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 .
Introduction
The following is a final Office action in response to Applicant’s submission filed on 3/18/2026. Currently claims 1, 3-5, 7, 10-15 are pending and claim 1 is independent. Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 10, 11, 13-15 have been amended from the previous claim set dated 6/1/2024. Claims 2, 6, 8, 9, have been cancelled and no claims have been added.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR10-2023-0095324, filed on 7/21/2023.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments are acknowledged and necessitated the new grounds of rejection in this Office Action. In light of the amendments (and cancellations), the 35 USC § 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Specifically, claims 4 and 5 include the limitation “transportation means” and that is being interpreted as various types of vehicles used for transportation.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “unit” in claims 1-11, 14, 15.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Specifically, “unit” is being interpreted as the software/hardware used to implement the claimed invention.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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, 3-5, 7, 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea), specifically an abstract idea, without significantly more. With respect to claims 1, 3-5, 7, 10-15, following the guidance contained within MPEP 2106, the inquiry for patent eligibility follows two steps: Step 1: Does the claimed invention fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention? Step 2A (Prong 1): Is the claim “directed to” an abstract idea? Step 2A (Prong 2): Is the claim integrated into a practical application? Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea?
In accordance with these steps, the Examiner finds the following:
Step 1: Claim 1 and its dependent claims (claims 3-5, 7, 10-15) are directed to a statutory category, namely a system/machine.
Step 2A (Prong 1): Claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea of “Certain methods of organizing human activity”, or more particularly, “Concepts relating to commercial or legal interactions (including: advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) (See MPEP 2106).” In this application that refers to using a computer system to manage and analyze the process of organizing/coordinating rides. To clarify this further, the Applicant’s disclosed invention is a conceptual system meant to perform the same function that a dispatcher performs for a taxi business. The abstract elements of claim 1 recite in part “Receive request…Calculate route…Dispatch bus…Generate group… Create probability density function… Search for other vehicles…”. Dependent claims 3-5, 7, 10-15 add to the abstract idea the following limitations which recite in part “Receive arrival time…Guarantee time…Receive linkage information…Perform linkage calculation…Generate candidate group…Confirm capability…Confirm arrival time… …Generate dispatch information…Determine if other reserved passenger…Calculate probability…Calculate travel similarity…Increase link consistency…”. All of these additional limitations, however, only serve to further limit the abstract idea, and hence are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent claim 1.
Step 2A (Prong 2): Independent claim 1 does not contain additional elements, either considered individually or in combination, that effectively integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. These claim does include the limitation that recites in part “Service unit…Request unit…Optimal dispatch unit…Calculation unit…Guarantee unit…” which limits the claims to a networked/computer based environment, but this is insufficient with respect to integration into a practical application because it is merely applying the abstract idea to a general computer (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Dependent claims 3-5, 7, 10, 11, 14, 15 add the additional elements which recites in part “Interface…Request unit…Dispatch unit…Punctuality unit…Linkage matching unit…Dynamic dispatch unit…Reservation unit…” which again limits the claims to a networked/computer based environment, but this is insufficient with respect to integration into a practical application because it is again merely applying the abstract idea to a general computer (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Additionally, dependent claims 12, 13 do not include any additional elements to conduct a further Step 2A (Prong 2) analysis.
Step 2B: Independent claims 1 includes additional elements, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, which are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements of these claims recite in part “Service unit…Request unit…Optimal dispatch unit…Calculation unit…Guarantee unit…”. These items are not significantly more because these are merely the software and/or hardware components used to implement the abstract idea (manage and analyze the process of organizing/coordinating rides) on a general purpose computer (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). This is exemplified in the Applicant’s specification in [0044] – “In this specification, each component of the MOD system described above may be software running on a processor, hardware, a software module running on a processor, a hardware module, or a combination of software and hardware.”
Dependent claims3-5, 7, 10, 11, 14, 15 include additional elements, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination and in view of their respective independent claims, which are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Specifically, dependent claims 3-5, 7, 10, 11, 14, 15 include the additional elements which recites in part “Interface…Request unit…Dispatch unit…Punctuality unit…Linkage matching unit…Dynamic dispatch unit…Reservation unit …” These are the same/similar additional elements that are addressed above in claims 1, and are not significantly more because these are again merely the software and/or hardware components used to implement the abstract idea (manage and analyze the process of organizing/coordinating rides) on a general purpose computer (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Additionally, dependent claims 12, 13 do not include any additional elements to conduct a further 2B analysis.
Accordingly, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination claims 1, 3-5, 7, 10-15 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception, an abstract idea, without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3, 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aich et al. (US 20200104770 A1) in view of Alonso-Mora et al. (US 20180224866 A1)
Regarding claim 1 (Amended), Aich discloses a mobility on demand (MOD) system (Aich ABS - A provider, such as a transportation management service, can manage transport for a number of passengers, including passengers with special needs, between various locations) comprising: a mobility service unit including a boarding request input unit for receiving, from a user, a boarding request including information on a departure point and a destination point from a user (Aich ¶16 - A customer can submit a request for transportation between an origin and a destination at, or near, a specified time, and can receive information for traveling options along one or more routes between those locations); and an optimal dispatch unit configured to calculate an optimal dispatch and route and to dispatch a MOD bus (Aich ¶55 - In this example, the route generation module 418 can generate a set of routing options based on the received requests for a specified area over a specified period of time. A route optimization module 420 can perform an optimization process using the provided routing options to determine an appropriate set of routes to provide in response to the various requests); arrival time input interface for receiving the time of arrival or the time of departure, and the optimal dispatch and route includes a MOD vehicle dispatch and route for guaranteeing the time of arrival to arrive at the destination point at the time of arrival inputted by the user or a MOD vehicle dispatch and route for guaranteeing the time of departure to arrive at a boarding point at the time of departure inputted by the user (Aich ¶15 - Transportation requests can relate to the transportation of people, animals, packages, or other objects or passengers, from an origination location to a destination location. The requests may also include at least one time component, such as a requested time of departure or arrival. A provider, such as a transportation service, can utilize a routing determination process, for example, to balance various metrics when selecting between proposed routing solutions to serve a set of customer trip requests. One or more optimization processes can be applied, which can vary the component values or weightings of the routing process in order to attempt to improve the options generated and/or selected for each proposed routing solution. A solution can be selected for implementation based at least in part upon the resulting quality scores of the proposed routing solutions…Aich ¶82 - A rideshare service may apply rules to passenger types with certain travel parameters when determining potential routing options. These rules can guarantee that the needs of a customer are met and help avoid situations that may adversely affect the travel experience of customers); a dispatch calculation unit and a punctuality guarantee unit, and wherein the dispatch calculation unit generates a dispatch candidate group by searching for dispatch-available vehicles and determines whether the MOD vehicle included in the dispatch candidate group can observe the arrival time in conjunction with the punctuality guarantee unit (Aich ¶95 - In operation 908, a set of potential routing solutions are determined for the customer. If rules have been identified for the customer, the set of potential routing solutions are determined based at least in part on the set of rules. Determining the potential routing solutions for a passenger with special needs may involve operations of, e.g., identifying suitable vehicles for the customer, identifying suitable loading and unloading locations for the customer, identifying currently planned routes by other customers, and identifying other passenger types associated with the currently planned routes. One or more route determination algorithms are used that are configured to analyze the various origination and destination locations, as well as the number of passengers and corresponding time windows for each, and generate a set of routing solutions for serving the various requests); the dispatch calculation unit confirms whether the arrival time by the detour of an existing passenger can be observed if there is the existing passenger who boarded before the user who requested the dispatch in the MOD vehicle included in the dispatch candidate group (Aich ¶87 - In some cases, rules for a first passenger may conflict with rules for a second passenger. In such cases, routing instances, routing algorithms may suggest and/or specify the second passenger to take a separate route, e.g., such that the passengers are not in the same vehicle. In some cases, rules associated with one passenger type are prioritized over rules associated with another passenger type); he dispatch calculation unit searches for other vehicle capable of observing the arrival time from among the dispatch candidates if it is difficult to observe the arrival time by the detour of the existing passenger (Aich ¶87 - In some cases, rules for a first passenger may conflict with rules for a second passenger. In such cases, routing instances, routing algorithms may suggest and/or specify the second passenger to take a separate route, e.g., such that the passengers are not in the same vehicle. In some cases, rules associated with one passenger type are prioritized over rules associated with another passenger type).
Aich lacks the optimal dispatch unit includes a dispatch calculation unit and a punctuality guarantee unit, wherein the punctuality guarantee unit includes a departure time or arrival time filter for creating a probability density function to calculate the optimal dispatch vehicle from among dispatch-available vehicles calculated by the dispatch calculation unit by calculating the punctuality for the arrival time or departure time requested by the user.
Alonso-Mora, from the same field of endeavor, teaches he optimal dispatch unit includes a dispatch calculation unit and a punctuality guarantee unit, wherein the punctuality guarantee unit includes a departure time or arrival time filter for creating a probability density function to calculate the optimal dispatch vehicle from among dispatch-available vehicles calculated by the dispatch calculation unit by calculating the punctuality for the arrival time or departure time requested by the user (Alonso Mora ¶39 - Consequently, the described method and system allows several passengers with independent trips to share a vehicle and allows such passenger-loaded vehicles to pick additional passengers as the vehicles (with passengers on-board) progress through their routes. Based upon historical data, a probability distribution over future demand may be computed. Then, samples from the learned probability distribution {i.e. density} are incorporated into any-time optimal method for vehicle routing and passenger assignment to take into account the predicted future demand - Alonso Mora ¶149 - If all of the steps are executed until termination and exploration of all possible trips and assignments, the described method guarantees optimality of the assignment of the currently active requests, while satisfying the constraints Z {i.e. arrival time}).
It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s claimed invention to modify the ridesharing methodology/system of Aich by including the ridesharing techniques of Alonso-Mora because Alonso-Mora discloses “dynamically generates optimal routes with respect to online demand and vehicle locations (Alonso-Mora ¶12)”. Additionally, Aich further details that “Approaches described and suggested herein relate to the providing of transportation between specified locations (Aich ¶14)” so it would be obvious to consider including the additional ridesharing techniques that Alonso-Mora discloses because they would optimize the route generation between the specified locations as detailed within Aich.
Regarding claim 3, Aich discloses a mobility on demand (MOD) system (Aich ABS - A provider, such as a transportation management service, can manage transport for a number of passengers, including passengers with special needs, between various locations) comprising: a mobility service unit including a boarding request input unit for receiving, from a user, a boarding request including information on a departure point and a destination point from a user (Aich ¶16 - A customer can submit a request for transportation between an origin and a destination at, or near, a specified time, and can receive information for traveling options along one or more routes between those locations).
Aich lacks the optimal dispatch unit includes a dispatch calculation unit and a punctuality guarantee unit, wherein the punctuality guarantee unit includes a departure time or arrival time filter for creating a probability density function to calculate the optimal dispatch vehicle from among dispatch-available vehicles calculated by the dispatch calculation unit by calculating the punctuality for the arrival time or departure time requested by the user.
Alonso-Mora, from the same field of endeavor, teaches the optimal dispatch unit includes a dispatch calculation unit and a punctuality guarantee unit, wherein the punctuality guarantee unit includes a departure time or arrival time filter for creating a probability density function to calculate the optimal dispatch vehicle from among dispatch-available vehicles calculated by the dispatch calculation unit by calculating the punctuality for the arrival time or departure time requested by the user (Alonso Mora ¶39 - Consequently, the described method and system allows several passengers with independent trips to share a vehicle and allows such passenger-loaded vehicles to pick additional passengers as the vehicles (with passengers on-board) progress through their routes. Based upon historical data, a probability distribution over future demand may be computed. Then, samples from the learned probability distribution are incorporated into any-time optimal method for vehicle routing and passenger assignment to take into account the predicted future demand - Alonso Mora ¶149 - If all of the steps are executed until termination and exploration of all possible trips and assignments, the described method guarantees optimality of the assignment of the currently active requests, while satisfying the constraints Z {i.e. arrival time}).
It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s claimed invention to modify the ridesharing methodology/system of Aich by including the ridesharing techniques of Alonso-Mora because Alonso-Mora discloses “dynamically generates optimal routes with respect to online demand and vehicle locations (Alonso-Mora ¶12)”. Additionally, Aich further details that “Approaches described and suggested herein relate to the providing of transportation between specified locations (Aich ¶14)” so it would be obvious to consider including the additional ridesharing techniques that Alonso-Mora discloses because they would optimize the route generation between the specified locations as detailed within Aich.
Regarding claim 10, Aich in view of Alonso-Mora discloses a mobility on demand (MOD) system (Aich ABS - A provider, such as a transportation management service, can manage transport for a number of passengers, including passengers with special needs, between various locations).
Alonso-Mora further teaches the dispatch calculation unit includes a real-time dynamic dispatch unit, and generates a dispatch and dispatch information if it is confirmed whether the arrival time of the user who requested the dispatch and the existing passengers can be observed (Alonso Mora ¶26 - The system described herein operates in real time and is particularly well suited for use with autonomous vehicle fleets that can continuously reroute based on real-time requests. It can also rebalance idle vehicles to areas with high demand and is general enough to be applied to other multivehicle, multitask assignment problems).
It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s claimed invention to modify the ridesharing methodology/system of Aich by including the ridesharing techniques of Alonso-Mora because Alonso-Mora discloses “dynamically generates optimal routes with respect to online demand and vehicle locations (Alonso-Mora ¶12)”. Additionally, Aich further details that “Approaches described and suggested herein relate to the providing of transportation between specified locations (Aich ¶14)” so it would be obvious to consider including the additional ridesharing techniques that Alonso-Mora discloses because they would optimize the route generation between the specified locations as detailed within Aich.
Regarding claim 11, Aich in view of Alonso-Mora discloses a mobility on demand (MOD) system (Aich ABS - A provider, such as a transportation management service, can manage transport for a number of passengers, including passengers with special needs, between various locations).
Alonso-Mora further teaches the dispatch calculation unit includes a reservation dispatch calculation unit, and the reservation dispatch calculation unit determines whether there is other reserved passenger in an area within a certain distance during a predetermined reservation time (Alonso Mora ¶224 - Referring now to FIG. 11, a method for determining a probability distribution of origin-destination requests for fixed intervals of time begins as shown in processing block 1102 in using a list of all intersections, the geographic area of interest is discretized into one or more regions given by a selected distance parameter r) in response to the user's reservation boarding request, and proceeds with a reservation dispatch if the number of similar travel reservation passengers exceeds the reference number of passengers based on the travel similarity with the other passenger (Alonso Mora Fig. 10 - Alonso Mora ¶221 - Referring now to FIG. 10, in general overview, the assignment and routing method may be said to include: computing a pair-wise request-vehicle shareability graph (RV-graph) in which requests r, predicted requests r.sup.pred and vehicles v are pairwise connected if r, or r.sup.pred, can be satisfied by v within the defined constraints and given the current state of v).
It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s claimed invention to modify the ridesharing methodology/system of Aich by including the ridesharing techniques of Alonso-Mora because Alonso-Mora discloses “dynamically generates optimal routes with respect to online demand and vehicle locations (Alonso-Mora ¶12)”. Additionally, Aich further details that “Approaches described and suggested herein relate to the providing of transportation between specified locations (Aich ¶14)” so it would be obvious to consider including the additional ridesharing techniques that Alonso-Mora discloses because they would optimize the route generation between the specified locations as detailed within Aich.
Regarding claim 12, Aich in view of Alonso-Mora discloses a mobility on demand (MOD) system (Aich ABS - A provider, such as a transportation management service, can manage transport for a number of passengers, including passengers with special needs, between various locations).
Alonso-Mora further teaches the predetermined reservation time is determined by calculating and updating the probability of inputting other reservation boarding request (Alonso Mora ¶223 - To take into account future processing requests, a preprocessing step 1002 is performed. In the preprocessing step, a probability distribution of origin-destination requests is computed for fixed intervals {i.e. predetermined reservation time}. Such fixed intervals may be selected to suit the needs of a particular application).
It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s claimed invention to modify the ridesharing methodology/system of Aich by including the ridesharing techniques of Alonso-Mora because Alonso-Mora discloses “dynamically generates optimal routes with respect to online demand and vehicle locations (Alonso-Mora ¶12)”. Additionally, Aich further details that “Approaches described and suggested herein relate to the providing of transportation between specified locations (Aich ¶14)” so it would be obvious to consider including the additional ridesharing techniques that Alonso-Mora discloses because they would optimize the route generation between the specified locations as detailed within Aich.
Regarding claim 13, Aich in view of Alonso-Mora discloses a mobility on demand (MOD) system (Aich ABS - A provider, such as a transportation management service, can manage transport for a number of passengers, including passengers with special needs, between various locations).
Alonso-Mora further teaches the travel similarity may be calculated based on the link or node consistency between the boarding point and the alighting point of the other reserved passengers and the user who requested the reserved boarding (Alonso Mora Fig 13 - Alonso Mora ¶236 - FIGS. 13A-BF are a series of heatmaps depicting the destination demand distribution. For this example, two locations in Manhattan (Westside and Eastside) are used as origins with a 30-minute time interval to show the distribution…Consider a given period of time (ξ.sub.0,ξ.sub.1) and day of the week, w. A list S, comprised of the cumulative sum of frequencies from the start time to the end time and another list custom-character, of the same size, comprised of the corresponding origin-destination pairs {i.e. similarity} may be constructed).
It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s claimed invention to modify the ridesharing methodology/system of Aich by including the ridesharing techniques of Alonso-Mora because Alonso-Mora discloses “dynamically generates optimal routes with respect to online demand and vehicle locations (Alonso-Mora ¶12)”. Additionally, Aich further details that “Approaches described and suggested herein relate to the providing of transportation between specified locations (Aich ¶14)” so it would be obvious to consider including the additional ridesharing techniques that Alonso-Mora discloses because they would optimize the route generation between the specified locations as detailed within Aich.
Regarding claim 14, Aich in view of Alonso-Mora discloses the reservation dispatch calculation unit increases the link or node consistency by changing the route of the other reserved passengers or the route of the user who requested the reservation boarding if the link or node consistency is higher than the reference consistency (Aich ¶86 - In some cases, a passenger rule can limit what loading and unloading locations can be used for a particular passenger type. For instance, an elderly passenger may need to be dropped off within a certain distance of their intended destination, forcing the vehicle to change an offloading location or to make an additional stop. As another example, a blind passenger may become confused if they are dropped off at an unfamiliar location, thus a blind passenger may have a rule that specifies that they can only be dropped off at standard locations or locations that are known to the passenger).
Regarding claim 15, Aich in view of Alonso-Mora discloses the reservation dispatch calculation unit increases the link or node consistency by changing the route of the other reserved passenger if the user who requested the reservation boarding has a disability or accompanies an infant (Aich ¶86 - In some cases, a passenger rule can limit what loading and unloading locations can be used for a particular passenger type. For instance, an elderly passenger may need to be dropped off within a certain distance of their intended destination, forcing the vehicle to change an offloading location or to make an additional stop. As another example, a blind passenger may become confused if they are dropped off at an unfamiliar location, thus a blind passenger may have a rule that specifies that they can only be dropped off at standard locations or locations that are known to the passenger).
Claims 4, 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aich et al. (US 20200104770 A1) in view of Alonso-Mora et al. (US 20180224866 A1) further in view of Aich et al. (US 20190383622 A1) (Referred to as Aich (2))
Regarding claim 4, Aich in view of Alonso-Mora discloses a mobility on demand (MOD) system (Aich ABS - A provider, such as a transportation management service, can manage transport for a number of passengers, including passengers with special needs, between various locations) comprising: a mobility service unit including a boarding request input unit for receiving, from a user, a boarding request including information on a departure point and a destination point from a user (Aich ¶16 - A customer can submit a request for transportation between an origin and a destination at, or near, a specified time, and can receive information for traveling options along one or more routes between those locations).
Aich in view of Alonso-Mora lacks the mobility service unit includes a multiple transportation means linkage selection interface for receiving information on a linkage transportation means at the boarding point or an alighting point, and wherein the punctuality guarantee unit includes an linkage schedule matching calculation unit for allowing the MOD bus to be dispatched in accordance with the departure time or the arrival time of the linkage transportation means inputted by the user.
Aich (2), from the same field of endeavor, teaches the mobility service unit includes a multiple transportation means linkage selection interface for receiving information on a linkage transportation means at the boarding point or an alighting point, and wherein the punctuality guarantee unit includes an linkage schedule matching calculation unit for allowing the MOD bus to be dispatched in accordance with the departure time or the arrival time of the linkage transportation means inputted by the user (Aich (2) Fig. 3A – 4D).
It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s claimed invention to modify the ridesharing methodology/system of Aich by including the connection management techniques of Aich (2) because Aich (2) discloses “Such approaches can be desirable to customers, as the overall experience can be improved. This can be a result of fewer missed connections, shorter wait times, and increased travel flexibility, among other such advantages (Aich (2) ¶44)”. Additionally, Aich further details that “Approaches described and suggested herein relate to the providing of transportation between specified locations (Aich ¶14)” so it would be obvious to consider including the additional connection management techniques that Aich (2) discloses because they would improve the user experience of the riders as detailed within the system of Aich.
Regarding claim 5, Aich in view of Alonso-Mora discloses a mobility on demand (MOD) system (Aich ABS - A provider, such as a transportation management service, can manage transport for a number of passengers, including passengers with special needs, between various locations) comprising: a mobility service unit including a boarding request input unit for receiving, from a user, a boarding request including information on a departure point and a destination point from a user (Aich ¶16 - A customer can submit a request for transportation between an origin and a destination at, or near, a specified time, and can receive information for traveling options along one or more routes between those locations).
Aich in view of Alonso-Mora lacks the punctuality guarantee unit includes a linkage schedule matching calculation unit for performing the calculation of arrival time and departure time of a linkage transportation means that departs within a certain distance from the alighting point within a certain time including walking time from the time of arrival at the alighting point of the MOD vehicle within a certain time including walking time or the calculation of arrival time and departure time of a linkage transportation means that arrives within a certain distance from the boarding point within a certain time including walking time from the departure time from the boarding point of the MOD vehicle.
Aich (2), from the same field of endeavor, teaches the punctuality guarantee unit includes a linkage schedule matching calculation unit for performing the calculation of arrival time and departure time of a linkage transportation means that departs within a certain distance from the alighting point within a certain time including walking time from the time of arrival at the alighting point of the MOD vehicle within a certain time including walking time or the calculation of arrival time and departure time of a linkage transportation means that arrives within a certain distance from the boarding point within a certain time including walking time from the departure time from the boarding point of the MOD vehicle (Aich (2) Fig. 3A – 4D - Aich (2) ¶24 - In order to be determined to have sufficient time for a connection, the first vehicle 202 might have to be estimated to arrive at the connection point before the scheduled departure of the second vehicle from the connection point, and in many embodiments will also have to allow for a buffer of one to two minutes, or more, to enable the rider to make the connection. This can include time to disembark from the first vehicle, walk or transfer to the second vehicle, then board the second vehicle before the scheduled time. If the system determines that the first vehicle for the first segment in this example will not reach the connection point at a time that satisfies the above criteria, or other such criteria, then the transportation service can determine that the rider is unlikely to make the reserved connection).
It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s claimed invention to modify the ridesharing methodology/system of Aich by including the connection management techniques of Aich (2) because Aich (2) discloses “Such approaches can be desirable to customers, as the overall experience can be improved. This can be a result of fewer missed connections, shorter wait times, and increased travel flexibility, among other such advantages (Aich (2) ¶44)”. Additionally, Aich further details that “Approaches described and suggested herein relate to the providing of transportation between specified locations (Aich ¶14)” so it would be obvious to consider including the additional connection management techniques that Aich (2) discloses because they would improve the user experience of the riders as detailed within the system of Aich.
Claims 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aich et al. (US 20200104770 A1) in view of Alonso-Mora et al. (US 20180224866 A1) further in view of Frederick et al. (US 20220084155 A1)
Regarding claim 7, Aich in view of Alonso-Mora discloses a mobility on demand (MOD) system (Aich ABS - A provider, such as a transportation management service, can manage transport for a number of passengers, including passengers with special needs, between various locations) comprising: a mobility service unit including a boarding request input unit for receiving, from a user, a boarding request including information on a departure point and a destination point from a user (Aich ¶16 - A customer can submit a request for transportation between an origin and a destination at, or near, a specified time, and can receive information for traveling options along one or more routes between those locations).
Aich in view of Alonso-Mora lacks the dispatch calculation unit confirms whether the MOD vehicle is a vehicle capable of observing the arrival time by determining whether the probability of observation of the arrival time by the MOD vehicle included in the dispatch candidate group is greater than a certain level.
Frederick, from the same field of endeavor, teaches the dispatch calculation unit confirms whether the MOD vehicle is a vehicle capable of observing the arrival time by determining whether the probability of observation of the arrival time by the MOD vehicle included in the dispatch candidate group is greater than a certain level (Frederick ¶158 - Additionally, in one or more embodiments, the act 1006 includes determining a distribution of historical transportation times to the destination, applying a confidence threshold to distribution of historical transportation times to determine a confidence arrival deadline, and applying a buffer to the confidence arrival deadline to determine the arrival deadline. The act 1006 can include receiving an additional transportation request comprising an additional arrival deadline associated with the additional requestor device, matching the requestor device and the additional requestor device by determining a route for servicing the transportation request and the additional transportation request, determining estimated arrival times for the route, and determining that the estimated arrival times satisfy the arrival deadline and the additional arrival deadline utilizing the confidence threshold).
It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Applicant’s claimed invention to modify the ridesharing methodology/system of Aich by including the group ride techniques of Frederick because Frederick discloses “The transportation matching system also improves efficiency relative to conventional systems (Frederick ¶36)”. Additionally, Aich further details that “Approaches described and suggested herein relate to the providing of transportation between specified locations (Aich ¶14)” so it would be obvious to consider including the additional group ride techniques that Frederick discloses because they would improve the efficiency of matching riders with rides within the system detailed within Aich.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and/or are moot in light of the new rejections addressed above.
As identified above, the 35 USC § 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
Regarding the arguments related to the 35 USC § 101 rejections, as addressed above according to the USPTO guidance for 35 USC § 101 rejections contained within MPEP 2106, the Examiner maintains that the claimed invention is an abstract idea, without significantly more, and not integrated into a practical application.
Applicant first argues that the claims are patent eligible because they do not fall into the enumerated bucket of “organizing human activity.” Examiner does not find this persuasive because the claimed invention is interpreted as a method of matching ride requests to available rides which is clearly a “commercial or legal interactions.” The items that applicant identified as reasons that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea do not change that fundamental interpretation because these items are merely the analysis steps performed in order to achieve that matching task.
The Applicant also makes numerous arguments as to how the claimed invention is further integrated into a practical application by addressing various aspects of the claimed invention. While these aspects might be an improvement to the business process of matching rides to riders, and as such, have practical applicability, this practical applicability is not synonymous with USPTO guidance. Specifically, the claimed invention needs have significant additional elements as to where the claimed invention is effectively integrated into those additional elements. As identified above, the additional elements “Service unit…Request unit…Optimal dispatch unit…Calculation unit…Guarantee unit…” limit the claims to a networked/computer based environment, but this is insufficient with respect to integration into a practical application because it is merely applying the abstract idea to a general computer (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the 35 USC § 102 and 35 USC § 103 rejections on the original Office Action, Applicant amended the independent claims by rolling in various dependent claims. In light of this amendment, Examiner agrees that the originally cited reference did not teach all limitations, however the amendment necessitated further consideration. As a result of this further consideration, the prior art previously applied to the dependent claims was found to still apply to these amended limitations. As such, Applicant’s arguments (with respect to the independent claims and their respective dependent claims) are unpersuasive.
Applicant finally argues that there is not proper motivation to combine the identified pieces of prior art. Examiner does not find this persuasive because all the pieces of prior art are from the same field of endeavor (transportation providing) and the additional pieces provide clear reasons for combining for someone of ordinary skill in the art. Specifically, they all disclose various improvements to ridesharing/mobility-on-demand transportation systems.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Michael R Koester whose telephone number is (313)446-4837. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8:00AM-5:00 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jerry O'Connor can be reached at (571) 272-6787. 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.
/MICHAEL R KOESTER/Examiner, Art Unit 3624
/Jerry O'Connor/Supervisory Patent Examiner,Group Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights