DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This Office action is in response to the request for continued examination filed on 08/04/2026. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and are presented for examination.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08/04/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/01/2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding claim objection:
Applicant has argued that the objection to claim 16 is overcome by the filed amendment. The examiner agrees and has withdrawn the objection accordingly.
Regarding double patenting rejections:
The examiner acknowledges applicant’s request to hold the double patenting rejections in abeyance. However, to maintain clarity of the record, the examiner has updated the double patenting rejections in this Office action to reflect the filed claim amendments.
Regarding claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101:
Applicant has argued that the filed amendment overcomes the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the recitation of a peer-to-peer network and a smart contract integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The examiner respectfully disagrees, as these additional elements amount to general linking limitations that merely link the use of the abstract idea to the technological field of blockchain technology. Such general linking limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself consistent with MPEP 2106.05(h).
The examiner respectfully suggests further amending the claims to positively recite a step that involves executing a blockchain consensus process as part of the peer-to-peer network, as this could potentially be too difficult for a human being to perform in the mind. Alternatively, the examiner suggests adding limitations to the claims detailing what exactly is involved in the step of “sharing the subscription with the transport occupant” in order to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103:
Applicant has argued that the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are overcome by the filed amendment. The examiner notes that claim 15 has not been amended as described, and as such the previous rejections of claim 15 and dependent claims 16-20 have been maintained. The arguments regarding claims 1-14 are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection which are necessitated by the filed amendment.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8-9, 16-18, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In each of claims 1 and 8-9, it appears that the phrase “the transport occupant” should be changed to “the first occupant.”
In the last paragraph of claim 8, it appears that the word “sharing” should be changed to “share.”
In each of claims 16-18 and 20, it appears that the phrase “the first occupant” should be changed to “the transport occupant.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,788,852 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim differences substantially amount to additional limitations being recited in the claims of related patent US 11,788,852 B2 as shown in the table below:
Instant application 18/477501
Related patent US 11,788,852 B2
1. A method performed by a transport, the method comprising:
receiving a request for a service from a first occupant of the transport, wherein the transport is part of a peer-to-peer network;
determining that a profile of the first occupant does not contain a subscription to the service;
determining that a different profile, which includes the subscription, from an additional transport, which is part of the peer-to-peer network, is authorized to be used by the first occupant based on a profile-sharing agreement implemented via a smart contract, wherein the different profile is managed by a second occupant of the additional transport, but not the first occupant; and
in response to the first occupant being authorized to use the different profile, sharing the subscription with the transport occupant.
1. A method, comprising:
executing a profile-sharing blockchain transaction via a blockchain ledger stored on and replicated among a plurality of transports which are peers of the blockchain ledger;
receiving, by a transport from among the plurality of transports, a request for a service based on an input to a processing device of the transport by a transport occupant of the transport;
accessing, via the processing device of the transport, a mobile device of the transport occupant to identify the transport occupant and matching an identity of the transport occupant to an occupant profile stored on the blockchain ledger;
determining, by the transport, that the occupant profile of the transport occupant stored on the blockchain ledger does not contain a subscription to the requested service therein;
identifying, by the transport, conditions for sharing a different profile from an additional transport with the profile of the transport occupant from the profile-sharing blockchain transaction committed to the blockchain ledger;
determining, via a blockchain smart contract running on the blockchain ledger, that the different profile is authorized for use by the profile of the transport occupant based on the conditions identified from the profile-sharing blockchain transaction committed to the blockchain ledger;
executing a blockchain consensus process among the plurality of transports to verify that peer-to-peer sharing of the subscription service from the additional transport to the transport is based on the at least one shared profile read from the blockchain ledger; and
in response to the verification, outputting content for the service via the processing device of the transport.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the determining that the profile does not include the subscription to the service comprises: determining that the profile does not include the subscription to the service based on information from a mobile device of the first occupant.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the profile of the transport occupant is determined based on information acquired from the mobile device of the occupant.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the determining that the profile does not include the subscription to the service comprises: determining that the profile does not include the subscription to the service based on biometrics of the first occupant.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the profile of the transport occupant is determined based on biometrics of the transport occupant acquired by at least one sensor.
4. The method of claim 1, comprising: identifying a time period during which the additional profile is to be shared with the first occupant based on a timestamp.
4. The method of claim 1, further comprising reading a time stamp indicating a time period for which the at least one additional profile is to be shared with the transport occupant.
5. The method of claim 4, comprising: verifying that the time period has not elapsed.
5. The method of claim 4, further comprising verifying that the time period has not elapsed.
6. The method of claim 1, comprising: receiving the service based on input from the first occupant.
1. … receiving, by a transport from among the plurality of transports, a request for a service based on an input to a processing device of the transport by a transport occupant of the transport… and in response to the verification, outputting content for the service via the processing device of the transport.
7. The method of claim 1, comprising: verifying that the different profile is shared with the first occupant.
6. The method of claim 1, further comprising executing the blockchain smart contract to verify that the additional profile is shared with the transport occupant.
8. A system, comprising:
a hardware-implemented processor that executes instructions stored in a memory to configure the hardware-implemented processor to:
receive a request for a service from a first occupant of the transport, wherein the transport is part of a peer-to-peer network;
determine that a profile of the first occupant does not contain a subscription to the service;
determine that a different profile, which includes the subscription, from an additional transport, which is part of the peer-to-peer network, is authorized to be used by the first occupant based on a profile-sharing agreement implemented via a smart contract, wherein the different profile is managed by a second occupant of the additional transport, but not the first occupant; and
in response to the first occupant being authorized to use the different profile, sharing the subscription with the transport occupant.
7. A system, comprising:
a hardware processor;
a memory on which are stored machine readable instructions that when executed by the processor, cause the hardware processor to:
execute a profile-sharing blockchain transaction via a blockchain ledger stored on and replicated among a plurality of transports which are peers of the blockchain ledger;
receive a request for a service based on an input to a device by a transport occupant of a transport from among the plurality of transports;
access, via the transport, a mobile device of the transport occupant to identify the transport occupant and matching an identity of the transport occupant to an occupant profile stored on the blockchain ledger;
determine that the occupant profile of the transport occupant stored on the blockchain ledger does not contain a subscription to the requested service therein;
identify conditions for sharing a different profile from an additional transport with the profile of the transport occupant from the profile-sharing blockchain transaction committed to the blockchain ledger;
determine, via a blockchain smart contract running on the blockchain ledger, that the different profile is authorized for use by the profile of the transport occupant based on the conditions identified from the profile-sharing blockchain transaction committed to the blockchain ledger;
execute a blockchain consensus process among the plurality of transports to verify that peer-to-peer sharing of the subscription service from the additional transport to the transport is based on the at least one shared profile read from the blockchain ledger; and
in response to determining the different profile is authorized for use, retrieve content associated with the service and output the content for the service via the device of the transport.
9. The system of claim 8, wherein, when the hardware-implemented processor determines that the profile does not include the subscription to the service, the hardware-implemented processor is configured to:
determine that the profile does not include the subscription to the service based on information from a mobile device of the transport occupant.
8. The system of claim 7, wherein the profile of the transport occupant is determined based on information acquired from the mobile device of the occupant.
10. The system of claim 8, wherein, when the hardware-implemented processor determines that the profile does not include the subscription to the service, the hardware-implemented processor is configured to:
determine that the profile does not include the subscription to the service based on biometrics of the first occupant.
9. The system of claim 7, wherein the profile of the transport occupant is determined based on biometrics of the transport occupant acquired by at least one sensor.
11. The system of claim 8, wherein the hardware-implemented processor is configured to:
identify a time period during which the additional profile is to be shared with the first occupant based on a timestamp.
10. The system of claim 7, wherein the instructions are further to cause the hardware processor to read a time stamp indicating a time period for which the at least one additional profile is to be shared with the transport occupant.
12. The system of claim 11, wherein the hardware-implemented processor is configured to: verify that the time period has not elapsed.
11. The system of claim 10, wherein the instructions are further to cause the hardware processor to verify that the time period has not elapsed.
13. The system of claim 8, wherein the hardware-implemented processor is configured to: receive the service based on input from the first occupant.
7. … receive a request for a service based on an input to a device by a transport occupant of a transport from among the plurality of transports… and in response to determining the different profile is authorized for use, retrieve content associated with the service and output the content for the service via the device of the transport.
14. The system of claim 8, wherein the hardware-implemented processor is configured to: verify that the different profile is shared with the first occupant.
12. The system of claim 7, wherein the instructions are further to cause the hardware processor to execute the blockchain smart contract to verify that the additional profile is shared with the transport occupant.
15. A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by a processor of a transport, cause the processor to perform:
determining that a profile of a transport occupant does not contain a subscription to a service;
determining that a different profile, which includes the subscription, from an additional transport is authorized for use by the transport occupant based on a profile-sharing agreement; and
in response to the different profile being authorized for use by the transport occupant, sharing the subscription with the transport occupant.
13. A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions, that when read by a processor, cause the processor to perform:
executing a profile-sharing blockchain transaction via a blockchain ledger stored on and replicated among a plurality of transports which are peers of the blockchain ledger;
receiving, by a transport from among the plurality of transports, a request for a service based on an input to a processing device of the transport by a transport occupant of the transport;
accessing, via the processing device of the transport, a mobile device of the transport occupant to identify the transport occupant and matching an identity of the transport occupant to an occupant profile stored on the blockchain ledger;
determining, by the transport, that the occupant profile of the transport occupant stored on the blockchain ledger does not contain a subscription to the requested service therein;
identifying, by the transport, conditions for sharing a different profile from an additional transport with the profile of the transport occupant from the profile-sharing blockchain transaction committed to the blockchain ledger;
determining, via a blockchain smart contract running on the blockchain ledger, that the different profile is authorized for use by the profile of the transport occupant based on the conditions identified from the profile-sharing blockchain transaction;
executing a blockchain consensus process among the plurality of transports to verify that peer-to-peer sharing of the subscription service from the additional transport to the transport is based on the at least one shared profile read from the blockchain ledger; and
in response to determining the different profile is authorized for use, retrieving content associated with the service and outputting the content for the service via the device of the transport.
16. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, wherein the determining that the profile does not include the subscription to the service comprises:
determining that the profile does not include the subscription to the service based on information from a mobile device of the first occupant.
14. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 13, wherein the profile of the transport occupant is determined based on information acquired from the mobile device of the occupant.
17. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, wherein the determining that the profile does not include the subscription to the service comprises:
determining that the profile does not include the subscription to the service based on biometrics of the first occupant.
15. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 13, wherein the profile of the transport occupant is determined based on biometrics of the transport occupant acquired by at least one sensor.
18. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, wherein the instructions cause the processor to perform:
identifying a time period during which the additional profile is to be shared with the first occupant based on a timestamp.
16. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 13, further comprising instructions, that when read by the processor, cause the processor to read a time stamp indicating a time period for which the at least one profile is to be shared with the transport occupant.
19. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 18, wherein the instructions cause the processor to perform:
verifying that the time period has not elapsed.
11. … the instructions are further to cause the hardware processor to verify that the time period has not elapsed.
20. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, wherein the instructions cause the processor to perform:
verifying that the different profile is shared with the first occupant.
17. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 13, further comprising instructions, that when read by the processor, cause the processor to execute the blockchain smart contract to verify that the additional profile is shared with the transport occupant.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 15:
Step 1: Claim 1 is directed to a method. Claim 8 is directed towards the corresponding system, and claim 15 is directed towards the corresponding non-transitory computer-readable medium.
Step 2A, prong 1: Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite the abstract concept of making a determination in accordance with a profile-sharing agreement. This abstract idea is described in claims 1 and 8 by the mental process steps of determining that a profile of a first occupant does not contain a subscription to a service; and determining that a different profile, which includes the subscription, from an additional transport is authorized to be used by the first occupant based on a profile-sharing agreement, wherein the different profile is managed by a second occupant of the additional transport, but not the first occupant. These steps fall into the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas because they encompass a human being mentally assessing information to determine that a profile of a first occupant does not contain a subscription to a service but that a different profile which includes the subscription from an additional transport and which is managed by a second occupant of the additional transport is authorized to be used by the first occupant based on a profile-sharing agreement. These limitations as drafted are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover their performance in the human mind if not for the recitation of generic computing components.
The abstract idea is described in claim 15 by the steps of determining that a profile of a transport occupant does not contain a subscription to a service; and determining that a different profile, which includes the subscription, from an additional transport is authorized for use by the transport occupant based on a profile-sharing agreement. These steps fall into the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas because they encompass a human being mentally assessing information to determine that a profile of a transport occupant does not contain a subscription to a service but that a different profile which includes the subscription from ana additional transport is authorized for use by the transport occupant based on a profile-sharing agreement. The limitations as drafted are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover their performance in the human mind if not for the recitation of generic computing components.
With respect to claims 1, 8, and 15, other than reciting “a transport,” “a hardware-implemented processor,” and “a processor of a transport,” nothing in the claims precludes the abstract idea from being practically performed in the human mind. If not for the “transport” and “processor” language, the claims encompass a human assessing information to mentally make the claimed determinations.
Step 2A, prong 2: The claims recite elements additional to the abstract concepts. However, these additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 1 recites a transport which comprises generic computing components (as supported by ¶ 57 of the instant specification) that are simply employed as tools for performing the abstract idea. The use of the such generic computing components for executing the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Claim 1 also recites a step of receiving a request for a service from a first occupant of the transport. This step is considered as insignificant extra-solution activity because it amounts to necessary data gathering (i.e., all uses of the abstract idea require such data gathering). Similarly, the recited step of sharing the subscription with the transport occupant in response to the first occupant being authorized to use the different profile is insignificant extra-solution activity, because it is a data output step that does not impose meaningful limits on the claim such that it is not nominally or tangentially related to the invention. Such insignificant extra-solution activity does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Claim 1 also specifies that the transport and the additional transport are part of a peer-to-peer network and that the different profile is authorized to be used by the first occupant based on a profile-sharing agreement implemented via a smart contract. These amount to general linking limitations that merely link the use of the abstract idea to the technological field of blockchain technology. Such general linking limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim 8 recites the use of a hardware-implemented processor that executes instructions stored in a memory; these are generic computing components (as supported by ¶¶ 57 and 103 of the instant specification) that are simply employed as tools for performing the abstract idea. The use of such generic computing components for executing the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Claim 8 additionally recites that the processor is configured to receive a request for a service from a first occupant of the transport. This step is considered as insignificant extra-solution activity because it amounts to necessary data gathering (i.e., all uses of the abstract idea require such data gathering). Further, the recited step of sharing the subscription with the transport occupant in response to the first occupant being authorized to use the different profile is insignificant extra-solution activity that does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application using the same reasoning applied to claim 1 above, mutatis mutandis. Additionally, the limitations specifying that the transport and the additional transport are part of a peer-to-peer network and that the different profile is authorized to be used by the first occupant based on a profile-sharing agreement implemented by a smart contract are general linking limitations that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application using the same reasoning applied to claim 1 above, mutatis mutandis.
Claim 15 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that are executable by a processor of a transport; these are generic computer components (as supported by ¶ 103 of the instant specification) that are employed as tools for performing the abstract idea. The use of such generic computing components for executing the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Claim 15 further recites a step of sharing the subscription with the transport occupant in response to the different profile being authorized for use by the transport occupant. This step is insignificant extra-solution activity that does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application using the same reasoning applied to claim 1 above, mutatis mutandis.
Step 2B: The additional elements are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The instant specification provides no indication that the transport computer components, hardware-implemented processor, memory, and non-transitory computer-readable medium are anything other than conventional computer components that can be included within a vehicle. The use of such generic and conventional computer components for executing the abstract idea does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Accordingly, the steps of receiving a request for a service from a first occupant of the transport, sharing the subscription with the transport occupant in response to the first occupant being authorized to use the different profile, and sharing the subscription with the transport occupant in response to the different profile being authorized for use by the transport occupant are mere insignificant extra-solution activities that do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
MPEP 2106.05(h), and the cases cited therein, explain that claim limitations which merely serve to generally link the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the limitations specifying that the transport and the additional transport are part of a peer-to-peer network and that the different profile is authorized to be used by the first occupant based on a profile-sharing agreement implemented by a smart contract do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself, as they merely reference blockchain technology at a high level of generality and only serve to generally link the use of the abstract idea to the technological field of blockchain technology.
For the above reasons, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself, whether considered individually or in combination. Therefore, when considering the combination of elements and the claimed invention as a whole, claims 1, 8, and 15 are not patent-eligible.
Regarding claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20:
Claims 2-5, 7, 9-12, 14, and 16-20 recite the additional mental process steps of determining that the profile does not include the subscription to the service based on information from a mobile device of the first occupant; determining that the profile does not include the subscription to the service based on biometrics of the first occupant; identifying a time period during which the additional profile is to be shared with the first occupant based on a timestamp; verifying that the time period has not elapsed; and verifying that the different profile is shared with the first occupant. These steps are considered mental process steps because they encompass a human mentally assessing information to determine that the profile does not include the subscription to the service based on information from a mobile device of the first occupant or based on biometrics of the first occupant, mentally identifying a time period during which the additional profile is to be shared with the first occupant based on a timestamp, mentally comparing the time period to a current time to verify that the time period has not elapsed, and mentally verifying that the different profile is shared with the first occupant.
Claims 6 and 13 each recite the additional step of receiving the service based on input from the first occupant. This step is considered additional insignificant extra-solution activity, as it is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to data gathering that does not impose meaningful limits on the claims such that it is not nominally or tangentially related to the invention. The mere recitation of such insignificant extra-solution activity does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Further, as explained in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), the mere receipt or transmission of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Accordingly, the claimed step does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
As explained above, dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 only recite additional mental process steps and additional insignificant extra-solution activity. These additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, when considering the combination of elements and the claimed invention as a whole, claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are not patent-eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 6-10, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Maney, Jr. et al. (11,351,941 B1), hereinafter referred to as Maney, in view of Bannick (US 2010/0251349 A1), and further in view of Lake-Schaal et al. (US 2024/0335738 A1), hereinafter referred to as Lake.
Regarding claim 1:
Maney discloses the following limitations:
“A method performed by a transport, the method comprising: receiving a request for a service from a first occupant of the transport.” (Maney col. 7 ll. 39-43: “Credentials and/or biometric signatures gathered in step 802 can then be passed as part of a request to a server in step 804. Specifically, the system may request the user customization profile associated with a given set of credentials (such as a passcode) and/or biometric signature.” Additionally, Maney col. 6 ll. 30-34: “one or more of these components could be stand-alone hardware elements disposed in an onboard computer of vehicle 300.”)
“determining that a profile of the first occupant does not contain … the service.” (Maney col. 5 ll. 51-61: “To determine the appropriate user customization profile to retrieve from a remote server, a vehicle can include components that facilitate user identification.” Additionally, Maney col. 3 ll. 27-40: “The system can be implemented in multiple vehicles so that user customization profiles can be used across multiple vehicles. For example, the system could be implemented in customer owned vehicles, rental vehicles, and ride sharing vehicles. This allows each user to bring their customized vehicle settings with them as they change from driving their own vehicle to driving a rental car and/or a ride sharing vehicle.” Allowing the user customization profiles to be shared among customer-owned vehicles, rental vehicles, and ride share vehicles as described by Maney reasonably implies a step of determining that a user does not have a service covered for a specific vehicle, but that the vehicle can receive the service due to the user’s profile associated with another vehicle.)
“determining that a different profile, which includes the [service], from an additional transport… is authorized to be used by the first occupant based on a profile-sharing agreement… wherein the different profile is managed by a second occupant of the additional transport, but not the first occupant.” (Maney col. 5 ll. 51-61: “a vehicle can include one or more physical interfaces 306 that can be used to identify and/or authenticate a user.” Also, Maney col. 3 ll. 46-64: “User customization profile 100 may be received by systems within multiple vehicles that a user may drive (or ride in) at some point. These include a first user vehicle 110, a second user vehicle 112 (i.e., a second car owned and driven by the same user), a rental vehicle 114, and a ride sharing vehicle 116. … Thus, it may be appreciated that the exemplary systems and methods provide a vehicle customization platform that facilitates the transfer and implementation of customized vehicle settings across multiple vehicles and for different users.”)
“and in response to the first occupant being authorized to use the different profile, sharing the [service] with the transport occupant.” (Maney col. 7 ll. 44-49: “In step 806, the user customization profile is received from the remote server in response to the request sent in step 804. Next, in step 808, one or more vehicle control systems are operated to change vehicle settings according to the customized settings associated with the user customization profile.”)
Maney does not specifically disclose the method being related to profiles containing or not containing “a subscription to the service” and “sharing the subscription with the transport occupant.” However, Bannick does teach these limitations. (Bannick ¶ 13: “the combination of an authorized and subscribed ESN and the portable authorization media device allows the receiver to play XM content. This allows XM radio service under a given subscription to be used in any one of a plurality of authorized vehicles and devices associated with the subscriber.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Maney by applying the method to work with a subscription service as taught by Bannick, because this is a simple substitution of one known element (i.e., the subscription service of Bannick) for another (i.e., the user customization profile of Maney) to obtain predictable results (see MPEP 2143(I)(B)). A person having ordinary skill in the art could have replaced the user customization profile of Maney with the subscription service of Bannick to achieve the predictable result of allowing a user to use a paid subscription across multiple vehicles.
The combination of Maney and Bannick does not explicitly teach “wherein the transport is part of a peer-to-peer network,” the additional transport “is part of the peer-to-peer network,” and the profile-sharing agreement is “implemented via a smart contract.” However, Lake does teach these limitations. (Lake ¶¶ 78-79: “Applications and data may be served to one or more system nodes including vehicles 101 (e.g., vehicle or common conveyance 106 through vehicle 120) from one or more of the foregoing servers (e.g., 122, 124, 126) or other types of servers, for example, any server accessing a distributed blockchain data structure 128, or a peer-to-peer (P2P) server 116 including a peer-to-peer network such as a mesh network (including partial, full, and wireless mesh networks), such as may be provided by a set of vehicle devices 118, 120, etc., and the like, operating contemporaneously as micro-servers or clients. In an aspect, information held by one or more of the content server 126, cloud-based content server 122, distributed blockchain data structure 128, or a peer-to-peer (P2P) server 116 may include a data structure of interactive media contents, which may include, but not limited to, media components such as video clips suitable for including in the interactive media content such as a video. The data structure may relate user-perceivable aspects of interactive media contents to identifiers of the media components, for example by using profile values, and to one or more indicators of semantic meaning relevant to one or more travel events, and other unique metadata sets characterizing each of the components.” The use of a blockchain structure for managing the profile data implies the use of a smart contract as claimed.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method that is disclosed by the combination of Maney and Bannick by implementing the profile-sharing agreement using a blockchain smart contract with the vehicles serving as nodes in a peer-to-peer network as taught by Lake, as this is a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143(I)(A)). Maney col. 5 l. 62-col. 6 l. 7 already states that “a user customization profile could be associated with a blockchain system that facilitates keeping the user customization profile secure, facilitates transferability, and maintains a log of how the profile has been used.” Using the vehicles as blockchain nodes as taught by Lake would have predictably functioned similarly whether done within the media management method of Lake or whether integrated into the vehicle setting management method disclosed by the combination of Maney and Bannick. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have configured the vehicles to serve as blockchain nodes in order to achieve the predictable result of providing a distributed blockchain network for validating the user profiles without any need for a separate manager of the blockchain.
Regarding claim 2:
The combination of Maney, Bannick, and Lake teaches “The method of claim 1,” and Maney also teaches “wherein the determining that the profile does not include the subscription to the service comprises: determining that the profile does not include the subscription to the service based on information from a mobile device of the first occupant.” (Maney col. 5 ll. 51-61: “To determine the appropriate user customization profile to retrieve from a remote server, a vehicle can include components that facilitate user identification. In some embodiments, user identification can be accomplished using mobile phone 340.”)
Regarding claim 3:
The combination of Maney, Bannick, and Lake teaches “The method of claim 1,” and Maney also teaches “wherein the determining that the profile does not include the subscription to the service comprises: determining that the profile does not include the subscription to the service based on biometrics of the first occupant.” (Maney col. 5 ll. 51-61: “To determine the appropriate user customization profile to retrieve from a remote server, a vehicle can include components that facilitate user identification. In some embodiments, user identification can be accomplished using mobile phone 340. In other embodiments, a vehicle can include one or more physical interfaces 306 that can be used to identify and/or authenticate a user. As seen in FIG. 4, exemplary interfaces that could be used include, but are not limited to: physical buttons 400, keypads 402 (both digital and physical) and biometric sensors 404. Exemplary biometric sensors include fingerprint readers and retina scanners.”)
Regarding claim 6:
The combination of Maney, Bannick, and Lake teaches “The method of claim 1,” and Maney also teaches the method “comprising receiving the service based on input from the first occupant.” (Maney col. 5 ll. 51-61: “To determine the appropriate user customization profile to retrieve from a remote server, a vehicle can include components that facilitate user identification. In some embodiments, user identification can be accomplished using mobile phone 340. In other embodiments, a vehicle can include one or more physical interfaces 306 that can be used to identify and/or authenticate a user. As seen in FIG. 4, exemplary interfaces that could be used include, but are not limited to: physical buttons 400, keypads 402 (both digital and physical) and biometric sensors 404. Exemplary biometric sensors include fingerprint readers and retina scanners.” Further, Maney col. 7 ll. 44-49: “In step 806, the user customization profile is received from the remote server in response to the request sent in step 804. Next, in step 808, one or more vehicle control systems are operated to change vehicle settings according to the customized settings associated with the user customization profile.”)
Regarding claim 7:
The combination of Maney, Bannick, and Lake teaches “The method of claim 1,” and Maney additionally teaches the method “comprising: verifying that the different profile is shared with the first occupant.” (Maney col. 5 ll. 62-66: “a user customization profile could be associated with a blockchain system that facilitates keeping the user customization profile secure, facilitates transferability, and maintains a log of how the profile has been used.”)
Regarding claim 8:
Maney teaches “A system, comprising: a hardware-implemented processor that executes instructions stored in a memory to configure the hardware-implemented processor to” perform operations. (Maney col. 9 ll. 9-24: “The processes and methods of the embodiments described in this detailed description and shown in the figures can be implemented using any kind of computing system having one or more central processing units (CPUs) and/or graphics processing units (GPUs). … The processes and methods of the embodiments may also be implemented on computing systems including read only memory (ROM) and/or random access memory (RAM), which may be connected to one or more processing units.”)
The remaining limitations of claim 8 are taught by the combination of Maney, Bannick, and Lake using the same rationale applied to claim 1 above, mutatis mutandis.
Regarding claims 9-10 and 13-14:
Claims 9-10 and 13-14 are rejected with the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, applied to claims 2-3 and 6-7 above, respectively.
Claims 15-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Maney, Jr. et al. (11,351,941 B1), hereinafter referred to as Maney, in view of Bannick (US 2010/0251349 A1).
Regarding claim 15:
Maney discloses the following limitations:
“A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that, when read by a processor of a transport, cause the processor to perform” operations. (Maney col. 9 ll. 9-53: “The processes and methods of the embodiments described in this detailed description and shown in the figures can be implemented using any kind of computing system having one or more central processing units (CPUs) and/or graphics processing units (GPUs). … The processes and methods of the embodiments can be stored as instructions and/or data on non-transitory computer-readable media.” Further, Maney col. 4 ll. 57-64 and FIG. 3 disclose that the vehicle control systems 308 can be included as part of the vehicle 300.)
“determining that a profile of a transport occupant does not contain … a service.” (Maney col. 5 ll. 51-61: “To determine the appropriate user customization profile to retrieve from a remote server, a vehicle can include components that facilitate user identification.” Also, Maney col. 3 ll. 27-40: “The system can be implemented in multiple vehicles so that user customization profiles can be used across multiple vehicles. For example, the system could be implemented in customer owned vehicles, rental vehicles, and ride sharing vehicles. This allows each user to bring their customized vehicle settings with them as they change from driving their own vehicle to driving a rental car and/or a ride sharing vehicle.” Allowing the user customization profiles to be shared among customer-owned vehicles, rental vehicles, and ride share vehicles as described by Maney reasonably implies a step of determining that a user does not have a service covered for a specific vehicle, but that the vehicle can receive the service due to the user’s profile associated with another vehicle.)
“determining that a different profile, which includes the [service], from an additional transport is authorized for use by the transport occupant based on a profile-sharing agreement.” (Maney col. 5 ll. 51-61: “a vehicle can include one or more physical interfaces 306 that can be used to identify and/or authenticate a user.” Also, Maney col. 3 ll. 46-64: “User customization profile 100 may be received by systems within multiple vehicles that a user may drive (or ride in) at some point. These include a first user vehicle 110, a second user vehicle 112 (i.e., a second car owned and driven by the same user), a rental vehicle 114, and a ride sharing vehicle 116. … Thus, it may be appreciated that the exemplary systems and methods provide a vehicle customization platform that facilitates the transfer and implementation of customized vehicle settings across multiple vehicles and for different users.”)
“and in response to the different profile being authorized for use the transport occupant, sharing the [service] with the transport occupant.” (Maney col. 7 ll. 44-49: “In step 806, the user customization profile is received from the remote server in response to the request sent in step 804. Next, in step 808, one or more vehicle control systems are operated to change vehicle settings according to the customized settings associated with the user customization profile.”)
Maney does not specifically disclose the method being related to profiles containing or not containing “a subscription to the service” and “sharing the subscription with the transport occupant.” However, Bannick does teach these limitations. (Bannick ¶ 13: “the combination of an authorized and subscribed ESN and the portable authorization media device allows the receiver to play XM content. This allows XM radio service under a given subscription to be used in any one of a plurality of authorized vehicles and devices associated with the subscriber.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Maney by applying the method to work with a subscription service as taught by Bannick, because this is a simple substitution of one known element (i.e., the subscription service of Bannick) for another (i.e., the user customization profile of Maney) to obtain predictable results (see MPEP 2143(I)(B)). A person having ordinary skill in the art could have replaced the user customization profile of Maney with the subscription service of Bannick to achieve the predictable result of allowing a user to use a paid subscription across multiple vehicles.
Regarding claims 16-17 and 20:
Claims 16-17 and 20 are rejected with the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, applied to claims 2-3 and 7 above, respectively.
Claims 4-5 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maney in view of Bannick and Lake as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Kurian (US 2017/0364842 A1).
Regarding claim 4:
The combination of Maney, Bannick, and Lake teaches “The method of claim 1,” but does not explicitly teach the method “comprising: identifying a time period during which the additional profile is to be shared with the first occupant based on a timestamp.” However, Kurian does teach this limitation. (Kurian ¶ 80: “the process 600 continues by identifying any expiration or non-payment users of the shared service. In this way, there may be one or more users that have expired passes for the shared use service, missed fares, or the like for a shared use service.” Checking for the expiration of the shared use service implies identifying a time period for which the shared use service is valid.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method that is disclosed by the combination of Maney, Bannick, and Lake by checking a time period for which the user has access to the shared-use service as taught by Kurian with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this since Kurian ¶ 80 teaches that “In this way, there may be one or more users that have expired passes for the shared use service, missed fares, or the like for a shared use service. The system may identify the one or more users that have not provided sufficient resources for use of the shared use service.”
Regarding claim 5:
The combination of Maney, Bannick, Lake, and Kurian teaches “The method of claim 4,” and Kurian additionally discloses the method “comprising verifying that the time period has not elapsed.” (Kurian ¶ 80: “the process 600 continues by identifying any expiration or non-payment users of the shared service. In this way, there may be one or more users that have expired passes for the shared use service, missed fares, or the like for a shared use service.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method that is disclosed by the combination of Maney, Bannick, and Lake by determining whether the user’s time-limited access to the shared-use service has expired as taught by Kurian with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Kurian ¶ 80 teaches that “In this way, there may be one or more users that have expired passes for the shared use service, missed fares, or the like for a shared use service. The system may identify the one or more users that have not provided sufficient resources for use of the shared use service.”
Regarding claims 11-12:
Claims 11-12 are rejected with the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, applied to claims 4-5 above, respectively.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maney in view of Bannick as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Kurian (US 2017/0364842 A1).
Regarding claims 18-19:
Claims 18-19 are rejected with the same rationale, mutatis mutandis, applied to claims 4-5 above, respectively.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Madison R Inserra whose telephone number is (571)272-7205. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:30 AM - 6:30 PM EST.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached at 571-270-3832. 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.
/Madison R. Inserra/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
