CTFR 18/667,058 CTFR 90867 DETAILED ACTION 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. This action is in reply to the Amendment filed on 12/12/2025. Claims 1-9 are currently pending. Claims 8 and 9 are withdrawn. Claims 1-7 have been examined. Response to Amendment Applicant`s amendment, filed 12/12/2025, has been entered. Election/Restriction 08-04 AIA Newly submitted claim s 8 and 9 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: Inventions I (Claims 1-7) and II (Claims 8 and 9) are directed to related method, machine, and system. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the inventions as claimed have materially different modes of operations, functions, and effects. While both inventions relate to determining whether either or both of the pickup location and the drop-off location are within a predetermined range from a location of the charging equipment stored in advance, by calculating a linear distance or a path distance between the charging equipment and the pickup location or the drop-off location and providing the inventive in response to determining that either or both of the pickup location and the drop-off location are located within the predetermined range, invention I functions primarily to display a first component on a screen of the fare meter indicating a start of the transporting of the user, receive an operation of a driver selecting the first component, acquire the pickup location from a GPS device of the vehicle in response to the receiving of the operation of the driver selecting the first component, display a second component on the screen of the fare meter indicating an end of the transporting of the user, receive an operation of the driver selecting the second component, acquire the drop-off location from the GPS device in response to the receiving of the operation of the driver selecting the second component, and display the incentive on the screen showing the fee to the user, whereas invention II functions primarily to, by a mobile terminal: display a map, receive input of the pickup location and the drop-off location by the user tapping the pickup location and the drop-off location on the map, display the fee, and display an incentive in response to receiving the incentive from the server; and by a server, receive the pickup location and the drop-off location from the mobile terminal, calculate the fee based on the pickup location and the drop-off location and transmit the fee to the mobile terminal; and transmit the incentive to the mobile terminal. Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants . Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim s 8 and 9 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03. To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention. Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a) 07-30-01 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. 07-31-01 Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 recites “displaying a first component on a screen of the fare meter indicating a start of the transporting of the user.” While the specification does not explicitly refer to a component, the claimed first component appears to be referring to occupied button 820 (see Fig. 3A and [0029]). The specification at [0030] states that the driver presses the occupied button 820 and, when the occupied button 820 is pressed, the display unit M3 is displayed as “occupied.” The disclosure only provides support for display units M1, M2, and M3 of the fare meter. Occupied button 820, as shown in Figs. 3A and 3B, appears to be a physical button as it’s not included in any of display units M1, M2, or M3. In other words, the disclosure lacks support for the first component (i.e., occupied button 820) being displayed on a screen of the fare meter as the first component (i.e., occupied button 820) is shown/described in the disclosure as a physical button. Accordingly, the limitation fails to comply with the written description requirement. Claims 2-7 inherit the deficiencies of claim 1. Claim 1 recites “displaying a second component on the screen of the fare meter indicating an end of the transporting of the user.” While the specification does not explicitly refer to a component, the claimed second component appears to be referring to payment button 830 (see Fig. 3A and [0029]). The specification at [0029] states that the driver presses the payment button 830 and, when the payment button 830 is pressed, the payment amount (fee) is displayed on the display unit M1. The disclosure only provides support for display units M1, M2, and M3 of the fare meter. Payment button 830, as shown in Figs. 3A and 3B, appears to be a physical button as it’s not included in any of display units M1, M2, or M3. In other words, the disclosure lacks support for the second component (i.e., payment button 830) being displayed on the screen of the fare meter as the second component (i.e., payment button 830) is shown/described in the disclosure as a physical button. Accordingly, the limitation fails to comply with the written description requirement. Claims 2-7 inherit the deficiencies of claim 1. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1: Claims 1-6 are directed to a process. Therefore, the claims are directed to statutory subject matter under Step 1 (Step 1: YES). See MPEP 2106.03. Prong 1, Step 2A: Claim 1 recites at least the following limitations that recite an abstract idea: determining whether either or both of the pickup location and the drop-off location are located within a predetermined range from a location of the charging equipment stored in advance, by calculating a linear distance or a path distance between the charging equipment and the pickup location or the drop-off location; providing an incentive and displaying the incentive with the fee to the user, in response to determining that either or both of the pickup location and the drop-off location are located within the predetermined range. The above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II), in that they recite commercial interactions. The BRI of these limitations includes a driver determining that the pickup location and/or drop-off location are located within a particular range from a known charging equipment location by calculating a linear distance or a path distance between the charging equipment and the pickup location or the drop-off location; and if the pickup location and/or drop-off location are located within the range, the driver providing an incentive to a rider by presenting them with the fee and incentive. Additionally and/or alternatively, the limitation of determining whether either or both of the pickup location and the drop-off location are located within a predetermined range from a location of the charging equipment stored in advance, by calculating a linear distance or a path distance between the charging equipment and the pickup location or the drop-off location, under its BRI, falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I), in that it recites mathematical calculations and/or the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), in that it recites concepts performed in the human mind. Accordingly, under Prong 1 of Step 2A, claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Prong 1, Step 2A: YES). See MPEP 2106.04(a). Prong 2, Step 2A: Claim 1 recites the additional elements of displaying a first component on a screen of the fare meter indicating a start of the transporting of the user; receiving an operation of a driver selecting the first component; acquiring the pickup location from a GPS device of the vehicle in response to the receiving of the operation of the driver selecting the first component; displaying a second component on the screen of the fare meter indicating an end of the transporting of the user; receiving an operation of the driver selecting the second component; acquiring the drop-off location from the GPS device in response to the receiving of the operation of the driver selecting the second component which merely add insignificant extra-solution activities (i.e., mere data gathering and outputting) to the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Claim 1 further recites the additional elements of a screen of the fare meter and a GPS device of a vehicle. These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration. Although these additional computer-related elements are recited, claim 1 merely invokes such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As such, under Prong 2 of Step 2A, when considered both individually and as a whole, the limitations of claim 1 are not indicative of integration into a practical application (Prong 2, Step 2A: NO). See MPEP 2106.04(d). Since claim 1 recites an abstract idea and fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, claim 1 is “directed to” an abstract idea under Step 2A (Step 2A: YES). See MPEP 2106.04(d). Step 2B: The recitation of the additional elements is acknowledged, as identified above with respect to Prong 2 of Step 2A. These additional elements do not add significantly more to the abstract idea for the same reasons as addressed above with respect to Prong 2 of Step 2A. Additionally, when considering whether an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity, it is considered whether the extra-solution limitation is well-known. See MPEP 2106.05(g). In claim 1, the steps of displaying a first component on a screen of the fare meter indicating a start of the transporting of the user; receiving an operation of a driver selecting the first component; acquiring the pickup location from a GPS device of the vehicle in response to the receiving of the operation of the driver selecting the first component; displaying a second component on the screen of the fare meter indicating an end of the transporting of the user; receiving an operation of the driver selecting the second component; acquiring the drop-off location from the GPS device in response to the receiving of the operation of the driver selecting the second component are well-known. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) –receiving/transmitting data over a network, storing and retrieving information in memory, electronic recordkeeping, presenting data. Accordingly, as indicated above, these steps merely add insignificant extra-solution activities to the abstract idea. Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of claim 1 do not add anything that is not already present when they are considered individually. Therefore, under Step 2B, there are no meaningful limitations in claim 1 that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B: NO). See MPEP 2106.05. Dependent Claims: Dependent claims 2-6, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea. More specifically, dependent claims 2-6 further fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II), in that they recite commercial interactions. Claim 4 further recites the additional element of acquiring output power of the charging equipment located within the predetermined range which merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., mere data gathering) to the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Under Step 2B, the step of acquiring data is well-known. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) –receiving/transmitting data over a network, storing and retrieving information in memory. Accordingly, under the Subject Matter Eligibility test, claims 1-6 are ineligible. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 07-20-02-aia AIA This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 07-20-aia AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claims 1, 2, 6, and 7 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Negahban (US 11410468 B1), in view of DeLizio (US 20180202822 A1). Regarding claim 1 , Negahban discloses a method of calculating a fee of transporting a user from a pickup location to a drop-off location with a vehicle, the vehicle being an electrified vehicle that is chargeable with a charging equipment and includes a fare meter, the user getting into the vehicle at the pickup location and getting off the vehicle at the drop-off location (Negahban: Abstract; Col. 5, Ln. 62-67; Col. 7, Ln. 67-Col. 8, Ln. 2), the method comprising: displaying a first component on a screen of the fare meter indicating a start of the transporting of the user (Negahban: Fig. 5; Col. 10, Ln. 54-65; Col. 11, Ln. 36-52; Claim 15 – “The GUI 310 may permit a user/driver to interactively enter and receive information…the GUI 310 may include…a controls area 318. The mobile meter device 150 may be a smart phone, a tablet, a dedicated meter device…In the Normal status, button B1 displays ‘Start’ and provides a function of starting fare calculation, i.e., measuring distances and times and calculating corresponding fare amount.” – “a graphical user interface (GUI) having controls for starting the fare calculating unit, stopping the fare calculating unit, pausing the fare calculating unit, manually changing the total fare to a fixed amount, and manually adding a toll amount, wherein activation of any one of the controls causes a record to be made of the control activated together with at least one of a time and a location corresponding to the activation of the control” – “a graphical user interface (GUI) having controls for starting the fare calculating unit…wherein activation of any one of the controls causes a record to be made of the control activated together with at least one of a time and a location corresponding to the activation of the control”); receiving an operation of a driver selecting the first component (Negahban: Fig. 5; Col. 10, Ln. 54-65; Col. 11, Ln. 36-52; Claim 15); acquiring the pickup location from a GPS device of the vehicle in response to the receiving of the operation of the driver selecting the first component (Negahban: Fig. 5; Col. 10, Ln. 42-44 and 54-65; Col. 11, Ln. 36-52; Claim 15); displaying a second component on the screen of the fare meter indicating an end of the transporting of the user (Negahban: Figs. 5 and 6; Col. 10, Ln. 54-65; Col. 11, Ln. 36-48; Col. 12, Ln. 4-26; Claim 15 – “The GUI 310 may permit a user/driver to interactively enter and receive information…the GUI 310 may include…a controls area 318. The mobile meter device 150 may be a smart phone, a tablet, a dedicated meter device…In the Metering status…The third button, B3, displays “Stop” and when operated stops the fare calculation, triggers any final fare calculation, and notifies the administrative component to generate a receipt.” – “a graphical user interface (GUI) having controls for…stopping the fare calculating unit…wherein activation of any one of the controls causes a record to be made of the control activated together with at least one of a time and a location corresponding to the activation of the control”); receiving an operation of the driver selecting the second component (Negahban: Figs. 5 and 6; Col. 10, Ln. 54-65; Col. 11, Ln. 36-48; Col. 12, Ln. 4-26; Claim 15); and acquiring the drop-off location from the GPS device in response to the receiving of the operation of the driver selecting the second component (Negahban: Figs. 5 and 6; Col. 10, Ln. 42-44 and 54-65; Col. 11, Ln. 36-48; Col. 12, Ln. 4-26; Claim 15). While Negahban further discloses providing an incentive (i.e., discount) and displaying the incentive on the screen showing the fee to the user (Negahban: Fig. 5; Col. 11, Ln. 28-31), Negahban does not explicitly disclose determining whether either or both of the pickup location and the drop-off location are within a predetermined range from a location of the charging equipment stored in advance in the GPS device, by calculating a linear distance or a path distance between the charging equipment and the pickup location or the drop-off location, and wherein the method further includes providing an incentive and displaying the incentive on the screen showing the fee to the user, in response to determining that either or both of the pickup location and the drop-off location are located within the predetermined range. However, DeLizio teaches picking a user up at a pickup location and dropping the user off at a drop-off location (DeLizio: Fig. 12), including determining whether either or both of the pickup location and the drop-off location are within a predetermined range from a particular location stored in advance in the GPS device, by calculating a linear distance or a path distance between the particular location and the pickup location or the drop-off location, and wherein the method further includes providing an incentive and displaying the incentive on the screen to the user, in response to determining that either or both of the pickup location and the drop-off location are located within the predetermined range (DeLizio: [0232-0233] – “the autonomous vehicle determines an offer for value, where the offer provides value to the passenger if the ride drops-off the passenger at an offer-related drop-off location…the autonomous vehicle's ride controller determines the offer based on information received from an offeror…the autonomous vehicle determines the offer based on information associated with one or more of the ride, ride request, passenger's user account, or other suitable information. For example, if the destination indicated in the ride request is in proximity to an offer-related drop-off point [i.e., a particular location], the autonomous vehicle selects the offer related to the offer-related drop-off point. As another example, the offer may be selected because the offer-related drop-off point is in proximity to a path between the ride request's pickup location and destination…the value may include a free ride, a discounted ride, a discount at a retail location in proximity to the offer-related drop-off point, free or discounted future rides, or any other suitable value to incentivize acceptance of the offer…the autonomous vehicle's ride controller presents the offer. In some embodiments, the offer is presented on an input output device native to the autonomous vehicle. In other embodiments, the autonomous vehicle transmits the offer for presentation on a ride service controller for presentation” – it is noted that the particular location being a location of charging equipment is given little patentable weight as the type of location (i.e., location of charging equipment) does not change or alter the function of the method). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the ridesharing method, as taught by Negahban, the ability to determine whether either or both of the pickup location and the drop-off location are within a predetermined range from a particular location stored in advance in the GPS device, by calculating a linear distance or a path distance between the particular location and the pickup location or the drop-off location, and provide an incentive and display the incentive on the screen to the user, in response to determining that either or both of the pickup location and the drop-off location are located within the predetermined range, as taught by DeLizio, 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. It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Negahban, to include the teachings of DeLizio, in order to incentivize acceptance of the offer (DeLizio: [0232]). Regarding claim 2 , Negahban/DeLizio teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the incentive is provided (Negahban: Fig. 5; Col. 11, Ln. 28-31 and DeLizio: [0232-0233]) when the pickup location is a standby location where the charging equipment is installed. It is noted that the recited limitation of “when the pickup location is a standby location where the charging equipment is installed” represents a conditional limitation not necessarily performed. The limitation is thereby treated as a conditional limitation and accorded little patentable weight. Regarding claim 6 , Negahban/DeLizio teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the pickup location and the drop-off location are at different locations from the particular location (DeLizio: [0100], [0241], [0245] – it is noted that the particular location being a location of charging equipment is given little patentable weight as the type of location (i.e., location of charging equipment) does not change or alter the function of the method). Regarding claim 7 , Negahban/DeLizio teaches a vehicle comprising: a processor performing the method according to claim 1 (Negahban: Col. 5, Ln. 14-35 and DeLizio: [0057], further see rejection of claim 1); and the fare meter (Negahban: Col. 10, Ln. 62-64), wherein the fare meter includes a display displaying the incentive (Negahban: Fig. 5; Col. 11, Ln. 28-31 and DeLizio: [0232-0233]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine DeLizio with Negahban for the reasons identified above with respect to claim 1. Claim 3 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Negahban (US 11410468 B1), in view of DeLizio (US 20180202822 A1), in further view of Lyon (US 20240119478 A1). Regarding claim 3 , Negahban/DeLizio teaches the method according to claim 1, including providing an incentive based on the drop-off location being within proximity of a particular location (DeLizio: [0232-0233]), but does not explicitly teach that, when both the pickup location and the drop-off location are located within the predetermined range, a higher level of the incentive is provided than when only one of either the pickup location or the drop-off location is located within the predetermined range. However, Lyon teaches providing incentives/offers (Lyon: Abstract), including the known technique of providing a higher level of incentive when multiple parameters are satisfied than when only one of the parameters is satisfied (Lyon: [0034] – “offers may be tiered. Tiered offers may include more than one condition/incentive and may be tied to more than one product or service. For instance, a tiered offer—'Get $100 when you open a savings account, and get $150 when you open a checking account. Get $300 if you do both!’”). This known technique is applicable to the incentive method of Negahban/DeLizio as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely they are directed to providing incentives. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have applied the known technique of Lyon to Negahban/DeLizio. Specifically, it would have been recognized that applying the known technique of providing a higher level of incentive when multiple parameters are satisfied than when only one of the parameters is satisfied, as taught by Lyon, to the teachings of Negahban/DeLizio would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such references into similar methods. Further, including that a higher level of incentive is provided when multiple parameters are satisfied than when only one of the parameters is satisfied, as taught by Lyon, into the incentive method of Negahban/DeLizio would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved method for providing incentives by allowing the user to receive a higher offer/incentive (Lyon: [0034]). Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Negahban (US 11410468 B1), in view of DeLizio (US 20180202822 A1), in further view of Fox (US 20200175614 A1). Regarding claim 4 , Negahban/DeLizio teaches the method according to claim 1, including acquiring information of the particular location located within the predetermined range and setting a level of the incentive (Negahban: Fig. 5; Col. 11, Ln. 28-31 and DeLizio: [0232-0233] – free ride vs. discounted ride), but does not explicitly teach acquiring output power of the charging equipment located within the predetermined range, wherein a level of the incentive is set according to a magnitude of the output power. However, Fox teaches incentivizing charging station users (Fox: Abstract), including acquiring information of the charging equipment and setting a level of the incentive according to a magnitude of the information (Fox: [0044] – “discounts can be applied for every time a user charges their vehicle battery when the charging station is not busy. A station may use a subscription program which defines a discount relative to supply and demand usage at the station. The subscription program can have different levels defining usage—e.g. average, peak, or below average. Users may subscribe to charging their vehicle's battery only when usage is below average to gain the largest discount. The user could purchase such a subscription at the charging station or prior to charging station. For example, a large discount may be applied for a user which has purchased a subscription level of thirty below average charges at a particular charging station and therefore is limited to charging their vehicle's battery between 1 AM-4 AM.” – it is noted that the information being output power is given little patentable weight as the type of information (i.e., output power) does not change or alter the function of the method). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the incentive method, as taught by Negahban/DeLizio, the ability to acquire information of the charging equipment and set a level of the incentive according to a magnitude of the information, as taught by Fox, 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. It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Negahban/DeLizio, to include the teachings of Fox, in order to reduce charging times (Fox: [0003]). Regarding claim 5 , Negahban/DeLizio/Fox teaches the method according to claim 4, wherein the incentive is a discount on the fee (Negahban: Fig. 5; Col. 11, Ln. 28-31 and DeLizio: [0232-0233]). Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 12/12/2025 have been fully considered. 35 U.S.C. § 101 Applicant argues that “the fee calculation method acquires a new function when compared to a conventional method. A conventional method for the fee calculation does not provide an incentive based on the pickup location and/or the drop-off location…By additionally displaying the incentive on the screen showing the fee to the user in response to determining that either or both of the pickup location and the drop-off location are located within the predetermined range, the claim as a whole is directed to a practical application.” The Examiner disagrees. The steps of determining that either or both of the pickup location and the drop-off location are located within the predetermined range and displaying the incentive on the screen showing the fee to the user recite an abstract idea, as discussed above in the 101 rejection. 35 U.S.C. § 103 Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Conclusion 07-40 AIA 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. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brittney Carroll whose telephone number is (571)272-8555. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM Monday thru Friday. 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, Amanda Abrahamson can be reached at 571-270-1376. 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. /BRITTNEY M CARROLL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 6217 Application/Control Number: 18/667,058 Page 2 Art Unit: 6217 Application/Control Number: 18/667,058 Page 3 Art Unit: 6217 Application/Control Number: 18/667,058 Page 4 Art Unit: 6217 Application/Control Number: 18/667,058 Page 5 Art Unit: 6217 Application/Control Number: 18/667,058 Page 6 Art Unit: 6217 Application/Control Number: 18/667,058 Page 7 Art Unit: 6217 Application/Control Number: 18/667,058 Page 8 Art Unit: 6217 Application/Control Number: 18/667,058 Page 9 Art Unit: 6217 Application/Control Number: 18/667,058 Page 10 Art Unit: 6217 Application/Control Number: 18/667,058 Page 11 Art Unit: 6217 Application/Control Number: 18/667,058 Page 12 Art Unit: 6217 Application/Control Number: 18/667,058 Page 13 Art Unit: 6217 Application/Control Number: 18/667,058 Page 14 Art Unit: 6217
Prosecution Insights