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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/22/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This is a Non-Final Action for Request for Continued Examination (RCE) application Serial No. 18/763,842. Claim(s) 1-20 have been examined and fully considered, claims 1, 3-5, 7, 9-10, 12-16, and 18-19 have been amended.
Claim(s) 1-20 are pending in Instant Application.
Response to Arguments/Rejections
Applicant's arguments filed 05/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive regarding Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. & 101 and Double Patenting Rejection.
Per remarks, applicant states “While Applicant respectfully disagrees, in an effort to expedite prosecution, Applicant has amended Claim 1 (and similarly Claim 13) to recite "triggering, based on the classification of the trip, an action at the mobile device by communicating with the mobile device via a device API to facilitate at least one of provision of content or a mobile device service." Applicant submits that the amended element amounts to an additional element beyond the alleged abstract idea. For example, communicating with the mobile device via a device API is not a mathematical concept, a certain method of organizing human activity, or a mental process, and thus does not fall into the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas.”, and “As further described at paragraph [0079] of the Specification, "[o]ptionally triggering an action based on the transportation modality S300 can function to facilitate provision of user content and/or mobile device services based on the transportation mode and/or activity of the user ... [where the content] can be provided via the mobile device (e.g., via a device API) or external systems (e.g., emergency service alerting, etc.)," and the content can include: "collision assistance, traffic/navigational assistance, public transit arrival time estimates (e.g., for the user via the mobile device, for another user planning to use the same bus/train line, etc.), insurance assistance, vehicle- related advertising (e.g., maintenance services, private/ride-sharing transportation service advertising, etc.), and/or any other suitable content." See Specification, [0079]. That is, communicating with the mobile device via a device API, such as triggered based on the classification of a trip as recited in amended Claim 1, facilitates provision of content to initiate traffic-related actions.”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner acknowledges the amendments made to the “triggering…” limitation. However, the triggering function is characterized as an additional element, which merely amounts to extra-solution activity as claimed, and therefore cannot integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims currently recite an abstract idea implemented a “mobile device”. In response to Applicants argument that the claims do not recite a mathematical concept, the Examiner notes that the abstract idea was characterized as a mental process in the analysis provided in the previous Office action.
Therefore, Examiner maintains the 35 USC § 101 rejection of record.
Regarding “Discussion of the Rejections Under Double Patenting”, the applicant states “Reconsideration is respectfully requested in view of the remarks and amendments submitted herewith. Further, Applicant respectfully submits that the nonstatutory double patenting rejections is not ripe, for example, as no allowable claims have been indicated in the previous Office Action and without allowed claims there can be no double patenting by definition.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Once the claim features in rendered for allowance, and a “Terminal Disclaimer”, is filed, the application would be in condition for allowance.
Therefore, Examiner maintains rejections of prior action of recorded.
Applicant further argues that the applied prior art does not teach the amended limitations. Examiner respectfully agrees. Regarding claims 1-20 under 35 USC § 102/103 have been fully considered and persuasive. The claim(s) 1-20 under 35 USC § 102/103 has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 based on the following analysis because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without being significantly more.
Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test entails considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Claim(s) 1-20 are directed to methods. As such, the claims are directed to statutory categories of invention.
If the claim recites a statutory category of invention, the claim requires further analysis in Step 2A. Step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
Claim 1 recites abstract limitations, including those bolded below:
A method, comprising:
detecting a trip associated with vehicular transportation of a mobile device;
determining a location dataset representing locations of the mobile device;
determining a plurality of features based on a first comparison between the location dataset and a bus route dataset, wherein determining the plurality of features comprises:
generating a plurality of candidate route segments based on the location dataset;
generating a set of candidate bus routes based on the plurality of candidate route segments;
selecting, based on contextual information related to the trip, a subset, of the set of candidate bus routes, that satisfies a threshold related to transfers between public transit lines; and
determining the plurality of features based on the subset of the set of candidate bus routes;
classifying the trip based on the plurality of features; and
triggering, based on the classification of the trip, an action at the mobile device;
by communicating with the mobile device via a device API to facilitate at least one of provision of content or a mobile device service.
Claim 13 recites abstract limitations, including those bolded below:
A method for classification of vehicle trip transportation modality, comprising:
receiving a trip dataset comprising location data collected with a location sensor of a mobile user device;
determining, based on comparing the trip dataset to a transit dataset, a set of features by:
determining, using the transit dataset, a candidate transit route, comprising a series of route segments that satisfies a threshold related to transfers between public transit lines; and
determining a dynamic time warping (DTW) similarity score for the candidate transit route and the trip dataset, wherein the set of features comprises the DTW similarity score;
based on the set of features; and
the DTW similarity score, classifying a vehicle trip as a transit trip; and
triggering, based on the classification of the vehicle trip as the transit trip, an action at the mobile user device;
by communicating with the mobile user device via a device API to facilitate at least one of provision of content or a mobile device service.
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable
interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind, or by a human using pen and paper, and therefore recite mental processes. More specifically, as there is no recitation of a processing structure (i.e. processor, etc.) for executing the method steps, nothing in the claim element precludes the aforementioned steps from practically being performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper. (i.e. determining...,, generating,…, and classifying,… etc.). Examiner notes that the mere recitation of a generic computer would not take the claim out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
If the claim recites a judicial exception in step 2A Prong One , the claim requires further analysis in step 2A Prong Two. In step 2A Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
Claim 1 recites the additional elements of:
A method, comprising:
detecting a trip associated with vehicular transportation of a mobile device;
determining a location dataset representing locations of the mobile device;
determining a plurality of features based on a first comparison between the location dataset and a bus route dataset, wherein determining the plurality of features comprises:
generating a plurality of candidate route segments based on the location dataset;
generating a set of candidate bus routes based on the plurality of candidate route segments;
selecting, based on contextual information related to the trip, a subset, of the set of candidate bus routes, that satisfies a threshold related to transfers between public transit lines; and
determining the plurality of features based on the subset of the set of candidate bus routes;
classifying the trip based on the plurality of features; and
triggering, based on the classification of the trip, an action at the mobile device;
by communicating with the mobile device via a device API to facilitate at least one of provision of content or a mobile device service.
Claim 13 recites the additional elements of:
A method for classification of vehicle trip transportation modality, comprising:
receiving a trip dataset comprising location data collected with a location sensor of a mobile user device;
determining, based on comparing the trip dataset to a transit dataset, a set of features by:
determining, using the transit dataset, a candidate transit route, comprising a series of route segments that satisfies a threshold related to transfers between public transit lines; and
determining a dynamic time warping (DTW) similarity score for the candidate transit route and the trip dataset, wherein the set of features comprises the DTW similarity score;
based on the set of features; and
the DTW similarity score, classifying a vehicle trip as a transit trip; and
triggering, based on the classification of the vehicle trip as the transit trip, an action at the mobile user device;
by communicating with the mobile user device via a device API to facilitate at least one of provision of content or a mobile device service.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “detecting a trip associated with vehicular transportation of a mobile device” and “receiving a trip dataset comprising location data collected with a location sensor of a mobile user device” these limitations amount to pre-solution data gathering activities (extra-solution activity – data collection for use in the abstract idea).
Regarding the additional limitations of “triggering, based on the classification of the vehicle trip as the transit trip, an action at the mobile user device;
by communicating with the mobile user device via a device API to facilitate at least one of provision of content or a mobile device service,” these limitations mount to post-solution activity (e.g., the provision of information on a display, as described in paragraph 0017 of the specification).
The functions of the “memories”, “a processing system”, “processors”, “a mobile device” and “a location sensor” are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform the abstract idea. In addition, each of these aforementioned additional elements indicate a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception and cannot integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
If the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application in step 2A Prong Two, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception, and requires further analysis under Step 2B to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). As discussed above, the “memories”, “a processing system”, “processors”, “a mobile device” and “a location sensor” amounts to act to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).
As discussed above, each of these aforementioned additional limitations also amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, which does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
As discussed above, the input/output functions of “memories”, “a processing system”, “processors”, “a mobile device” and “a location sensor” are considered as insignificant extra-solution activity. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. The Versata and OIP Techs court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that storing and retrieving data in memory is a well‐understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). The Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs. and buySAFE court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere receiving or transmitting data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). The Internet Patent Corp. v. Active Network, Inc decision indicate that a browser’s button functionality is a well‐understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
In addition, the specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of additional elements as it describes the additional elements as well-understood or routine or conventional (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, or 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 35 U.S.C. §112(a).
The various metrics/limitations of claims 2-4, 7-12, 14 and 17-18 and 20 merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations (e.g., further characterizing the timing of data collection (real-time), the set of candidate routes, trip classification, the plurality of features, determination of stop locations, contextual information, etc.) . For the reasons described above, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea. Examiner notes that claim 8 does not recite the active collection of data by an inertial sensor of a phone, and the analysis of the data itself is abstract.
Claim(s) 5-6 , 15-16 and 19 recite a machine-learning-based classification model, a heuristic tree-based process, a pre-trained HMM, and a Bayesian network, which are tools used in their ordinary capacity to perform the abstract idea, and therefore amount to “apply it.”
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-7, 9-12, 14-17, and 19-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,056,633 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of the inventions for both applications are similar as claim(s) 1-2, 4-7, 9-12, 14-17, and 19-20 of the instant application and claim(s) 1-18 are directed to similar limitations as presented below.
Regarding claim(s) 1 of the instant application, claim(s) 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,056,633 B2 teaches:
A method, comprising:
detecting a trip associated with vehicular transportation of a mobile device;
determining a location dataset representing locations of the mobile device;
determining a plurality of features based on a first comparison between the location dataset and a bus route dataset, wherein determining the plurality of features comprises:
generating a plurality of candidate route segments based on the location dataset;
generating a set of candidate bus routes based on the plurality of candidate route segments;
selecting, based on contextual information related to the trip, a subset, of the set of candidate bus routes that satisfies a threshold related to transfers between public transit lines; and
determining the plurality of features based on the subset of the set of candidate bus routes;
classifying the trip based on the plurality of features; and
triggering, based on the classification of the trip, an action at the mobile device;
by communicating with the mobile device via a device API to facilitate
at least one of provision of content or a mobile device service.
As to [claim 2] of the instant application, claim(s) 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,056,633 B2 teaches: wherein the location dataset is determined at a first time, wherein the action is triggered in substantially real time relative to the first time.
As to [claim 4] of the instant application, claim(s) 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,056,633 B2 teaches: wherein classifying the trip comprises: classifying the trip based on satisfaction of a trip length condition and satisfaction of a respective probability condition for each of the plurality of features.
As to [claim 5] of the instant application, claim(s) 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,056,633 B2 teaches: wherein classifying the trip is comprises classifying the trip with a machine-learning-based classification model.
As to [claim 6] of the instant application, claim(s) 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,056,633 B2 teaches: wherein classifying the trip comprises a multi-class classification using a heuristic, tree-based selection process.
As to [claim 7] of the instant application, claim(s) 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,056,633 B2 teaches: wherein determining a plurality of features comprises:" determining a set of stop locations based on the location dataset; and " comparing set of set of the stop locations to bus stops of the bus route dataset.
As to [claim 9] of the instant application, claim(s) 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,056,633 B2 teaches: wherein, the plurality of features comprises a score determined based on a proximity of a trip end point to a bus stop.
As to [claim 10] of the instant application, claim(s) 1,-18 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,056,633 B2 teaches: further comprising determining a second plurality of features based on a comparison of the location dataset and a railway dataset, and wherein classifying the trip is further based on the second plurality of features.
As to [claim 11], of the instant application, claim(s) 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,056,633 B2 teaches: wherein the contextual information comprises: a direction of traversal on a roadway; and a bus route schedule.
As to [claim 12], of the instant application, claim(s) 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,056,633 B2 teaches: wherein the plurality of features comprise a dynamic time warping (DTW) similarity score, wherein the DTW similarity score is determined by:" generating a candidate bus route comprising a series of route segments within the bus route dataset; and " determining the DTW similarity score for the candidate bus route and the location dataset.
As to [claim 14] of the instant application, claim(s) 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,056,633 B2 teaches: wherein classifying the vehicle trip is based on satisfaction of a trip length condition associated with the trip dataset.
As to [claim 15], of the instant application, claim(s) 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,056,633 B2 teaches: wherein determining the set of features comprises determining the set of features with a pretrained Hidden Markov Model (HMM).
As to [claim 16], of the instant application, claim(s) 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,056,633 B2 teaches: wherein classifying the vehicle trip comprises using a multi-class, tree-based classification model comprising a Bayesian network.
As to [claim 17], of the instant application, claim(s) 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,056,633 B2 teaches: wherein determining the candidate transit route comprises:" generating the series of route segments based on the trip dataset; " generating a set of candidate transit routes based on the series of route segments; and " selecting the candidate transit route from the set of candidate transit routes.
As to [claim 19], of the instant application, claim(s) 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,056,633 B2 teaches: wherein classifying the vehicle trip comprises using a heuristic, tree-based classification process.
As to [claim 20], of the instant application, claim(s) 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,056,633 B2 teaches: wherein classifying the vehicle trip comprises determining a decision parameter associated with a transit transportation class based on a joint probability associated with the set of features and a differential comparison feature of a second set of features, wherein the second set of features is determined by comparing the trip dataset to a roadway driving dataset.
Terminal Disclaimer
A terminal disclaimer may be effective to overcome a nonstatutory double patenting rejection over a reference patent (37 CFR 1.321(b) and (c)). A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional, the reply must be complete. MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/PatentForms. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/TerminalDisclaimer.
Possible Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the
rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAKARI UNDERWOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-8462. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:00 TO 4:30.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached (571) 272-9855. 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.
/B.U./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ABBY J FLYNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights