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 .
This application is a CON of 17/016,685 09/10/2020 ABN
17/016,685 is a CON of 14/985,025 12/30/2015 PAT 10810675
14/985,025 has PRO 62/106,081 01/21/2015
14/985,025 has PRO 62/098,556 12/31/2014
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and rejected.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 03/03/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of PAT 10,810,675 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Claim Rejection – 35 U.S.C. 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The rationale for this finding is explained below. In the instant case, the claims are directed towards providing alternative transport route. The claimed concept is aimed to influence user’s traveling behavior, thus the present claims fall within the Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity grouping. The claims do not include limitations that are “significantly more” than the abstract idea because the claims do not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Note that the limitations, in the instant claims, are done by the generically recited computer device. The limitations are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry. Therefore, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1: The claims 1-20 are directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition matter.
In Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Intern., 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014), the Supreme Court applied a two-step test for determining whether a claim recites patentable subject matter. First, we determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one or more patent-ineligible concepts, i.e., laws of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract ideas. Id. at 2355 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1296–96 (2012)). If so, we then consider whether the elements of each claim, both individually and as an ordered combination, transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the ineligible concept itself.
Claims 1-8 are directed to a machine (i.e., device/system claims).
Claims 9-16 are directed to a process (i.e., method claims).
Claims 17-20 are directed to a manufacture (i.e., machine-readable medium claims).
Step 2A: The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Prong One
The present claims are directed towards providing alternative transport route. The concept comprises receiving performance parameters of a vehicle from sensors of a mobile device, determining a route parameters of a first route, receiving an indication of a trigger event including the mobile computing device having arrived at a location, determining a difference between the route via the vehicle and an alternative transport route via a mode of alternative transport, transmitting a map to the mobile computing device, generating a graphical user interface to display the difference, and transmitting request to secure a mode of alternative transport (i.e., purchasing fare). The claimed concept is aimed to influence user’s traveling behavior, thus the present claims fall within the Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity grouping. Examiner also points out that the present claims, similar to the ineligible claims in Electric Power Group v. Alstom, recite obtaining data, analyzing data, and presenting result of the analysis. The performance of the claim limitations using generic computer components (i.e., auxiliary computing device, sensors, mobile computing device, and a server) does not preclude the claim limitation from being in the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. Accordingly, the present claims recite an abstract idea.
Prong Two
Independent claims 1, 9, and 17 recite an auxiliary computing device disposed in a vehicle, sensors, a mobile computing device, and a server as additional elements. The additional elements are claimed to perform basic computer functions, such as exchanging data among devices via wireless link, measuring vehicle performance, performing calculation, displaying result of calculation, and requesting to secure a mode of alternative transport (i.e., purchasing fare). Dependent claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20 do not recite any other additional element. The recitation of the computer elements amounts to mere instruction to implement an abstract concept on computing devices. The present claims do not solve a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks. The present claims do not recite limitation that improve the functioning of computer, effect a physical transformation, or apply the abstract concept in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract concept to a particular technological environment. As such, the present claims fail to integrate into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As discussed earlier, independent claims 1, 9, and 17 recite an auxiliary computing device disposed in a vehicle, sensors, a mobile computing device, and a server as additional elements. The additional elements are claimed to perform basic computer functions, such as exchanging data among devices via wireless link, measuring vehicle performance, performing calculation, displaying result of calculation, and transmitting request to purchase transportation fare. Dependent claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20 do not recite any other additional element. According to MPEP 2106.05(d), “performing repetitive calculations”, “receiving, processing, and storing data”, “electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document”, “electronic recordkeeping”, “storing and retrieving information in memory”, and “receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data” are considered well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of computer. The present claims do not improve the functioning of computer.
Claim 1 recites “receive one or more performance parameters of the vehicle form the auxiliary computing device via a first wireless link, the one or more performance parameters measured using one or more sensors of the mobile computing device while the vehicle is operation and wirelessly transmitted from the mobile computing device to the auxiliary computing device via a second wireless link; determine, based on the measured one or more performance parameters, a route parameter of a first route; receive, from the mobile computing device, an indication of a trigger event including the mobile computing device having arrived at a location”. Essentially, the amended claims specify that the auxiliary computing device acts as an intermediary, which receives data from the mobile computing device and transmits the received data to the server. Examiner points out that an auxiliary computing device disposed in a vehicle (i.e. on-board computer or infotainment system) communicating with a user’s mobile device in unison to capture vehicle operational data (e.g. speed, direction of travel, route, etc.) was well-known and conventional at the time of invention. Riley SR et al. (Pub. No.: US 2015/0314681), for example, teaches the sensors of mobile device, on-board computer, and wearable computing device may interface with each other to capture vehicle operation data (see paragraph 0018). Apple CarPlay and Android Auto (i.e. interface protocol between on-board computer and mobile device) have both been commercialized by 2014, prior to the filing of the present application. The technology was known even earlier. The amended limitations are standard features of Apple CarPlay and Android Auto. Applicant’s specification also does not provide detailed disclosure with regards to any particular interface protocol that connects auxiliary computer device to mobile device. Furthermore, Gay et al. (Pub. No.: US 2014/0257867) and Freiberger et al. (Pub. No.: US 2014/0058761) show that using an auxiliary or onboard computer as intermediary between a mobile device and a server was a conventional arrangement at the time of filing of the present application. Thus, Examiner interprets the amended feature as being merely utilizing existing technology to implement an abstract concept.
Gay et al. (Pub. No.: US 2014/0257867) teaches the user “may interact with the system 100 using a client device 110 (e.g., a smart phone, a tablet computer, a desktop computer, a special purpose computing device, etc.), which may be communicatively connected to an on-board computer 114” (see paragraph 0028 and Fig. 1). Gay then teaches “Either or both of the client device 110 or on-board computer 114 may communicate with the network 130 over links 112 and 118” (see paragraph 0029). Gay discloses a scenario where the on-board computer (i.e. auxiliary device) receives vehicle performance data from the client device (i.e. mobile computing device) via link 116, then transmits the data to server via link 118 (see Fig. 1). Furthermore, Gay teaches “sensors may also be incorporated within or connected to the client device 110 or the on-board computer 114..the client device 110 may be specialized computing device designed to monitor and record vehicle usage, either independently or in conjunction with the on-board computer 114” (see paragraph 0029), and “Sensor data recording vehicle usage may come from the GPS unit 206 or other sensors (not shown) incorporated within the client device 110 or on-board computer 114” (see paragraph 0037).
Freiberger et al. (Pub. No.: US 2014/0058761) teaches an auxiliary device, such as an onboard system of the vehicle “could commutate with the one or more devices 32, 34, 35 as a complement or supplement to the mobile device or as the main source for data collection…Information from the vehicle system 28 is transmitted periodically or continuously to the deriving performance computer system 10 and/or stored in the database 14” (see paragraph 0023 and Fig. 1). Fig. 1 shows that devices 32 and 34 are mobile devices in communication with vehicle system, and the vehicle system could forward performance data gathered by mobile devices 32 and 34 to a server. Here the reference does not limit the collected data to just VIN. Freiberger clearly teaches the information is collected by the mobile device and other telematic sensors on the vehicle - “the system obtains raw data (or sensor data) of a driver and/or driving parameters of a driving event…Such raw data could be obtained in real time from a mobile device, and/or telematics device” (see paragraph 0028).
Raehmer et al. (EP 2708850 A1) teaches “automatically requesting a reservation for means of transportation or travel service associated with one or more of the determined alternative travel route segments. This has the advantage that the user does not need to worry about re-arrangements, and book and making reservations for means of transportation is automatically performed at the server side or in the cloud service, and booking information and/or electronic tickets can be sent to the mobile device of the user so that the user is automatically provided with electronic tickets for means of transportation associated with alternative travel route segments upon determination of the alternative travel route segments” (see paragraph 0035).
Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer or using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Therefore, the present claims are ineligible for patent.
Prior Art Cited But Not Applied
Coleman et al. (Pub. No.: US 2013/0046559), Riley SR et al. (Pub. No.: US 2015/0314681), Hinrichs et al. (Pub. No.: US 2007/0198276), Gay (Pub. No.: US 2014/0257867), and Freiberger et al. (Pub. No.: US 2014/0058761) are the best references found by Examiner.
The combination of Coleman, Riley SR, Hinrichs, Gay, and Freiberger neither discloses nor suggests determining and presenting one or more modes of alternative transport and an alternative transport route in response to a trigger event that includes a mobile computing device of the user having arrived at the location. Therefore, no prior art rejection is cited in this Office Action.
Response to Remarks
In the response filed on 07/30/2026, Applicant amended the independent claims 1, 9, and 17, by adding a new limitation, “receive, from the mobile computing device via the graphical user interface, a selection of the alternative transport route; and automatically transmit, in response to selection, a request to an alternative transport server to secure a mode of alternative transport of the one or more modes of alternative transport, and selecting the mode of alternative transport for completing the journey from the location using the mode of alternative transport and the alternative transport route”. Examiner points out that this limitation was well-known prior to the effective filing date of the present application, and does not improve computer function. Examiner cites Raehmer et al. (EP 2708850 A1) as support. Raehmer teaches “automatically requesting a reservation for means of transportation or travel service associated with one or more of the determined alternative travel route segments. This has the advantage that the user does not need to worry about re-arrangements, and book and making reservations for means of transportation is automatically performed at the server side or in the cloud service, and booking information and/or electronic tickets can be sent to the mobile device of the user so that the user is automatically provided with electronic tickets for means of transportation associated with alternative travel route segments upon determination of the alternative travel route segments” (see paragraph 0035).
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101
Applicant's arguments filed on 07/30/2026 with regards to rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Step 2A Prong Two
Applicant argued that the amended independent claim 1 “recites an improved system for automating the selection of an alternative transport mode in response to a location-based trigger event” and “recites an integration into a practical application by reciting specific steps for accomplishing a desired result of receipt of an alternative route selection at graphical user interface on a mobile computing device, and securing a mode of alternative transport via the mobile computing device to complete the journey from the location using the mode of alternative transport and the alternative transport route”. Examiner argues that determining alternative route and alternative mode of transportation during a trip was a well-known and existing function of navigation apps prior to the effective filing date of the present application. As discussed earlier, automatically reserving for the determined alternative means of transportation was well-known too. As such, the amended independent claim 1 does not recite any improvement to computer function. Therefore, the amended claim 1 fails to integrate the abstract concept into a practical application.
Step 2B
Applicant argued that “the ordered combination of recited claimed elements in amended independent claim 1 provide an improved computing system that automates securing an alternative transport mode in response to a location-based trigger event”. As discussed earlier, this feature was not an improvement to existing computer function according to Raehmer et al.
Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer or using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Therefore, the present claims are ineligible for patent. Examiner maintains the rejection under 35 U.S.C 101.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed on 03/03/2026, with respect to rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 has been withdrawn. Examiner has conducted updated search but cannot identify prior arts to address all the amended claim features. Therefore, no prior art rejection is cited in this Office Action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAO FU whose telephone number is (571)270-3441. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 6:00 PM PST.
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, Christine M Behncke can be reached at (571) 272-8103. 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.
/HAO FU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3695
AUG-2026
