requesting a second GPS signal including a fourth location of the mobile device at the second time, comparing the first location to the third location and the second location to the fourth location, and transmitting a payment request to charge the user account the trip price in response to the first location being substantially similar to the third location and the second location being substantially similar to the fourth location)”. Examiner disagrees. Monitoring the movement of a user with a mobile device and merchant computer system of a vehicle to ensure accuracy when charging a user and reducing the potential for false charges (which it appears the applicant is referring to as “fraud”) is not an improvement in computers or technology, but at best may indicate an improvement in the judicial exception itself. Charging accuracy in transportation services by determining when the user exits the transport vehicle at best improves the commercial interactions and management of personal behavior aspects of certain methods of organizing human activity. Further, the evaluation and observation of the data may be used in improving accurate charging, which indicates an improvement in a business process and mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). It is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the judicial exception itself (e.g., a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG LLC, the court determined that the claim simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology. Similarly, the Applicant’s claim recitations are an improvement in the judicial exception, not an improvement in technology. Users being incorrectly charged for a service as described in the applicant’s invention is not a technical problem, but a problem in a business processes of a travel service provider of determining locations for the purpose of charging a user for a service, which as describe the applicant’s invention, is rooted in the observation, evaluation of (location) data and making a judgment and/or or opinion (whether locations are substantially similar indicating a user being in a certain location) based on the observed and evaluated data. Accurate billing in this sense is not an improvement to computers or technology, but corresponds to commercial interactions and managing personal behavior or interactions. Further, based on the prior art, examiner is not persuaded that applicant’s method of comparing locations to see whether they’re substantially similar, and charging the passenger or user based on the locations being substantially similar is unconventional. Similar or the same concepts are disclosed in the prior art references and are used to determine that the passenger is on the vehicle, determine when the passenger exits the vehicle, and to ensure that the passenger is charged accurately for their time or locations while traveling from stop to stop. Lastly, under Step 2B, whether the additional elements define only well-understood, routine, conventional activity is only one consideration under Step 2B. Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include: mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. The applicant’s claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements used to perform the limitations that recite the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 21 and 39 have been amended to recite “in response to determining the trip price by the merchant computer system: requesting, by the merchant computer system, a first GPS signal from the mobile device, the first GPS signal including a third location registered to the mobile device at the first time; requesting, by the merchant computer system, a second GPS signal from the mobile device, the second GPS signal including a fourth location registered to the mobile device at the second time; and comparing, by the merchant computer system, the first location to the third location and the second location to the fourth location”. There is no sufficient support for this amendment in the specification, and thus the amended limitation is considered new matter. Applicant’s specification [0043] discloses that GPS signals of the bus or the mobile computing device 320 or of other electronic locations which the bus may pass and the second time may be used to establish a location at a point in time, and [0044] (which corresponds to Fig. 2) discloses “At block 240, a price for traveling from the first location to the second location may be determined.” Further [0045] discloses that a user may be charged the determined price. When it comes to determining a third location registered to the mobile device at the first time and a fourth location registered to the mobile device at the second time (via GPS signal) the specification does not support the amendment, nor disclose or suggest, that the GPS signals that include the third and fourth location are requested in response to determining the trip price. The portion of the specification that discloses determining a third and fourth location includes [0050]-[0051] which also does not disclose no r indicated the merchant computer system requesting a GPS signal that includes a third and fourth location at their respective points in time in response to determining a trip price. It the examiner’s position that there is no request of a GPS signal from the mobile device by the merchant computer system, and further that the alleged request is not in response to a trip price being determined. Due to the lack of sufficient support for the amended limitation(s) resulting the amended limitations being considered new matter, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Dependent claims 22-38 and 40 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, due to their dependency on the rejected claims above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 21-38 recite a method (i.e. process), and claims 39 and 40 recite a system (i.e. machine). Therefore claims 21-40 fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Independent claims 21 and 39 recite the limitations: receiving, by a [merchant computer system], a transmission comprising user account data from a [mobile device] associated with a user account at the first location; determining, by the [merchant computer system], the first location at a first time based on the received transmission; establishing, by the [merchant computer system], a communication session with the [mobile device] based on the transmission received; monitoring, by the [merchant computer system], the communication session during a travel from the first location to the second location, wherein the monitoring comprises: determining, during the travel from the first location to the second location, a first parameter associated with the[ mobile device], wherein the first parameter is indicative of a motion of the [mobile device]; determining, during the travel from the first location to the second location, a second parameter associated with the merchant computer system, wherein the second parameter is indicative of motion of the [merchant computer system]; determining a termination of the communication session by comparing a difference between the first parameter and the second parameter to a threshold, wherein the communication session is terminated in response to the difference between the first parameter and the second parameter exceeding the threshold; and determining, by the [merchant computer system], the second location at a second time in response to terminating the communication session; determining, by the [merchant computer system], a trip price for the trip; in response to determining the trip price by the merchant computer system: requesting, by the [merchant computer system], a [first GPS signal from the mobile device], the [first GPS signal] including a third location registered to the mobile device at the first time; requesting, by the [merchant computer system], a [second GPS signal from the mobile device], the [second GPS signal] including a fourth location registered to the [mobile device] at the second time; and comparing, by the [merchant computer system], the first location to the third location and the second location to the fourth location; and in response to the first location being substantially similar to the third location and the second location being substantially similar to the fourth location, transmitting, to a [payment system], a payment request to charge the user account the trip price using the user account data. The claims are directed to communicating payment data and allowing users to pay for transport services automatically as well as verifying the user or passenger has entered, is currently on, and/or has exited the vehicle, and the claim limitations directly correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal interactions, commercial interactions, business relations), as evidenced by limitations relating to receiving user account data associated with a user account at the first location, determining motion of the merchant and user, determining a trip price for the trip, and transmitting a payment request to charge the user account the trip price using the user account data. The claim limitations also correspond to mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), as evidenced by limitations relating to establishing and monitoring a communication session between a user [device] and merchant [computer system] during travel from a first to a second location, determining the motion of the user device and merchant computer system, determining a termination of the communication session by comparing a difference between the first and second location to a threshold, wherein the communication session is terminated in response to the difference between the first parameter and the second parameter exceeding the threshold, determining the second location in response to terminating the communication session, and comparing the first location to a third location and the second location to a fourth location. The claims recite an abstract idea.
Note: the features or elements in brackets in the above Step 2A Prong One section are inserted for reading clarity, but are analyzed as “additional elements” under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B below.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim recites the additional elements of a mobile computing associated with a user, a merchant computer system, at least one processor (claim 39), a GPS signal of the mobile device and at least one memory (claim 39). The additional elements are computer components recited at a high-level of generality performing the above-mentioned limitations, and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer, or merely using a computer a tool to implement the abstract idea. Additionally, the GPS signal amounts to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use (obtaining location information for determining a fare for a passenger using a transport service). The combination of the additional elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements to perform the above mentioned steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 29 recites the limitation that the merchant computer system operates a geo-fenced area of the merchant computer system. The claim limitation is further directed to the abstract idea analyzed above. The claim also recites the additional elements of a geo-fenced area of the merchant computer system. The geo-fenced area amounts to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use (obtaining location information for determining a fare for a passenger using a transport service), and the merchant computer system amounts to “apply it” or merely using a computer as a tool to implement the judicial exception. Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 22-28, 30-38, and 40 recite additional limitations that are further directed to the abstract idea analyzed in the rejected claims above. The claims also recite additional elements that have been analyzed in the rejected claims above. Thus, claims 22-28, 30-38, and 40 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
The factual inquiries 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 the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 21, 26-28, 33-35, 37, and 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brock (US 10,332,162) in view of Yuan (2016/0117867).
Claim 21: Brock discloses: A method for charging a user for a trip from a first location to a second location, the method comprising:
receiving, by a merchant computer system, a transmission comprising user account data from a mobile device associated with a user account at the first location; (Brock Col. 4, Ln. 14-19 disclosing the receiver (of the merchant) receiving a signal emitted by the wireless beacon of the user (see also Col. 3, Ln. 31-34); the signal will generally encode a user identifier that can be used by the receiver to distinguish one user from another; the user identifier can also be used by a payment service to identify a user account of the user; the receiver can be a computer (Col. 3, Ln. 27-30))
determining, by the merchant computer system, the first location at a first time based on the received transmission; (Brock Col. 4, Ln. 47-49 The receiver determines that the user is on board the train; in general, the receiver can analyze one or more on-board criteria to determine that user is on board the train; receiver can determine that the user is on board the train if the user is close enough to the receiver, e.g., within a threshold distance to the receiver; the receiver can determine a distance to a wireless beacon that is emitting the signal; see also Col. 4, Ln. 3-7 disclosing the receiver on the train generating ride information that describes the transit ride by the user; ride information can represent locations and times at which the user is determined to be on board the train; see also Col. 6, Ln. 5-7; Col. 5, Ln. 53-67)
establishing, by the merchant computer system, a communication session with the mobile device based on the transmission received; (Brock Col. 2, Ln. 14-24 disclosing wireless beacon refers to a personal user device that continuously or repeatedly emits mid-range to short-range radio signals that can communicate information wirelessly to other devices. A wireless beacon can communicate information, e.g. a user identifier, to another device using an automatic pairing process, e.g., without the devices engaging in a pairing process that requires user input and without requiring explicit user authorization to communicate with another device; Col. 2, Ln. 46-50 disclosing the receiver device receiving incoming BLE signals that encodes user identifiers; Col. 4, Ln. 14-19 disclosing the receiver (of the merchant) receiving a signal emitted by the wireless beacon of the user (see also Col. 3, Ln. 31-34); the signal will generally encode a user identifier that can be used by the receiver to distinguish one user from another)
monitoring, by the merchant computer system, the communication session during a travel from the first location to the second location, wherein the monitoring comprises: (Brock Col. 3, Ln. 31-40 disclosing the user being on the bus (first location) and the receiver receiving the signal and determining whether or not the user is on board the bus via measuring the signals emitted from the wireless beacons; Col. 3, Ln. 50-54 discloses as the bus moves, the monitoring continues and records locations where the user is on board; Col. 3, Ln. 55 disclosing the user exiting the bus (second location) and the bus determining when the user has exited; see also Col. 5, Ln. 57-67 disclosing the monitoring from a first location to a second location)
determining, during the travel from the first location to the second location, a first parameter associated with the mobile device, wherein the first parameter is indicative of a motion of the mobile device; (Brock Col. 3, Ln. 31-34 the user is on board the bus and is in possession of a wireless beacon that emits a signal; the receiver device receives the signal and determines whether or not eh user is on board the bus; note that the wireless beacon can be a part of a mobile phone, etc. (Col. 2, Ln. 24-25); Col. 4, Ln. 47-52 disclosing the receiver determines that the user is on board the train, the receiver can analyze one or more on-board criteria to determine that user is on board the train; the receiver can determine that the user is on board the train if the user is close enough to the receiver motion, e.g., within a threshold distance to the receiver; Col. 5, Ln. 3-5 disclosing the receiver determining that the user is on the train after the train has moved and determining that the user threshold distance is within the threshold (motion, the user/device is in motion along with the train); Col. 5, Ln. 16-18 disclosing checking for the signal strength of the user’s device when the train is moving and the steady signals indicating the user is on board and moving with the train; Col. 5, Ln.42-52 disclosing the signals emitted from the user device to the receiver may include encoded geolocation information as well)
determining, during the travel from the first location to the second location, a second parameter associated with the merchant computer system, wherein the second parameter is indicative of motion of the merchant computer system; (Brock Col. 5, Ln. 29-34 disclosing the receiver determining ride information including location information about locations the user was present on the train; the receiver may repeatedly determine its own location using GPS, etc.; see also Col. 5, Ln. 60-63; further for clarity as indicated above, when the train is moving from a first location to a second location, the receiver of the train receives signals from beacons along the route as it travels (see Col. 5, Ln. 31-41))
determining a termination of the communication session by comparing a difference between the first parameter and the second parameter to a threshold, wherein the communication session is terminated in response to the difference between the first parameter and the second parameter exceeding the threshold; and (Brock Col. 3, Ln. 43-46 disclosing the receiver device receives the signal and determines that the user is not on board the bus, e.g., by determining that the user is not within a threshold distance of the receiver device; Col. 5, Ln. 9-15 disclosing the receiver comparing the first and second distance and if the distance is large and satisfies a threshold, the user is determined to not be on the train Col. 3, Ln. 55-59 disclosing when the user exits the bus the signals emitted by the wireless beacon wanes at the receiver device, and the receiver can determine the user has exited the bus; Col. 6, Ln. 10-18 disclosing the receiver determining the user is no longer on the train…the signal emitted fades (communication terminated) after the train moves and the receiver determine that the user is no longer on the train)
determining, by the merchant computer system, the second location at a second time in response to terminating the communication session; (Brock Col. 5, Ln. 63-66 disclosing the receiver may also determine locations from a start location and an end location, e.g., if the receiver determines that the user boarded at Central Street and exited at King Street; also Col. 5, Ln. 61-63 indicates times associated with the locations; see also Col. 6, Ln. 5-7 receiver can associated the determined locations and times; Col. 7, Ln. 28-39)
determining, by the merchant computer system, a trip price for the trip; (Brock Col. 3, Ln. 55-67 disclosing the payment service system determining a fare for the trip)
Brock in view of Yuan discloses:
in response to determining the trip price by the merchant computer system: requesting, by the merchant computer system, a first GPS signal from the mobile device, the first GPS signal including a third location registered to the mobile device at the first time;
Brock discloses requesting, by the merchant computer system, a first GPS signal from the mobile device, the first GPS signal including a third location registered to the mobile device at the first time:(Brock Col. 3, Ln. 18-30 “The receiver device 120 can receive wireless beacons signals to determine users who are on the bus 110 (first location) and locations to where they rode the bus 110.” ; Col. 4, Ln. 47-52 disclosing the receiver determining that the user is on board the train (first location); Col. 5, Ln. 53-67 disclosing the times according to the train schedule that associates the times with locations that the user was still on the train (e.g. determining the user was still on the train… at Central Street at 10:30 (Ln. 60-61), (third location and time)), the receiver determines that the user boarded at Central street (Ln. 65); Col. 5, Ln. 28-41 disclosing the ride information includes location information such as transit stations, transit zone, etc.; the first location is that the user is actually on the bus (boards the train), the third location represents the transit station/location/zone where the user boards the train; Col. 5, Ln. 42-46 disclosing the signal emitted may encode the geolocation information using GPS signals to determine its location and provide it to the receiver; thus since it is also discloses that the receiver repeatedly receives geolocations signal from the user devices (which include GPS), the information includes location where the user is determined to be on the train (also Col. 5, Ln. 60-64 disclosing determining locations from a start to end locations, thus there is a third GPS signal received; see also Col. 6, Ln. 5-7 disclosing the receiver can associate the determined locations and times with the identifier encoded in the wireless beacon signal). Regarding the cited limitation(s) above being in response to determining the trip price by the merchant computer system, Brock discloses a system wherein a user may visit various locations (Col. 7, Ln. 20-22; Col. 5, Ln. 53-67) and that a fare may be calculated for each segment, each segment being associated with a location or identifier (see Col. 43-Col. 8, Ln. 3; Col. 6, Ln. 5-9) and thus strongly suggests that a fare may be determined for a particular segment that the user has traveled, and subsequent GPS signals may be requested when the user visits other locations (third, etc.) on the transport service vehicle. This limitation, however, is not explicitly disclosed. Yuan suggests or discloses this limitation/concept: (Yuan ¶0044 when a passenger takes a bus, a vehicle receiver automatically opens corresponding position information software of a mobile phone of the passenger, the electronic system for public traffic acquires position information of the mobile phone of the passenger and meanwhile checks or freezes or deducts a full fare of this bus ticket from a corresponding payment account of the passenger (trip price determined); when the passenger gets off the bus from the rear door after arrival a stop, the electronic system for public traffic performs a distance comparison to the position information of the mobile phone of the passenger and the position information of the electronic system for public traffic (third signal, similar to Brock, the distance is within a threshold it is implied in Yuan that the passenger is still on the vehicle, see next citation for when the user has exited); if the distance is larger than the length of the bus, it is judged that the passenger has got off the bus, and the corresponding position information (fourth signal) software of the mobile phone of the passenger is closed; see also ¶0045 which discloses a passenger taking a bus which has a fare charged in segments and the position is determined at the latest closing or opening of the door; also note that the signal is a GPS signal as disclosed in ¶0028 wireless communication system includes a GPS (Global Positioning System) and a mobile operation network base station positioning system, and it is automatically judged that the passenger has got off by the wireless communication system). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Brock to include in response to determining the trip price by the merchant computer system: requesting, by the merchant computer system, a first GPS signal from the mobile device, the first GPS signal including a third location registered to the mobile device at the first time as taught by Yuan. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Brock in order to provide an improved an intelligent electronic system for public traffic (see ¶0026 of Yuan).
Note: the explanation, citation, and rationale to combine Yuan is also applicable to the subsequent limitations regarding the limitations being “in response to determining the trip price by the merchant computer system”)
Brock, as modified above, discloses the following limitations:
requesting, by the merchant computer system, a second GPS signal from the mobile device, the second GPS signal including a fourth location registered to the mobile device at the second time; and (Brock Col. 6, Ln. 10-18 disclosing the receiver determining the user is no longer on the train (second location)…the signal emitted fades after the train moves and the receiver determine that the user is no longer on the train (second location); Col. 5, Ln. 16-27 also disclosing the receiver checking for when the measured signal strength of a user drops when the train is moving and determine the user is no longer on the train; Col. 5, Ln. 53-67 disclosing the user at 10:38 being on the train at King Street (fourth location and time), and exiting at King Street (Ln. 66); Col. 5, Ln. 42-46 disclosing the signal emitted may encode the geolocation information using GPS signals to determine its location and provide it to the receiver; thus since it is also discloses that the receiver repeatedly receives geolocations signal from the user devices (which include GPS), the information includes location where the user is determined to be on the train, also Col. 5, Ln. 60-64 disclosing determining locations from a start to end locations; also as cited above, the receiver receives the signals as it wanes to determine the user exited the bus at a location (fourth location), thus there is a fourth GPS signal received)
comparing, by the merchant computer system, the first location to the third location and the second location to the fourth location; and in response to the first location being substantially similar to the third location and the second location being substantially similar to the fourth location, (Brock Col. 6, Ln. 1-9 disclosing the receiver recording the locations and times; Col. 5, Ln. 60-64 disclosing determining locations from a start to end locations; Col. 7, Ln. 28-42 disclosing the system determining the location information to which the user traveled on the train and the times; Col. 7, Ln. 43-47 disclosing the system uses the location information to determine/computing a fare; Col. 9, Ln. 16-25 disclosing the payment system including one or more servers that has fare calculation information from transit authorities; According to the Applicant’s claims, the first location represents a first site the mobile computing device communicated with the merchant system (transmission) which is disclosed in Brock Col. 3, Ln. 18-30 “The receiver device 120 can receive wireless beacons signals to determine users who are on the bus 110 (first location); and the second location represents a second site where wireless communication with the mobile computing device and the merchant system has ended (disclosed in Brock Col. 3, Ln. 55-59 disclosing when the user exits the bus the signals emitted by the wireless beacon wanes at the receiver device, and the receiver can determine the user has exited the bus; Col. 6, Ln. 10-18 disclosing the receiver determining the user is no longer on the train…the signal emitted fades after the train moves and the receiver determine that the user is no longer on the train). Note that in Brock, the system is applicable to buses, trains, ferries, subways, etc. (Col. 2, Ln. 11-15). Therefore, the third location (central street, where the user boarded the train) is compared with the first location (on the bus) to determine that the user is on the bus; Col. 5, Ln. 2-7 disclosing determine by the receiver that the user is on board after the train after moving 100 meters and the user is still within a threshold distance; Col. 5, Ln. 63-65 disclosing the receiver determine the start location (central street) and locations the users were on the train (Ln, 57)). The second location (off the bus) is compared with the fourth location (king street, where the user exits the bus) to determine the user is no longer on the bus (Brock Col. 3, Ln. 55-59 disclosing when the user exits the bus the signals emitted by the wireless beacon wanes at the receiver device, and the receiver can determine the user has exited the bus; Col. 6, Ln. 10-18 disclosing the receiver determining the user is no longer on the train…the signal emitted fades after the train moves and the receiver determine that the user is no longer on the train; Col. 5, Ln. 65-66 disclosing determining the user exited at King Street (fourth location); Col. 6, Ln. 10-18 disclosing the receiver determining the user is no longer on the train (second location)…the signal emitted fades after the train moves and the receiver determine that the user is no longer on the train; Col. 5, Ln. 9-15 disclosing comparing the a first and second computed distance in order to determine that the user is not on the train). Examiner notes also that the first and third locations (on the bus at the location central street) are substantially similar, and second and fourth locations (off the bus and exiting at King Street) are substantially similar.)
transmitting, to a payment system, a payment request to charge the user account the trip price using the user account data. (Brock Col. 6, Ln. 25-33 disclosing the receiver provides ride info to the payment system that includes locations to which the transport vehicle traveled while the user was determined to be on the train and communicate with a payment service system; Col. 8, Ln. 4-11 disclosing the system conducts a payment transaction on the user account based on the determined fare; see also Fig. 4)
Claim 39 is directed to a system. Claim 39 recites limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 21, which is directed towards a method. Claim 39 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 21. Furthermore, Claim 39 discloses:
(Claim 39) A merchant computer system comprising at least one processor and at least one memory, wherein the processor is physically configured according to computer executable instructions for: (Brock Col. 11, Ln. 40-48 Computers suitable for the execution of a computer program include, by way of example, can be based on general or special purpose microprocessors or both, or any other kind of central processing unit. Generally, a central processing unit will receive instructions and data from a read-only memory or a random access memory or both. The essential elements of a computer are a central processing unit for performing or executing instructions and one or more memory devices for storing instructions and data.)
Claim 26: The method as claimed in claim 21,
wherein the threshold is five percent.
Brock discloses comparing a difference between the first and second parameter to a threshold and the communication session being terminated in response to the difference exceeding the threshold, but does not explicitly disclose that the threshold is five percent. Yuan suggests or discloses this limitation/concept: (Yuan ¶0044 disclosing when the passenger gets off the bus from the rear door after arrival a stop, the electronic system for public traffic performs a distance comparison to the position information of the mobile phone of the passenger and the position information of the electronic system for public traffic. If the distance is larger than the length of the bus, it is judged that the passenger has got off the bus, and the corresponding position information software of the mobile phone of the passenger is closed; ¶0045 when the passenger gets off the bus from the rear door, the position information of the electronic system for public traffic is for example larger than 10 m or 20 m in comparison to the position information of the mobile phone of the passenger, it is judged that the passenger has got off the bus; ¶0047 disclosing when the passenger gets off the bus from the rear door, the position information of the electronic system for public traffic is for example larger than 100 m in comparison to the position information of the mobile phone of the passenger, it is judged that the passenger has got off the bus). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Brock to include that the threshold is five percent as taught by Yuan. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Brock in order to determine whether the passenger has exited the vehicle and thus communication should be ended and a fare determined (see ¶0044 of Yuan).
Claim 27: The method as claimed in claim 21, wherein the first parameter and the second parameter are determined at the same time. (Brock Col. 3, Ln. 31-37 disclosing the receiver receiving the signal from the wireless beacon from the user device and measuring a signal strength and distance; see also Col. 3, Ln. 55-58)
Claim 28: The method as claimed in claim 21, wherein the first parameter is determined using a GPS signal of the mobile device. (Brock Col. 5, Ln. 42-46 disclosing the signal emitted by the wireless beacon may also encode geolocation information, e.g., a smartphone of a user may use GPS signals to determine its own location and then provide the determined location information to the receiver by encoding it into the wireless beacon signal)
Claim 33: The method as claimed in claim 21, wherein the method comprises requesting, by the merchant computer system, a GPS signal of the mobile device based on receiving the transmission comprising user account data. (Brock Col. 5, Ln. 42-46 disclosing the signal emitted by the wireless beacon may also encode geolocation information; a smartphone of a user may use GPS signals to determine its own location and then provide the determined location information to the receiver by encoding it into the wireless beacon signal; not also that the signal includes account info: Col. 4, Ln. 14-19 disclosing the receiver (of the merchant) receiving a signal emitted by the wireless beacon of the user (see also Col. 3, Ln. 31-34); the signal will generally encode a user identifier that can be used by the receiver to distinguish one user from another; the user identifier can also be used by a payment service to identify a user account of the user; the receiver can be a computer (Col. 3, Ln. 27-30))
Claim 34: The method as claimed in claim 33, wherein establishing the communication session is based on a comparison of the GPS signal of the mobile device and a location of the merchant computer system. (Brock Col. 2, Ln. 14-24 disclosing wireless beacon refers to a personal user device that continuously or repeatedly emits mid-range to short-range radio signals that can communicate information wirelessly to other devices. A wireless beacon can communicate information, e.g. a user identifier, to another device using an automatic pairing process, e.g., without the devices engaging in a pairing process that requires user input and without requiring explicit user authorization to communicate with another device; Col. 2, Ln. 46-50 disclosing the receiver device receiving incoming BLE signals that encodes user identifiers; Col. 4, Ln. 14-19 disclosing the receiver (of the merchant) receiving a signal emitted by the wireless beacon of the user (see also Col. 3, Ln. 31-34); the signal will generally encode a user identifier that can be used by the receiver to distinguish one user from another; Col. 5, Ln. 42-46 disclosing the signal emitted by the wireless beacon may also encode geolocation information; a smartphone of a user may use GPS signals to determine its own location and then provide the determined location information to the receiver by encoding it into the wireless beacon signal; Col. 5, Ln. 31-35 disclosing the receiver of the merchant determining its own location via GPS or other geolocation signals; Col. 6, Ln. 5-9 disclosing the receiver can associate the determined locations and times with the user identifier encoded in the wireless beacon signal, e.g., the receiver can maintain a list of location information for each user identifier encoded in received wireless beacon signals)
Claim 35: The method as claimed in claim 21, wherein determining the second location in response to terminating the communication session comprises requesting, by the merchant computer system, a GPS signal of the mobile device. (Brock Col. 6, Ln. 10-15 disclosing the receiver determines that the user is no longer on the train; the receiver can analyze one or more exit criteria to determine that user is no longer on board the train, e.g., the receiver can determine that one or more of the criteria for whether the user is on the train is not satisfied; Col. 6, Ln. 5-9 disclosing the receiver associating the determined locations and times with the user identifier encoded in the wireless beacon; Col. 5, Ln. 42-46 disclosing the signal emitted by the wireless beacon may also encode geolocation information; a smartphone of a user may use GPS signals to determine its own location and then provide the determined location information to the receiver by encoding it into the wireless beacon signal; Col. 5, Ln. 63-67 disclosing the receiver may also determine locations from a start location and an end location; if the receiver determines that the user boarded at Central Street and exited at King Street, the receiver may also determine that the user was on board at Market Street)
Claim 37: The method as claimed in claim 21, wherein the trip price is determined based on a trip start time, a trip end time, an attribute of the user account data, or any combination thereof. (Brock Col. 2, Ln. 50-52 disclosing determining when the user is on the bus (first time), also Col.5, Ln. 60-62 disclosing the user at central street at 10:30 where the user boarded (Ln. 65); and Col. 2, Ln. 56-57 disclosing the user exiting the bus (second time); Col. 5, Ln. 60-62 disclosing the user at king street at 10:38 where the user exited (Ln. 66); Col. 2, Ln. 56-63 disclosing when the user exits the bus, the receiver device forwards the location information to a payment service system along with the user identifier and the payment service system calculates a fare and identifies an account used to process a payment for the fare owed; see also Col. 6, Ln. 61-65 disclosing the locations and times the user was on board the train, identifying an account of the user (Col. 7, Ln. 10-15), and processing payment (Col. 7, Ln. 23-27; and Col. 8, Ln. 17-20))
Claim(s) 22 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brock (US 10,332,162) in view of Yuan (2016/0117867) further in view of Faaborg (2014/0343850).
Claim 22: The method as claimed in claim 21,
wherein the first parameter is indicative of a velocity of the mobile device.
Brock discloses monitoring the motion or location of the mobile device, but does not explicitly disclose that the first parameter is indicative of a velocity of the mobile device. Faaborg suggests or discloses this limitation/concept: (Faaborg ¶0060-¶0062 disclosing a user associated with a mobile computing device is using a transportation service at a first point in time after boarding the vehicle; the prediction module may receive data that indicates the current location of the computing device and the first point in time…and at a later point in time; prediction module may compare the speed associated with the device to a speed threshold and request also info one or more lines of a transportation service operating within a distance threshold of the device; prediction module may determine the user is using a transportation service based on the speed of the device exceeding the speed if the user was traveling by foot; ¶0064-¶0067 discloses a first speed associated with a computing device at a first location corresponding to a first top along the route and determining that the speed indicates that a vehicle associated with the transportation service is not moving (e.g. picking up or dropping off passengers)...also a second stop; determining a user has exited the transportation vehicle (¶0066) at a stop by determining the speed of the device does not exceed a speed (below a threshold) indicating the user is traveling by foot again (¶0067) and the location is not within a threshold distance of the transport vehicle)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Brock in view of Yuan to include the first parameter is indicative of a velocity of the mobile device as taught by Faaborg. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Brock in view of Yuan in order to determine that the user has exited the transportation service (see ¶ 0067 of Faaborg).
Claim 23: The method as claimed in claim 21,
wherein the second parameter is indicative of a velocity of the merchant computer system.
Brock discloses monitoring the motion or location of the mobile device, but does not explicitly disclose that the second parameter is indicative of a velocity of the merchant computer system. Faaborg suggests or discloses this limitation/concept: (Faaborg ¶0060-¶0062 disclosing a user associated with a mobile computing device is using a transportation service at a first point in time after boarding the vehicle; the prediction module may receive data that indicates the current location of the computing device and the first point in time…and at a later point in time; prediction module may compare the speed associated with the device to a speed threshold and request also info one or more lines of a transportation service operating within a distance threshold of the device; prediction module may determine the user is using a transportation service based on the speed of the device exceeding the speed if the user was traveling by foot; ¶0064-¶0067 discloses a first speed associated with a computing device at a first location corresponding to a first top along the route and determining that the speed indicates that a vehicle associated with the transportation service is not moving (e.g. picking up or dropping off passengers)...also a second stop; determining a user has exited the transportation vehicle (¶0066) at a stop by determining the speed of the device does not exceed a speed (below a threshold) indicating the user is traveling by foot again (¶0067) and the location is not within a threshold distance of the transport vehicle). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Brock in view of Yuan to include the second parameter is indicative of a velocity of the merchant computer system as taught by Faaborg. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Brock in view of Yuan in order to determine that the user has exited the transportation service (see ¶ 0067 of Faaborg).
Claim(s) 24, 25, and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brock (US 10,332,162) in view of Yuan (2016/0117867) further in view of Hwang (US 10,127,795).
Claim 24: The method as claimed in claim 21,
wherein the first parameter is indicative of an acceleration of the mobile device.
Brock discloses monitoring the motion or location of the mobile device, but does not explicitly disclose that the first parameter is indicative of an acceleration of the mobile device. Hwang suggests or discloses this limitation/concept: (Hwang Col. 3, Ln. 35-62 disclosing the system analyzes motion data associated with the computing devices; the system may receive data collected by motion sensors in the requestor computing device and the vehicle computing device (i.e., a provider computing device and/or a computing device integrated within a vehicle) indicating movement of the requestor computing device, the vehicle computing device, and/or the vehicle; the motion data can include accelerometer data; the system can, for example, determine acceleration, speed, and rotation of the requestor computing device, the vehicle computing device, and the vehicle; the system compares the motion data from the requestor computing device to the motion data from the vehicle computing device to identify consistencies between the data (e.g., similar acceleration, speed, and rotation)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Brock in view of Yuan to include that the first parameter is indicative of an acceleration of the mobile device as taught by Hwang. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Brock in view of Yuan in order to identify consistencies between the data (see Col. 3, Ln. 51-54 of Hwang).
Claim 25: The method as claimed in claim 21,
wherein the second parameter is indicative of an acceleration of the merchant computer system.
Brock discloses monitoring the motion or location of the mobile device, but does not explicitly disclose that the second parameter is indicative of an acceleration of the merchant computer system. Hwang suggests or discloses this limitation/concept: (Hwang Col. 3, Ln. 35-62 disclosing the system analyzes motion data associated with the computing devices; the system may receive data collected by motion sensors in the requestor computing device and the vehicle computing device (i.e., a provider computing device and/or a computing device integrated within a vehicle) indicating movement of the requestor computing device, the vehicle computing device, and/or the vehicle; the motion data can include accelerometer data; the system can, for example, determine acceleration, speed, and rotation of the requestor computing device, the vehicle computing device, and the vehicle; the system compares the motion data from the requestor computing device to the motion data from the vehicle computing device to identify consistencies between the data (e.g., similar acceleration, speed, and rotation)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Brock in view of Yuan to include that the second parameter is indicative of an acceleration of the merchant computer system as taught by Hwang. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Brock in view of Yuan in order to identify consistencies between the data (see Col. 3, Ln. 51-54 of Hwang).
Claim 40: The merchant computer system as claimed in claim 39,
wherein the first parameter is indicative of at least one of a velocity or an acceleration of the mobile device, and wherein the second parameter is indicative of at least one of a velocity or an acceleration of the merchant computer system.
Brock discloses monitoring the motion or location of the mobile device, but does not explicitly disclose that the first parameter is indicative of at least one of a velocity or an acceleration of the mobile device, and wherein the second parameter is indicative of at least one of a velocity or an acceleration of the merchant computer system. Hwang suggests or discloses this limitation/concept: (Hwang Col. 3, Ln. 35-62 disclosing the system analyzes motion data associated with the computing devices; the system may receive data collected by motion sensors in the requestor computing device and the vehicle computing device (i.e., a provider computing device and/or a computing device integrated within a vehicle) indicating movement of the requestor computing device, the vehicle computing device, and/or the vehicle; the motion data can include accelerometer data; the system can, for example, determine acceleration, speed, and rotation of the requestor computing device, the vehicle computing device, and the vehicle; the system compares the motion data from the requestor computing device to the motion data from the vehicle computing device to identify consistencies between the data (e.g., similar acceleration, speed, and rotation)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Brock in view of Yuan to include the first parameter is indicative of at least one of a velocity or an acceleration of the mobile device, and wherein the second parameter is indicative of at least one of a velocity or an acceleration of the merchant computer system as taught by Hwang. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Brock in view of Yuan in order to identify consistencies between the data (see Col. 3, Ln. 51-54 of Hwang).
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brock (US 10,332,162) in view of Yuan (2016/0117867) further in view of Ranganathan (2012/0209773).
Claim 29: The method as claimed in claim 21,
wherein the merchant computer system operates a geo-fenced area of the merchant computer system.
Brock discloses the communication system is operating in a certain area/location (onboard the bus/train; the receivers are located onboard the vehicle (Col. 2, Ln. 46-47)), but does not explicitly disclose that the merchant computer system operates a geo-fenced area of the merchant computer system. Ranganathan suggests or discloses this limitation/concept: (Ranganathan ¶0020-¶0023 discloses a transaction request and comparing the device of the user and the location of the request, if the location does not match the location of the device (device not in the area, more than 500 meters) then either the user, merchant, issuer is alerted; ¶0028 disclosing when a user swipes a credit card at a store to pay for goods/services, the physical location of the merchant/ service provider is sent the bank/financial institution/ payment provider and onto a server in the fraud alerting system where the physical location of the merchant/service provider is compared against the last known location of the user's cell phone in real-time; ¶0029 disclosing each merchant terminal contains a terminal ID and has a designated merchant address that is part of the transaction; at the time of the transaction, this terminal address is geo-coded into a latitude /longitude (lat/long)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Brock in view of Yuan to include that the merchant computer system operates a geo-fenced area of the merchant computer system as taught by Ranganathan. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Brock in view of Yuan in order to monitor for fraud (see Abstract of Ranganathan).
Claim(s) 30-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brock (US 10,332,162) in view of in view of Yuan (2016/0117867) further in view of Ranganathan (2012/0209773) further in view of Madaan (2020/0005557).
Claim 30: The method as claimed in claim 29,
wherein a status of the communication session is based on a proximity between the mobile device and a communication device of the geo-fenced area.
Brock discloses monitoring the location of the mobile device relative to the mobile merchant and communication being established once the mobile device is within vicinity of the mobile merchant, but does not explicitly disclose that a status of the communication session is based on a proximity between the mobile device and a communication device of the geo-fenced area. Madaan suggests or discloses this limitation/concept: (Madaan ¶0014 disclosing when establishing a connection, the transportation provider's device and/or the user's device may emit a communication signal including an identifier for the device, such as an identity token or other identification information that uniquely identifies the device to another device; application of the receiving device may execute specialized hardware and/or software to monitor for the short range wireless communications, for example, through a communication module; this may be performed actively by an application of the device after location detection at or nearby the start location (e.g., within a proximity range or geo-fence of the start location)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Brock in view of Yuan further in view of Ranganathan to include that a status of the communication session is based on a proximity between the mobile device and a communication device of the geo-fenced area as taught by Madaan. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Brock in view of Yuan further in view of Ranganathan in order to detect when the service is being provided (see ¶0012 of Madaan).
Claim 31: The method as claimed in claim 30,
wherein the communication session is established based on the mobile device entering the geo-fenced area.
Brock discloses monitoring the location of the mobile device relative to the mobile merchant and communication being established once the mobile device is within vicinity of the mobile merchant, but does not explicitly disclose that the communication session is established based on the mobile device entering the geo-fenced area. Madaan suggests or discloses this limitation/concept: (Madaan ¶0014 disclosing when establishing a connection, the transportation provider's device and/or the user's device may emit a communication signal including an identifier for the device, such as an identity token or other identification information that uniquely identifies the device to another device; application of the receiving device may execute specialized hardware and/or software to monitor for the short range wireless communications, for example, through a communication module; this may be performed actively by an application of the device after location detection at or nearby the start location (e.g., within a proximity range or geo-fence of the start location)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Brock in view of Yuan further in view of Ranganathan to include that the communication session is established based on the mobile device entering the geo-fenced area as taught by Madaan. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Brock in view of Yuan further in view of Ranganathan in order to detect when the service is being provided (see ¶0012 of Madaan).
Claim 32: The method as claimed in claim 30,
wherein determining the termination of the communication session comprises determining that the mobile device exiting the geo-fenced area at the second location.
Brock discloses monitoring the location of the mobile device relative to the mobile merchant and communication being terminated once the mobile device is a certain distance from the mobile merchant, but does not explicitly disclose that the termination of the communication session comprises determining that the mobile device exiting the geo-fenced area at the second location. Madaan suggests or discloses this limitation/concept: (Madaan ¶0014 disclosing establishing a connection with transportation provider’s device and the user device which may be done after location detection at or nearby the start location (e.g., within a proximity range or geo-fence of the start location); Abstract further disclosing the communications may further be used to determine when the device are within communication range, and when the communication range ends indicating that the parties have moved outside the proximity range for the communications and the service has ended). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Brock in view of Yuan further in view of Ranganathan to include that the communication session is established based on the mobile device entering the geo-fenced area as taught by Madaan. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Brock in view of Yuan further in view of Ranganathan in order to determine that the trip has ended (see ¶0025 of Madaan).
Claim(s) 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brock (US 10,332,162) in view of in view of Yuan (2016/0117867) further in view of Ramalingham (US 10,339,549).
Claim 36: The method as claimed in claim 21,
wherein the method comprises accessing, via a fraud API, a machine learning engine to configure a fraud graphical interface of the merchant computer system for presenting and applying transaction analysis data to the trip, wherein the transaction analysis data is dynamically determined, by the machine learning engine, based on receiving the transmission comprising user account data.
Brock discloses methods for determining when the user is on the vehicle and has exited the vehicle for the purpose of charging the appropriate user for the transport service, but does not explicitly disclose that the method comprises accessing, via a fraud API, a machine learning engine to configure a fraud graphical interface of the merchant computer system for presenting and applying transaction analysis data to the trip, wherein the transaction analysis data is dynamically determined, by the machine learning engine, based on receiving the transmission comprising user account data. Ramalingham suggests or discloses this limitation/concept: (Ramalingham discloses a system for providing friction-free transactions using geolocation and user identifiers similar to the applicant’s application; Col. 5, Ln. 43-52 and 59-62 disclosing the transaction module may recognize when the mobile device is located at a merchant location and, in response, may facilitate a transaction with the merchant; transaction may be based in part on the user information; transaction module may be configured with appropriate application programming interfaces (APIs) to establish a standard communication protocol for receiving information from the merchant (e.g., merchant name and requested payment) and providing corresponding information about the user, and coordinates the user identification, user information, geolocation, and the like to facilitate transactions between the user and the merchant; Col. 6, Ln. 5-8 disclosing the security module may analyze behavior such as purchasing patterns and/or movement patterns and infer that irregular behavior may indicate fraudulent or unauthorized activity; Col. 7, Ln. 8-20 disclosing determines if communications coming from the mobile device should be associated with the user identifier; authentication module may similarly authenticate the identity of merchants; providing robust data security may avoid fraudulent transactions from both mobile devices and merchants; Col. 7, Ln. 24-39 disclosing the transaction module may be configured with APIs for exchanging information with both the merchant and the mobile device; the APIs exposed to the merchant may be regulated to prevent unauthorized merchants from access in the system and to improve data security; Col. 20, Ln. 9-17 disclosing in order to detect whether or not the mobile device has been stolen, misplaced, or is otherwise in the wrong place at the wrong time, decision point may compare the current temporal-geo-location of the mobile device with the map and determine whether or not the current temporal-geo-location varies more than a threshold amount from the map; this comparison may be achieved at least in part through the use of artificial intelligence, heuristics, or fuzzy logic). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Brock in view of Yuan to include that the method comprises accessing, via a fraud API, a machine learning engine to configure a fraud graphical interface of the merchant computer system for presenting and applying transaction analysis data to the trip, wherein the transaction analysis data is dynamically determined, by the machine learning engine, based on receiving the transmission comprising user account data as taught by Ramalingham. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Brock in view of Yuan in order to determine fraudulent activity (see Col. 6, Ln. 5-8 of Ramalingham).
Claim(s) 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brock (US 10,332,162) in view of in view of Yuan (2016/0117867) further in view of Dicker (2017/0352125).
Claim 38: The method as claimed in claim 37,
wherein the trip price is determined based on a level of demand during a time period between the trip start time and the trip end time.
Brock discloses determining a trip price based on the locations of the start and end locations, but does not explicitly disclose that the trip price is determined based on a level of demand during a time period between the trip start time and the trip end time. Dicker suggests or discloses this limitation/concept: (Dicker ¶0014 disclosing surge pricing data for (time) windows in specified areas of the given region are based on driver supply v user demand; ¶0072 disclosing the system receiving inputs such as a start time and calculate a price based on historical pricing data for the region; ¶0063 disclosing the ETA includes an arrival time to the destination, and an arrival times for pickup and overall trip time to a destination (¶0062)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Brock in view of Yuan to include that the trip price is determined based on a level of demand during a time period between the trip start time and the trip end time as taught by Dicker. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Brock in view of Yuan in order to determine price information (see ¶0014 of Dicker).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIONE N SIMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5513. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 7:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m..
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at 571-272-5587. 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.
DIONE N. SIMPSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3628
/DIONE N. SIMPSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628