DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the response and amendments received on 4 November 2025. As of the date of this communication no Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) has been filed on behalf of this case. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 1 has been amended. This a single claim case. Per MPEP 608.01(j) in a single claim case the claim is not numbered. However, for the purpose of examination the Office will refer to this single claim as ‘Claim 1’ in this Office Action.
Claim 1 is currently pending and has been examined.
Pro Se Applicant
It appears the inventor(s) filed the current application pro se (i.e., without the benefit of representation by a registered patent practitioner). While inventors named as applicants in a patent application may prosecute the application pro se, lack of familiarity with patent examination practice and procedure may result in missed opportunities in obtaining optimal protection for the invention disclosed. The inventor(s) may wish to secure the services of a registered patent practitioner to prosecute the application, because the value of a patent is largely dependent upon skilled preparation and prosecution. The Office cannot aid in selecting a patent practitioner.
A listing of registered patent practitioners is available at https://oedci.uspto.gov/OEDCI/. Applicants may also obtain a list of registered patent practitioners located in their area by writing to Mail Stop OED, Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.
Response to Arguments
Note that the following arguments were provided in an incoming letter received on 4 November 2025 (dated 3 June 2025, hereinafter referred to as “Incoming Letter received 4 November 2025”) with the amended claim as a separate sheet. Future arguments should be submitted under the heading ‘Remarks’ in responses that point out disagreements with the Office Action. See MPEP 714.
Regarding the Applicant’s arguments filed regarding the previous objection of the specification have been considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the objection is resolved by “providing a corrected abstract of the disclosure” (Incoming Letter received 4 November 2025 ¶1). Examiner disagrees. First, the abstract provided on 4 November 2025 is still objected to, and will not be entered. This amendment to the abstract filed on 4 November 2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: multiple individuals or groups interested in transportation within a similar geographic location; limousines; personal chauffeurs, typically set for minimum amount of hours; customers willing to pay higher price for luxurious offering; taxis troubled with accommodating those looking to stay within a local space; those interested in many short and local rides without hiring a driver on an hourly basis is not achieved in the same way a private driveshare company would be able to because the radius’ of these vehicles are so vast and unpredictability of the destinations of the market; increasing total number of units within a company’s fleet; rideshare driver app functionality; cost calculation of private driveshare passenger transportation system companies to solve this problem… to be competitive within the market on an individual risk basis, market competition; providing proper compensation for keeping a specified unit and driver within a local geographic space and providing a large retention of customers based on more availability than an hourly service can offer; radius for reservations; the driver and vehicle freedom to be of service; and desired timeframe with no other scheduled rides set forth. Next, the amendment to the abstract also exceeds 150 words in length. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). Also, a marked-up copy of the substitute abstract was not supplied (in addition to the clean copy). For these reasons, the submitted abstract is not entered, and the objection to the specification remains regarding the abstract. This argument is not persuasive.
Regarding the previous objection of claim 1, the Applicant has successfully amended and/or cancelled the claim, and accordingly the objection is rescinded.
Regarding the previous 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claim 1, the Applicant has successfully amended and/or cancelled the claim, and accordingly the objection is rescinded. However, note that amendments to claim 1 have prompted different a different rejection of claim 1 regarding 35 USC 112(b).
Applicant's arguments filed regarding the previous rejections under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's statement “I am determined that what I am attempting to invent is not an improvement on rideshare offerings” (Incoming Letter received 4 November 2025 ¶1) has been acknowledged by the Office. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues “This system of scheduling and operating a passenger transportation company opens new opportunities for consumers and future business owners willing to utilize it” (Incoming Letter received 4 November 2025 ¶1). Examiner disagrees that this is sufficient for eligibility. First, opening new opportunities for consumers and future business owners is not a technical improvement to a technology or technical field that would provide a practical application in Step 2A prong two or significantly more in Step 2B. At best, this only represents a business / entrepreneurial improvement to a judicial exception, which does not satisfy the criteria for a technical improvement. Second, the claim is directed to a judicial exception (certain methods of organizing human activities: fundamental economic practices, commercial interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, following rules or instructions) and does not include additional elements that provide a practical application or significantly more. This argument is not persuasive.
Regarding the Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections of claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection (Kayhani in view of Thompson). However, please note the following:
Applicant's arguments “what I am trying to invent… is very much different from the other referenced patents cited” (Incoming Letter received 4 November 2025 ¶1) do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. This argument is not persuasive.
Specification
The replacement abstract received on 4 November 2025 (Corrected Abstract of the Disclosure) will not be entered because of the following objections.
The replacement abstract of the disclosure is objected to because:
A marked-up copy of the substitute abstract has not been supplied (in addition to the clean copy).
The amendment to the abstract filed on 4 November 2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: multiple individuals or groups interested in transportation within a similar geographic location; limousines; personal chauffeurs, typically set for minimum amount of hours; customers willing to pay higher price for luxurious offering; taxis troubled with accommodating those looking to stay within a local space; those interested in many short and local rides without hiring a driver on an hourly basis is not achieved in the same way a private driveshare company would be able to because the radius’ of these vehicles are so vast and unpredictability of the destinations of the market; increasing total number of units within a company’s fleet; rideshare driver app functionality; cost calculation of private driveshare passenger transportation system companies to solve this problem… to be competitive within the market on an individual risk basis, market competition; providing proper compensation for keeping a specified unit and driver within a local geographic space and providing a large retention of customers based on more availability than an hourly service can offer; radius for reservations; the driver and vehicle freedom to be of service; desired timeframe with no other scheduled rides set forth.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
The amendment to the abstract exceeds 150 words in length. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because: the abstract content includes current features of ridesharing and private drive share services instead of including a technical summary of the patent and what is new in the art to which this invention pertains. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
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.
Claim 1 is 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.
Claim 1:
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the systematic operation and formula to generate a pricing that falls between a combined ride total based on each ride’s distance and the cost of hiring a service at an exclusive, hourly rate”. However the italicized portion of this limitations regarding the formula is not supported in the written specification. The closest support is provided in the Applicant’s originally filed specification Abstract, ¶[0010-11], ¶[0019]:
[Abstract] THE PRIVATE DRIVESHARE PASSENGER TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM CREATES A NEW SUB-INDUSTRY WITHIN THE PASSENGER TRANSPORTATION SECTOR. CAB COMPANIES THRIVE ON LONG DISTANCE RIDES WHICH LIMITS AVAILABILITY FOR SHORTER RIDE REQUESTS. RIDE-SHARE ENTITIES LIKE UBER/LYFT LACK THE PERSONAL TOUCH THAT A PRIVATE DRIVESHARE SERVICE PROVIDES AND IT IS MORE THAN LIKELY A DIFFERENT DRIVER AND DIFFERENT VEHICLE FOR EVERY RIDE SCHEDULED WITHIN A GIVEN DAY.PRIVATE DRIVE SHARE CLIENTS CAN STORE ITEMS IN THE BACK OF THE VEHICLE BETWEEN RIDES. PRIVATE CAR SERVICES ARE IN A WHOLE DIFFERENT CLASS OF COSTS THAT LIMITS THE AVERAGE CONSUMER FROM HIRING THEM. THIS SYSTEM ALLOWS AN AFFORDABLE OPTION FOR CLIENTS AND ALSO PROVIDES THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE DRIVER TO MAXIMIZE THEIR POTENTIAL IN ANY GIVEN DAY. WHILE THE PRIVATE DRIVER IS THE LEAST AFFORDABLE FOR THE CONSUMER, LIMITING THE MARKET FOR THOSE COMPANIES TO WEALTHY INDIVIDUALS ONLY.
[0010] CUSTOMER ONE calls in. They want to plan a day and have no idea what the plan is nor do they have any interest in making an itinerary. They should be offered the hourly service quote first but also let them know there is a less expensive quote. The three important details required to schedule either service are the 1. Origin Location (the address of the original pick up and final drop off location) 2. The Timeframe of the desired service and 3. The desired destinations in the area.
[0011] In this example, CUSTOMER ONE does not want to pay the hourly price and elects to put the deposit down for 10 hours, from 1:00 PM to 11:00 PM, to be the day’s designated “Private Driveshare” customer.
[0019] CUSTOMER ONE is only refunded by the licensed “Private Driveshare” entity with the receipt of a deposit from CUSTOMER TWO, or potentially another group of people looking for service that date or during that timeframe.
Applicant specification ¶[0010-11] details that there is an hourly price and a less expensive quote, however the Specification does not state formula for calculating the less expensive quote or that the less expensive quote is between a combined ride total based on each ride’s distance. The Abstract states that cab companies thrive on long distance rides and the invention provides an affordable option, but otherwise the specification has no discussion about a pricing based on totaling distances, the hourly rate, or pricing between the total distance pricing and the hourly rate option. Applicant specification ¶[0019] details refunding a customer when a deposit is received from a second customer, but does not state that this is between an hourly rate and a combined total based on each ride’s distance. Hence, the Specification does not provide support for a formula to generate a pricing that falls between a combined ride total based on each ride’s distance and the cost of hiring a service at an exclusive, hourly rate. Therefore, claim 1 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “providing timeframe reservations to a group or individual interested in hiring a passenger transportation service within a specific geographic proximity by offering them a degree of control in accepting or denying new and separate ride requests from outside parties that may be inquired after their timeframe reservation is reserved, along with the ability to schedule a similar timeframe reservation on a date where previously established, precise location and precise times of another party’s, or multiple parties’ reserved rides, to be provided separately, are within the same geographic proximity”. However the italicized portion of this limitations regarding the same geographic proximity are not supported in the written specification. The closest support is provided in the Applicant’s originally filed specification ¶[0010], ¶[0012], and ¶[0020-21].
[0010] CUSTOMER ONE calls in. They want to plan a day and have no idea what the plan is nor do they have any interest in making an itinerary. They should be offered the hourly service quote first but also let them know there is a less expensive quote. The three important details required to schedule either service are the 1. Origin Location (the address of the original pick up and final drop off location) 2.The Timeframe of the desired service and 3. The desired destinations in the area.
[0012] CUSTOMER TWO calls in and knows the exact times they need service with the appropriate amount of passengers for the same date and their request falls within the timeframe of CUSTOMER ONE's reserved timeframe. Let us say CUSTOMER TWO requests a ride at 2:00 PM and a ride at 5:00 PM. CUSTOMER ONE has the ability to approve of those reservation requests made by CUSTOMER TWO.
[0020] CUSTOMER TWO has two options when CUSTOMER ONE is not responding and the time limit for CUSTOMER ONE has run up. 1. Elect to be put "on the line" where CUSTOMER ONE is still in control and no deposit is offered by CUSTOMER TWO, OR 2. Pay a deposit for their desired timeframe similar to CUSTOMER ONE and become the "Private Driveshare" initiating a refund to CUSTOMER ONE.
[0021] To be "on the line" is essentially putting their information down (pick up location, desired destinations and times) as a possibility to schedule the rides very much closer to the date and time of the service, when it's needed. It does not necessarily mean the plan will work out, but as a last minute mutual benefit for both people, the service can be considered a solid backup for their plans, until that group is otherwise notified that it is definitely not a possibility.
Applicant specification ¶[0010] details customer one specifying an origin / pickup location, a final drop off location, and desired destinations in the area; and ¶[0020-21] details customer two providing a request to be ‘on the line’ and specifying a pick up location and desired destinations, and ¶[0012] details customer two’s request falls within the timeline of customer one, however there are no details provided that the locations provided by customer two (e.g. pick up location, desired destinations in ¶[0021]) are in a geographic proximity to the origin location / pickup up address / final drop off location / desired destinations in the area of customer one, since the Applicant’s specification only suggests that timeline is a criteria and not geographic proximity. Hence, the Specification does not provide support for providing timeframe reservations to a group or individual interested in hiring a passenger transportation service within a specific geographic proximity by offering them a degree of control in accepting or denying new and separate ride requests from outside parties that may be inquired after their timeframe reservation is reserved, along with the ability to schedule a similar timeframe reservation on a date where previously established, precise location and precise times of another party’s, or multiple parties’ reserved rides, to be provided separately, are within the same geographic proximity. Therefore, claim 1 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1:
The term “specific geographic proximity” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “proximity” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. See MPEP 2173.05(b). It is not clear how unique an experience would need to be, and by what standard uniqueness is measured, in order to infringe on the claimed invention. For the purpose of examination, the Office interprets the feature as within a five mile radius from a particular location..
The term “similar timeframe reservation” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “similar” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. See MPEP 2173.05(b). It is not clear how unique an experience would need to be, and by what standard uniqueness is measured, in order to infringe on the claimed invention. For the purpose of examination, the Office interprets this feature as during a window of time on a particular day (e.g. within or in one hour from the time).
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claim 1 recites a method. Since the claims recite either a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, the claims satisfy Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Framework in MPEP 2106 and the 2019 Patent Examination Guidelines (PEG). Analysis proceeds to Step 2A Prong One. See MPEP 2106.04(III).
Step 2A – Prong One:
Claim 1 recites an abstract idea. Independent claim 1 recites to generate a pricing that falls between a combined ride total based on each ride’s distance and the cost of hiring a service at an exclusive, hourly rate comprised of providing timeframe reservations to a group or individual interested in hiring a passenger transportation service within a specific geographic proximity by offering them a degree of control in accepting or denying new and separate ride requests from outside parties that may be inquired after their timeframe reservation is reserved, along with the ability to schedule a similar timeframe reservation on a date where previously established, precise location and precise times of another party’s, or multiple parties’ reserved rides, to be provided separately, are within the same geographic proximity.
The claim as a whole recites certain methods of organizing human activities. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). First, the limitations of to generate a pricing that falls between a combined ride total based on each ride’s distance and the cost of hiring a service at an exclusive, hourly rate comprised of providing timeframe reservations to a group or individual interested in hiring a passenger transportation service within a specific geographic proximity by offering them a degree of control in accepting or denying new and separate ride requests from outside parties that may be inquired after their timeframe reservation is reserved, along with the ability to schedule a similar timeframe reservation on a date where previously established, precise location and precise times of another party’s, or multiple parties’ reserved rides, to be provided separately, are within the same geographic proximity are certain methods of organizing human activities. These limitations represent the sub-groupings of fundamental economic practices, commercial interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, and following rules or instructions. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C). For example, fundamental economic practices includes generating a pricing…; managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people includes generating a pricing…, providing timeframe reservations…, offering control in accepting / denying new and separate ride requests…, scheduling similar timeframe reservation on a date…; commercial interactions includes providing timeframe reservations…, offering control in accepting / denying new and separate ride requests…, scheduling similar timeframe reservation on a date…; and following rules or instructions includes generating a pricing…, providing timeframe reservations…, offering control in accepting / denying new and separate ride requests…, scheduling similar timeframe reservation on a date…. Note that the number of people involved in the activities is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping and instead it is based on whether an activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (e.g. fundamental economic practices, commercial interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, following rules or instructions) regardless of the recitation of generic computer components or other machinery in its ordinary capacity, then it falls within the ‘Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity’ grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Analysis proceeds to Step 2A Prong Two.
Step 2A – Prong Two:
This judicial exception (abstract idea) is not integrated into a practical application. There are no limitations and/or additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d). Limitations that may provide a practical application could include improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field – see MPEP 2106.05(a), applying the judicial exception with or by use of a particular machine – see MPEP 2106.05(b), effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing – see MPEP 2106.05(c), or applying or using the exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort to monopolize the exception – see MPEP 2106.05(e).
Hence, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Analysis proceeds to Step 2B.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05. Limitations that may provide an inventive concept (i.e. significantly more) could include improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field – see MPEP 2106.05(a), applying the judicial exception with or by use of a particular machine – see MPEP 2106.05(b), effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing – see MPEP 2106.05(c), applying or using the exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort to monopolize the exception – see MPEP 2106.05(e), or adding a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field – see MPEP 2106.05(d).
The claim does not improve another technology or technical field. Instead the claim represents a generic implementation of certain methods of organizing human activities. At best, the claim is more directed towards solving a business / economic / entrepreneurial problem (i.e. how to provide services to more than one customer during similar time frames), rather than solving a technology based problem. See MPEP 2106.05(a). The claim does not improve the functioning of a computer itself. The claim does not improve a technology or technical field. The claim does not apply the judicial exception with or by use of a particular machine. The claim does not effect a transformation or reduction to a particular article to a different state or thing. The claim does not add a specific limitation other than what is well understood, routine, and conventional in a way that confines the claim to a particular useful application. Viewing the claim limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at each of the claim limitations individually.
Therefore claim 1 and all limitations taken both individually and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor do they include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 1 is ineligible.
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. See MPEP 2120.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication 2021/0116259 A1 to Kayhani et al. in view of US patent application publication 2022/0090925 A1 to Thompson.
Claim 1:
With respect to the following:
The systematic operation and formula to
generate a pricing that falls between a combined ride total based on each ride’s distance and the cost of hiring a service at an exclusive, hourly rate
Kayhani, as shown in ¶[0027-28], ¶[0033], ¶[0040-41] details generating pricing for rides and route options based on the distance spent within one or more charge zones, for one or more legs of a journey on a rideshare or transit vehicle (Examiner will refer to this as pricing A); and Fig 3, ¶[0027-28], ¶[0040-41] details generating pricing for rides and route options based on time spent inside charge zones at an hourly rate, for one or more legs of a journey on a rideshare or transit vehicle (Examiner will refer to this pricing B); and ¶[0036], ¶[0041], ¶[0044] details offering reduced charges to uses participating in a rideshare program / carpooling by providing discounted rates for all or part of their journey such as a portion of the journey that the user devices are sharing the same vehicle, such that the rideshare user has a different pricing than a solo traveler (Examiner will refer to this as pricing C), i.e. a discount that reduces the price of pricing A or pricing B. While Kayhani teaches the generation of these three pricing values, Kayhani does not explicitly state that a generated pricing (pricing C) falls between a combined ride total based on each ride’s distance (pricing A) and the cost of hiring a service at an exclusive, hourly rate (pricing B). However, this is an obvious modification, since “adjust[ing] current and/or future allocations of transit resources to achieve the desired objectives” is key factor in the success of encouraging ridesharing, as discussed in Kayhani ¶[0018], this practice is well known in the business community and would follow in. Therefore, it would have been obvious to try, by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to perform generate a pricing (pricing C) that falls between a combined ride total based on each ride’s distance (pricing A) and the cost of hiring a service at an exclusive, hourly rate (pricing B) and to incorporate it into the system of Kayhani since there are a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions (i.e., there are four solutions and two of which satisfy this limitation (1) pricing C < pricing A < pricing B, (2) pricing B < pricing C < pricing A, (3) pricing A < pricing C < pricing B, (4) pricing C < pricing B < pricing A) to the recognized need of “encouraging ridesharing” (Kayhani ¶[0018]) and one of ordinary skill in the art would have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Kayhani does not explicitly state, but Thompson teaches the following:
comprised of
providing timeframe reservations to a group or individual interested in hiring a passenger transportation service within a specific geographic proximity by offering them a degree of control in accepting or denying new and separate ride requests from outside parties that may be inquired after their timeframe reservation is reserved (Thompson ¶[0015-18], ¶[0035-36], ¶[0056-58] details a primary rider who already has requested and scheduled the ride in an arranged rideshare from a starting location to a destination location that may accept requests from secondary riders to accompany them during at least a portion of their ride, the secondary rider location must be within a distance threshold of either the starting location / destination location / point(s) along the route, or particular radius and window of time to meet the criteria of the primary rider, i.e. geographic proximity)
along with the ability to schedule a similar timeframe reservation on a date where previously established, precise location and precise times of another party’s, or multiple parties’ reserved rides, to be provided separately, are within the same geographic proximity (Thompson ¶[0021-24], ¶[0031], ¶[0035-36], ¶[0051-57] details the ridesharing system allows a primary rider to schedule a ride in advance (e.g. 48 hours ahead) from a first location to a second location; and potential secondary riders may use the system to find potential primary riders with whom they may wish to join for a ride and send a request to the primary rider; and the secondary rider location must be within a distance threshold of either the starting location / destination location / point(s) along the route, or particular radius, and within a particular window of time on a particular day to meet the criteria of the primary rider, i.e. geographic proximity and similar timeframe).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include providing timeframe reservations to a group or individual interested in hiring a passenger transportation service within a specific geographic proximity by offering them a degree of control in accepting or denying new and separate ride requests from outside parties that may be inquired after their timeframe reservation is reserved; and along with the ability to schedule a similar timeframe reservation on a date where previously established, precise location and precise times of another party’s, or multiple parties’ reserved rides, to be provided separately, are within the same geographic proximity as taught by Thompson with the teachings of Kayhani, with the motivation to solve the problem that “traveling with only one person in each vehicle increases the carbon footprint of the transportation system, while requiring the solo traveler to pay the full fare themselves”(Thompson ¶[0005]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include providing timeframe reservations to a group or individual interested in hiring a passenger transportation service within a specific geographic proximity by offering them a degree of control in accepting or denying new and separate ride requests from outside parties that may be inquired after their timeframe reservation is reserved; and along with the ability to schedule a similar timeframe reservation on a date where previously established, precise location and precise times of another party’s, or multiple parties’ reserved rides, to be provided separately, are within the same geographic proximity as taught by Thompson in the system of Kayhani, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
This action is a final rejection and closes the prosecution of this application. Applicant’s reply under 37 CFR 1.113 to this action is limited to an appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, an amendment complying with the requirements set forth below, or a request for continued examination (RCE) to reopen prosecution where permitted. Please note that the Office also offers initiatives that are available to applicants after the close of prosecution. See https://www.uspto.gov/patents/initiatives/uspto-patent-applications-iniatives-timeline for more information.
General information on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board is available at: www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab. The information at this page includes guidance on time limited options that may assist the applicant contemplating appealing an examiner’s rejection. It also includes information on pro bono (free) legal services and advice available for those who are under-resourced and considering an appeal at: https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/free-legal-assistance. The page is best reviewed promptly after applicant has received a final rejection or the claims have been twice rejected because some of the noted assistance must be requested within one month from the date of the latest rejection. See MPEP § 1204 for more information on filing a notice of appeal.
If applicant should desire to appeal any rejection made by the examiner, a Notice of Appeal must be filed within the period for reply. The Notice of Appeal must be accompanied by the fee required by 37 CFR 41.20(b)(1). The current fee amount is available at: www.uspto.gov/Fees.
If applicant should desire to file an after-final amendment, entry of the proposed amendment cannot be made as a matter of right unless it merely cancels claims or complies with a formal requirement made in a previous Office action. Amendments touching the merits of the application which otherwise might not be proper may be admitted upon a showing of good and sufficient reasons why they are necessary and why they were not presented earlier.
A reply under 37 CFR 1.113 to a final rejection must include cancellation of or appeal from the rejection of, each rejected claim. The filing of an amendment after final rejection, whether or not it is entered, does not stop the running of the statutory period for reply to the final rejection unless the examiner holds all of the claims to be in condition for allowance.
If applicant should desire to continue prosecution in a utility or plant application filed on or after May 29, 2000 and have the finality of this Office action withdrawn, an RCE under 37 CFR 1.114 may be filed within the period for reply. See MPEP § 706.07(h) for more information on the requirements for filing an RCE.
The application will become abandoned unless a Notice of Appeal, an after final reply that places the application in condition for allowance, or an RCE has been filed properly within the period for reply, or any extension of this period obtained under either 37 CFR 1.136(a) or (b).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN TALLMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3198. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5.
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, Jeffrey Zimmerman can be reached at (571) 272-4602. 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.
BRIAN TALLMAN
Examiner
Art Unit 3628
/BRIAN A TALLMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/MICHAEL P HARRINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628