DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on January 15, 2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-14 were previously pending. Claims 1, 5, and 8 were amended in the reply filed January 15, 2026. Claims 1-14 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments overcome the rejections made under § 112(b) and they are withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the rejection made under § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the claims are not "directed to" an abstract idea at Step 2A – Prong One (Remarks, 5-7), but this misstates the inquiry. "Prong One asks does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?" MPEP 2106.04 II. A. 1. The presence of additional elements in the claim (e.g., server, computer, graph neural network) does not mean that an abstract idea is not also recited at this point in the framework. Moreover, even under Applicant's own characterization, the claims are solving a problem with organizing human activities rather than a problem borne out of computers or any other technology (see Remarks, 6-7—"However, there are instances when drivers take shortcuts that do not always satisfy traffic regulations. Thus, none of the conventional ETA or routing models are able to adaptively predict ETA or predict the route that the drivers would follow in reality.").
Applicant also argues that the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. "Similarly, amended independent claim 1 goes beyond mere organizing human activity and does not merely retrieve route data based on location-based data or utilize historical ride information. Instead, the claimed method compares the recommended route for a ride and historical ride information to extract a real-time driving behaviour of a driver, and generates a personalized map based on the extracted real-time driving behaviour to adaptively estimate an expected time of arrival (ETA) for the ride and thereby re-routes the driver to the personalized route with the optimized ETA." Remarks, 8-9. This describes an improvement to organizing human activities rather than the computer itself or any other technology. It is not clear how it is similar to the computerized network traffic management of Example 40. Although Applicant highlights the "detailed workflow" (Remarks, 9), "a claim is not patent eligible merely because it applies an abstract idea in a narrow way." BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1287 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The Specification does not provide any support for the assertion that the invention improves navigating systems "because computational overheads are drastically reduced." Remarks, 9. "[I]f the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology." MPEP 2106.04(d)(1).
Applicant also argues that the claims recite significantly more than the abstract idea. "The elements claimed in amended independent claim 1 are not well-understood, routine or conventional in the field because nobody has, before this application, suggested the following elements: 'retrieving, via a graphical neural network, a recommended route for the ride based on location information data; identifying historical ride information ..., accessed from a custom driver profile database, who have taken same routes for rides before ... comparing the recommended route and the historical ride information to extract a real-time driving behaviour of the driver; generating a personalized map for the driver...; and output the personalised map, via a graphical user interface, to re-route the driver in real-time based on the estimated time of arrival for the ride.' The claimed additional elements qualify as 'significantly more' not only because they are not generic computer functions, but also because they add specific limitations that are unconventional." Remarks, 10. Aside from the generic and conventional computer elements recited at a high level of generality (graphical neural network, database, graphical user interface) all of these elements are abstract. "[T]he relevant inquiry is not whether the claimed invention as a whole is unconventional or non-routine." BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Applicant does not set forth any unconventional arrangement similar to the one in BASCOM, which addressed a problem specific to computers. Accordingly, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the rejections made under §§ 102 & 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. "However, Martyniv fails to anticipate comparing a recommended route with the route information data records (presumably equated to the claimed 'historical ride information') to extract a real-time driving behavior of the driver, as recited in amended independent claim 1." Remarks, 12. Martyniv discloses real-time driving updates at ¶ 0047.
"In fact, Martyniv merely describes that a route is determined from navigation systems by utilizing starting and destination points." Remarks, 12. The claim does not exclude using starting and destination points to determine a route. "In contrast, the claimed recommended route is determined via a GNN by processing location-based data." Remarks, 12. Starting and destination points are location-based data, and Martyniv also discloses current location-based routing updates at ¶ 0047.
"Therefore, in Martyniv, the road information data merely describes maneuvers of the road such as U-turn, hard left, etc., and does not indicate maneuvers taken by the driver on the road or even a likelihood of the drivers taking a maneuver from a recommended road as claimed." Remarks, 13. Applicant does not explain why maneuvers of the road such as U-turn, hard left, etc. do not qualify as maneuvers taken by the driver. With respect to a likelihood of the drivers taking a maneuver from a recommended road, this is moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Applicant's arguments regarding the personalized map (Remarks, 13) are not persuasive for reasons already of record. Final Rejection mailed 12/2/2025, ¶ 8.
"In contrast, the claimed custom driver profile database is a database of various drivers who have traversed a route for the ride." Remarks, 14. Martyniv uses both driving history of the driver in question as well as other drivers (¶ 0059—"Mobile device 125 may determine an equal ratio, decimal, or percent, and provide only the resulting values to server 125 in embodiments in which the driver profile is stored on server 125 or in embodiments in which the driver profile is sent to server 125 for aggregation with other driver profiles for use in creating historical driving statistics.").
"In fact, Martyniv merely describes that some navigation devices outputs detailed static maps outlining the route, maneuvers, and features, together with estimated arrival time information. For example, Martyniv, in paragraph [0079], states, '[s]ome navigation devices 122 show detailed maps on displays outlining the route, the types of maneuvers to be taken at various locations along the route, locations of certain types of features.' This disclosure is thus limited to static map presentation and ETA display." Remarks, 14. Rather than merely disclosing static maps, Martyniv discloses updating the routing information in real time (¶ 0047).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Amended claims 1 and 8 recite "comparing the recommended route and the historical ride information to extract a real-time driving behaviour of the driver." Extraction of driving behavior is described in ¶ 0058 of the published Specification, which does not support that it is specifically "real-time" driving behavior. The dependent claims inherit the rejections of their respective base claims and, as such, are rejected for the same reasons.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter (abstract idea without significantly more). Claims are eligible for patent protection under § 101 if they are in one of the four statutory categories and not directed to a judicial exception to patentability. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). Claims 1-14, each considered as a whole and as an ordered combination, are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A – Prong 1:
The claims recite an abstract idea reflected in the representative functions of the independent claims—including:
With respect to claim 1: retrieving a recommended route for the ride based on location information data; identifying historical ride information relating to routes for the ride, the historical ride information identifying driving behaviour of drivers, accessed from a customer driver profile, who have taken same routes for rides before, the driving behaviour of drivers indicating likelihood of drivers to take a route deviation from the recommended route for the ride; comparing the recommended route and the historical ride information to extract a real-time driving behaviour of the driver; generating a personalized map for the driver based on the extracted driving behaviour to adaptively provide the estimated time of arrival for the ride to the driver; and output the personalized map to re-route the driver in real-time based on the estimated time of arrival for the ride.
With respect to claim 8: retrieving a recommended route for the ride based on location information data; identifying historical ride information relating to the driver, the historical ride information identifying a driving behaviour of the driver, accessed from a custom driver profile, based on same routes for rides that have been taken before, wherein the driving behaviour of drivers indicates likelihood of drivers to take a route deviation from the recommended route for the ride; comparing the recommended route and the historical ride information to extract a real-time driving behaviour of the driver; generating a personalized map for the driver based on the extracted driving behaviour to adaptively provide the estimated time of arrival for the ride to the driver; and output the personalized map to re-route the driver in real-time based on the estimated time of arrival for the ride.
These limitations taken together qualify as a certain method of organizing human activities because they recite collecting, analyzing, and outputting information for assisting in the navigation of people based on their historical driving data and the historical driving data of other people (i.e., in the terminology of the 2019 Revised Guidance, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including following rules or instructions). Additionally, it covers certain purely mental processes (e.g., a person observing historical driving data and routes, evaluating them, and arriving at a judgment on a recommended route with ETA).
It shares similarities with other abstract ideas held to be non-statutory by the courts (see Electric Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)—process of gathering and analyzing information of a specified content, then displaying the results, similar because at another level of abstraction the claims could be characterized as process of gathering and analyzing information of historical routes, then displaying the results; Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015)—tailoring sales information presented to a user based on, e.g., user data or time data, similar because at another level of abstraction the claims could be characterized as tailoring map information presented to a user based on, e.g., historical user data or route data).
These cases describe significantly similar aspects of the claimed invention, albeit at another level of abstraction. See Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1240-41 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("An abstract idea can generally be described at different levels of abstraction. As the Board has done, the claimed abstract idea could be described as generating menus on a computer, or generating a second menu from a first menu and sending the second menu to another location. It could be described in other ways, including, as indicated in the specification, taking orders from restaurant customers on a computer.").
MPEP 2106 Step 2A – Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no meaningful limitations that transform the exception into a patent eligible application. The elements merely serve to provide a general link to a technological environment (e.g., computers and the Internet) in which to carry out the judicial exception (computer, server, processor, memory including computer program code, graphical neural network, database, graphical user interface—all recited at a high level of generality).
Although they have and execute instructions to perform the abstract idea itself (e.g., modules, program code, etc. to automate the abstract idea), this also does not serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as it merely amounts to instructions to "apply it." Aside from such instructions to implement the abstract idea, they are solely used for generic computer operations (e.g., receiving, storing, retrieving, transmitting data), employing the computer as a tool. See FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("[T]he use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.") (citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245,1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) (emphasis added).
The claims only manipulate abstract data elements into another form. They do not set forth improvements to another technological field or the functioning of the computer itself and instead use computer elements as tools to improve the functioning of the abstract idea identified above. Looking at the additional limitations and abstract idea as an ordered combination and as a whole adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Rather than any meaningful limits, their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation of the abstract idea identified in Prong One. None of the additional elements recited "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment,' that is, implementation via computers." Alice Corp., slip op. at 16 (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)).
At the levels of abstraction described above, the claims do not readily lend themselves to a finding that they are directed to a nonabstract idea. Therefore, the analysis proceeds to step 2B. See BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("The Enfish claims, understood in light of their specific limitations, were unambiguously directed to an improvement in computer capabilities. Here, in contrast, the claims and their specific limitations do not readily lend themselves to a step-one finding that they are directed to a nonabstract idea. We therefore defer our consideration of the specific claim limitations’ narrowing effect for step two.") (citations omitted).
MPEP 2106 Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as presented in Step 2A Prong 2 (i.e., they amount to nothing more than a general link to a particular technological environment and instructions to apply it there). Moreover, the additional elements recited are known and conventional computing elements (computer, server, processor, memory including computer program code, graphical neural network, database, graphical user interface—see published Specification ¶¶ 0033-35, 46, 57, 76, 79-84 describing these at a high level of generality and in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy the statutory disclosure requirements).
The Federal Circuit has recognized that "an invocation of already-available computers that are not themselves plausibly asserted to be an advance, for use in carrying out improved mathematical calculations, amounts to a recitation of what is 'well-understood, routine, [and] conventional.'" SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 890 F.3d 1016, 1023 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (alteration in original) (citing Mayo v. Prometheus, 566 U.S. 66, 73 (2012)). Apart from the instructions to implement the abstract idea, they only serve to perform well-understood functions (e.g., receiving, storing, retrieving, transmitting data—see Specification above as well as Alice Corp.; Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2015) covering the well-known nature of these basic computer functions).
"The use and arrangement of conventional and generic computer components recited in the claims—such as a database, user terminal, and server— do not transform the claim, as a whole, into 'significantly more' than a claim to the abstract idea itself. We have repeatedly held that such invocations of computers and networks that are not even arguably inventive are insufficient to pass the test of an inventive concept in the application of an abstract idea." Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1056 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citations and quotation marks omitted). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Dependent Claims Step 2A:
The limitations of the dependent claims merely set forth further refinements of the abstract idea without changing the analysis already presented (i.e., they merely narrow the same abstract idea identified above without adding any new additional elements beyond it). Additionally, for the same reasons as above, the limitations fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea as the independent claims (i.e., generic computer processor/server with instructions).
Dependent Claims Step 2B:
The dependent claims merely use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea. They do not add any new additional elements to be analyzed here. Accordingly, they are not directed to significantly more than the exception itself, and are not eligible subject matter under § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 6, 8-10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martyniv, et al., U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2017/0138751 (Reference A of the PTO-892 part of paper no. 20250814) in view of Gupta, et al., U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2024/0271948 (Reference A of the attached PTO-892) and Cheng, U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2016/0341564 (U.S. Pat. Pub. Citation 1 of the IDS filed 6/24/2024).
As per claim 1, Martyniv teaches a computer-implemented method of adaptively providing an estimated time of arrival for a ride by providing a personalized map for a driver for the ride, the method implemented by a server comprising at least one processor and at least one memory storing computer program code (¶¶ 0096, 99), the method comprising:
retrieving a recommended route for the ride based on location information data (¶¶ 0023, 79-80);
identifying historical ride information relating to routes for the ride, the historical ride information identifying driving behaviour of drivers, accessed from a custom driver profile database, who have taken same routes for rides before (¶¶ 0059, 63, 67);
comparing the recommended route and the historical ride information to extract a real-time driving behaviour of the driver (¶¶ 0060, 63, 79; see also ¶¶ 0047-49—real-time);
generating a personalized map for the driver based on the extracted driving behaviour to adaptively provide the estimated time of arrival for the ride to the driver (¶¶ 0079-80); and
output the personalised map, via a graphical user interface, to re-route the driver in real-time based on the estimated time of arrival for the ride (¶¶ 0047, 79-80).
Martyniv does not explicitly teach retrieving a route via a graphical neural network; which is taught by Gupta (¶¶ 0050, 54). It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate this element for the same reason it is useful in Gupta—namely, to enhance the optimal route determinations. Moreover, this is merely a combination of old elements in the art of transportation analysis. In the combination, no element would serve a purpose other than it already did independently, and one skilled in the art would have recognized that the combination could have been implemented through routine engineering producing predictable results.
Martyniv does not explicitly teach the driving behaviour of drivers indicating likelihood of drivers to take a route deviation from the recommended route for the ride; which is taught by Cheng (¶¶ 0047-48, 91-93). It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate this element for the same reason it is useful in Cheng—namely, to proactively address likely routing mistakes made by the driver. Moreover, this is merely a combination of old elements in the art of transportation/navigation analysis. In the combination, no element would serve a purpose other than it already did independently, and one skilled in the art would have recognized that the combination could have been implemented through routine engineering producing predictable results
As per claim 2, Martyniv in view of Gupta and Cheng teaches claim 1 as above. Martyniv further teaches identifying a road segment attribute in the retrieved recommended route (¶¶ 0026-27). Cheng further teaches the road segment attribute comprises at least one of a turn restriction (¶¶ 0050-51). It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate this element for the same reason it is useful in Cheng—namely, to account for difficult turns or ones that cannot be made. Moreover, this is merely a combination of old elements in the art of transportation/navigation analysis. In the combination, no element would serve a purpose other than it already did independently, and one skilled in the art would have recognized that the combination could have been implemented through routine engineering producing predictable results.
As per claim 3, Martyniv in view of Gupta and Cheng teaches claim 2 as above. Cheng further teaches determining if the driver is likely to follow the road segment attribute based on the historical information, and generating a warning message when it is determined that the driver is not likely to follow the road segment attribute (¶¶ 0047-48, 91-93), which would have been obvious to incorporate for the same reasons as the elements in claim 1 above.
As per claim 6, Martyniv in view of Gupta and Cheng teaches claim 1 as above. Martyniv further teaches determining if the driver has a profile (¶¶ 0018-19); aggregating information when it is determined that the driver does not have a profile (¶¶ 0059, 67).; and updating the profile based on the aggregated information (¶¶ 0059, 67).
As per claim 8, Martyniv teaches a server for adaptively providing an estimated time of arrival for a ride by providing a personalized map for a driver for the ride, the server comprising:
at least one processor; and at least one memory including computer program code; the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor (¶¶ 0096, 99), cause the server at least to:
retrieve a recommended route for the ride based on location information data (¶¶ 0023, 79-80);
identify historical ride information relating to the driver, the historical ride information identifying a driving behaviour of the driver, accessed from a custom driver profile database, based on same routes for rides that have been taken before (¶¶ 0059, 63, 67);
compare the recommended route and the historical ride information to extract a real-time driving behaviour of the driver (¶¶ 0060, 63, 79; see also ¶¶ 0047-49—real-time);
generate a personalized map for the driver based on the extracted driving behaviour to adaptively provide the estimated time of arrival for the ride to the driver (¶¶ 0079-80); and
output the personalised map, via a graphical user interface, to re-route the driver in real-time based on the estimated time of arrival for the ride (¶¶ 0047, 79-80).
Martyniv does not explicitly teach retrieving a route via a graphical neural network; which is taught by Gupta (¶¶ 0050, 54) and would have been obvious to incorporate for the same reasons as in claim 1 above. Martyniv does not explicitly teach the driving behaviour of drivers indicating likelihood of drivers to take a route deviation from the recommended route for the ride; which is taught by Cheng (¶¶ 0047-48, 91-93) and would have been obvious to incorporate for the same reasons as in claim 1 above.
As per claims 9-10 and 13, Martyniv in view of Gupta and Cheng teaches claim 8 as above. The references further teach the features of analogous claims 2-3 and 6 (see citations and obviousness rationale above).
Claims 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martyniv, et al. in view of Gupta, et al. and Cheng as applied to claims 3 and 10 above, further in view of Dey, et al., U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2010/0106603 (U.S. Pat. Pub. Citation 5 of the IDS filed 6/24/2024).
As per claims 4 and 11, Martyniv in view of Gupta and Cheng teaches claims 3 and 10 as above. Martyniv does not explicitly teach determining a type of vehicle that is used by the driver for the ride, wherein the step of determining if the driver is likely to follow the road segment attribute depends on the type of the vehicle; which is taught by Dey (¶ 0086). It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate this element for the same reason it is useful in Dey—namely, to incorporate routing preferences of, e.g., taxi cabs. Moreover, this is merely a combination of old elements in the art of transportation/navigation analysis. In the combination, no element would serve a purpose other than it already did independently, and one skilled in the art would have recognized that the combination could have been implemented through routine engineering producing predictable results.
Claims 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martyniv, et al. in view of Gupta, et al. and Cheng as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, further in view of Kong, et al., U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2021/0012652 (Reference A of the PTO-892 part of paper no. 20251128).
As per claims 5 and 12, Martyniv in view of Gupta and Cheng teaches claims 1 and 8 as above. Martyniv further teaches the output is the personalized map (¶¶ 0079-80); but does not explicitly teach the output provides scores for the drivers, the scores indicative of compliance with traffic rules by the drivers; which is taught by Kong (¶¶ 0016-17, 20). It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate this element for the same reason it is useful in Kong—namely, to encourage safe driving. Moreover, this is merely a combination of old elements in the art of transportation/navigation analysis. In the combination, no element would serve a purpose other than it already did independently, and one skilled in the art would have recognized that the combination could have been implemented through routine engineering producing predictable results.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martyniv, et al. in view of Gupta, et al. and Cheng as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, further in view of Schulz, et al., U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2022/0108235 (Reference C of the PTO-892 part of paper no. 20250814).
As per claims 7 and 14, Martyniv in view of Gupta and Cheng teaches claims 1 and 8 as above. Martyniv does not explicitly teach the following, which is taught by Schulz: receiving a request for the ride, the request including location information identifying a destination of the ride (¶ 0025), wherein the step of identifying historical ride information relating to the ride is done based on the identified destination (¶¶ 0037, 53). It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate this element for the same reason it is useful in Schulz—namely, to account for driver route familiarity when optimizing a passenger-requested ride to a destination. Moreover, this is merely a combination of old elements in the art of transportation/navigation analysis. In the combination, no element would serve a purpose other than it already did independently, and one skilled in the art would have recognized that the combination could have been implemented through routine engineering producing predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL VETTER whose telephone number is (571)270-1366. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shannon Campbell can be reached at 571-272-5587. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANIEL VETTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628