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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to application 18/812,225 filed 8/22/2024. Claims 1, 2, 13, 15, 19, and 20 were amended, claims 5, 14, and the second claim 13 were cancelled, and claim 21 was newly added in the reply filed 12/10/2025. Claims 1-4, 6-13, and 15-21 are pending. This action is final.
Response to Arguments
Regarding Applicant’s argument starting on page 10 regarding claims 1-4, 6-13, and 15-21: Applicant’s arguments filed with respect to the rejections made under double patenting have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. In light of the amendments, the double patenting rejections have been adjusted accordingly. Claims 1-4, 6-13 and 15-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 and 7-11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,111,175 in view of Rakah (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0211541) in view of Musk (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0257317).
Regarding Applicant’s argument starting on page 11 regarding claims 1-4, 6-13, and 15-21: Applicant’s arguments filed with respect to the rejections made under 35 USC § 101 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Applicant first argues that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claimed invention merely uses collected data to make determinations about height parameters of roadways and vehicles driving on roadways. This data analysis is performed using a plurality of generic computer components which make up a generic computer environment. The alleged improvements that Applicant’s invention provides are business improvements to a business related process, and not improvements to a computer system technology itself (See MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for examples and description of what is considered an improvement to a computer-functionality or an improvement to a technology). "Identifying, analyzing, and presenting certain data to a user is not an improvement specific to computing." International Business Machines Corp. v. Zillow Group, Inc., (Fed. Cir. No. 2021-2350, Oct. 17, 2022, pg. 8). The claimed computer components are generic and broadly recited, and the alleged improvements are not to the generic computer components themselves, but to the abstract process being performed by the computer components. Examiner respectfully argues that the claimed limitations not analogous to the MPEP descriptions and examples of improvements to computer-functionality or improvements to a technology, and that the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Regarding Applicant’s argument starting on page 13 regarding claims 1-4, 6-13, and 15-21: Applicant’s arguments filed with respect to the rejections made under 35 USC § 112(b) have been fully considered, and are persuasive. The rejections made under 35 USC § 112(b) have been withdrawn.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-13 and 15-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 and 7-11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,111,175 in view of Rakah (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0211541) in view of Musk (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0257317).
Application 18/812, 225
Patent 12,111,175
(Claims 1, 13, and 20) A method comprising: generating, by a networked system, a height parameter database by correlating derived height parameters with different levels of multilevel roadways for a plurality of points of interest
(Claim 1) A method comprising: generating, by a computing system, a height parameter database by correlating derived height parameters with different levels of multilevel roadways for a plurality of points of interest;
(Claims 1, 13, and 20) the height parameter database being configured to resolve ambiguities in navigation caused by overlapping or stacked roadways;
Obvious over patent 12,111,175 in view of secondary reference Musk (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0257317); See [0033]; [0037]; [0042]; Musk teaches destinations including an altitude and a region having multiple different drivable paths at different altitudes (e.g., multi-level parking garages, bridges, overpasses, etc.). Musk teaches the altitude data is used in navigating these multi-level parking garages, bridges, overpasses, etc.
(Claims 1, 13, and 20) receiving, at the networked system from a user device of a user, a request that includes a point of interest associated with a level of a multilevel roadway;
(Claim 1) receiving, at the computing system from a computing device over a network, a request that includes a point of interest associated with a level of a multilevel roadway;
(Claims 1, 13, and 20) in response to receiving the request, determining a service provider to provide a transportation service associated with the request, the determining comprising:
(Claim 1) In response to receiving the request ... determining a service provider to provide a transportation service associated with the request, the determining comprising:
(Claims 1, 13, and 20) accessing location information including a detected attribute from devices of a plurality of potential service providers;
(Claim 1) receiving location information including a detected attribute from devices of a plurality of potential service providers;
(Claims 1, 13, and 20) using the location information and the detected attribute from the devices of the plurality of potential service providers ... determining a height parameter associated with each of the plurality of potential service providers, the height parameter indicating a level of roadway each of the plurality of potential service providers are located;
(Claim 1) using the location information and detected attribute from the devices of the plurality of potential service providers, determining a height parameter associated with each of the plurality of potential service providers, the height parameter indicating a level of roadway each of the plurality of potential service providers are located;
(Claims 1, 13, and 20) using ... the height parameter database, determining a height parameter associated with each of the plurality of potential service providers, the height parameter indicating a level of roadway at which each of the plurality of potential service providers are located;
Obvious over patent 12,111,175 in view of secondary reference Musk (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0257317); See [0042] Musk teaches collecting vehicle altitude information to support navigation of the vehicle to its destination.
(Claims 1, 13, and 20) based on the level of the roadway for each of the plurality of potential service providers, selecting a service provider from the plurality of potential service providers that satisfies a predetermined threshold associated with the point of interest;
(Claim 1) using the level of the roadway, selecting a service provider from the plurality of potential service providers that satisfies a predetermined threshold associated with the point of interest;
(Claims 1, 13, and 20) establishing the transportation service between the user and the selected service provider;
Obvious over patent 12,111,175 in view of secondary reference Rakah (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0211541); See [0005-0007]; Rakah teaches assigning vehicles to fulfill transportation service requests.
(Claims 1, 13, and 20) generating and causing presentation of ... route using the height parameter associated with ... the level of the multilevel roadway associated with the point of interest;
(Claim 1) generating and causing presentation of a route including the point of interest using the identified level of the multilevel roadway
(Claims 1, 13, and 20) generating and causing presentation of an optimized route using the height parameter associated with the selected service provider and the level of the multilevel roadway associated with the point of interest;
Obvious over patent 12,111,175 in view of secondary reference Musk (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0257317); See [0038] Musk teaches that the navigation path is optimized (i.e., an optimized route). See [0042] Musk teaches collecting vehicle altitude information to support navigation of the vehicle to its destination (i.e., using the height parameter associated with the selected service provider).
(Claims 1, 13, and 20) continuously aggregating, by the networked system, new trip data while monitoring the computing device as the user device traverses the ... route of the transportation service;
(Claim 1) continuously aggregating, by the computing system, new trip data while monitoring the computing device as the computing device traverses the route;
(Claims 1, 13, and 20) ... the optimized route ...
Obvious over patent 12,111,175 in view of secondary reference Musk (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0257317); See [0038] Musk teaches that the navigation path is optimized (i.e., the optimized route).
(Claims 1, 13, and 20) continuously updating, by the networked system, the height parameter database based on an analysis of the new trip data
(Claim 1) continuously updating, by the networked system, the height parameter database based on an analysis of the new trip data
(Claims 1, 13, and 20) the analysis including processing sensor data to distinguish between levels of multilevel roadways.
Obvious over patent 12,111,175 in view of secondary reference Musk (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0257317); See [0033]; [0037]; [0042]; Musk teaches destinations including an altitude and a region having multiple different drivable paths at different altitudes (e.g., multi-level parking garages, bridges, overpasses, etc.). Musk teaches the altitude data is used in navigating these multi-level parking garages, bridges, overpasses, etc. See [0042] Musk teaches collecting vehicle altitude information from the vehicle to determine the altitude of its current path (i.e., the analysis including processing sensor data to distinguish between levels of multilevel roadways) and to support navigation of the vehicle to its destination.
(Claims 2 and 21) in response to receiving the request, accessing device data from the user device, the device data including a sensor reading from a sensor of the user device at the point of interest;
(Claim 1) in response to receiving the request ... accessing device data from the computing device, the device data including a sensor reading from a sensor of the computing device at the point of interest;
(Claims 2 and 21) analyzing the sensor reading to derive a height parameter associated with the user device;
(Claim 1) analyzing the sensor reading to derive a height parameter associated with the computing device;
(Claims 2 and 21) and using the derived height parameter associated with the user device and the height parameter database, identifying the level of the multilevel roadway at the point of interest where the user device is located.
(Claim 1) using the derived height parameter and the height parameter database, identifying a level of the multilevel roadway at the point of interest where the computing device is located
(Claim 3) wherein the identifying the level of the multilevel roadway at the point of interest comprises: accessing the height parameter database;
(Claim 8) wherein the identifying the level of the multilevel roadway at the point of interest comprises: accessing the height parameter database;
(Claim 3) comparing the derived height parameter to height parameters for different levels at the point of interest;
(Claim 8) comparing the derived height parameter to height parameters for different levels at the point of interest;
(Claim 3) based on the comparing, identifying the level of the multilevel roadway.
(Claim 8) based on the comparing, identifying the level of the multilevel roadway.
(Claim 4) causing presentation of a graphical user interface on the user device that requests the user to indicate or confirm the level associated with the point of interest.
(Claim 7) causing presentation of a graphical user interface on the user device that requests the user to indicate or confirm the level.
(Claims 6 and 15) wherein the generating the height parameter database comprises: deriving height parameters by analyzing location information and detected attributes parsed from aggregated trip data; correlating the derived height parameters with different levels of multilevel roadways for a plurality of points of interest; and storing the correlated height parameters with the different levels of the multilevel roadways for the plurality of points of interest in the height parameter database.
(Claim 2) wherein the generating the height parameter database comprises: deriving height parameters by analyzing location information and detected attributes parsed from aggregated trip data; correlating the derived height parameters with different levels of multilevel roadways for a plurality of points of interest; and storing the correlated height parameters with the different levels of the multilevel roadways for the plurality of points of interest in the height parameter database.
(Claims 7 and 16) wherein: the aggregated trip data comprises an altitude reading for one or more points of interests of the plurality of points of interest; and the deriving the height parameters comprises parsing the altitude reading to identify an altitude for each of the one or more points of interest.
(Claim 3) wherein: the aggregated trip data includes an altitude reading for each point of interest; and the deriving the height parameters comprises parsing the altitude reading to identify an altitude for each point of interest.
(Claims 8 and 17) wherein: the aggregated trip data includes a pressure reading for one or more points of interest of the plurality of points of interest, the pressure reading being detected by pressure sensors of user devices providing the aggregated trip data; and the deriving the height parameters comprises analyzing the pressure reading to determine an elevation for each of the one or more points of interest, the height parameter being based on the elevation.
(Claim 4) wherein: the aggregated trip data includes a pressure reading for each point of interest, the pressure reading being detected by pressure sensors of user devices providing the aggregated trip data; and the deriving the height parameters comprises analyzing the pressure reading to determine an elevation for each point of interest, the height parameter being based on the elevation.
(Claims 9 and 18) wherein the aggregated trip data includes a numeric indicator indicating a level in relative vertical relation to ground at one or more points of interests of the point of interest.
(Claim 5) wherein the aggregated trip data includes a Z-level of the point of interest, wherein the Z-level is a numeric indicator indicating a level in relative vertical relation to ground at the point of interest.
(Claims 10 and 19) aggregating trip data received from user devices of a plurality of users, the trip data including location information and a heading of each vehicle associated with each user device of the plurality of users; analyzing the location information and the heading to determine a direction associated with a particular point of interest; associating the heading with a height parameter of a level at the particular point of interest; and storing the association to the height parameter database.
(Claim 10) aggregating trip data received from user devices of a plurality of users, the trip data including location information and a heading of each vehicle associated with each user device of the plurality of users; analyzing the location information and the heading to determine a direction associated with a particular point of interest; associating the heading with a height parameter of a level at the particular point of interest; and storing the association to the height parameter database.
(Claim 11) aggregating trip data received from user devices of a plurality of users, the trip data including location information and an attribute detected for each point of interest of a plurality of points of interest; using the location information and detected attribute to determine edge geometry of a segment of roadway at each point of interest; associating the edge geometry for a particular point of interest with a height parameter for a level at the particular point of interest; and storing the association to the height parameter database.
(Claim 9) aggregating trip data received from user devices of a plurality of users, the trip data including location information and an attribute detected for each point of interest of a plurality of points of interest; using the location information and detected attribute to determine edge geometry of segments of roadways at each point of interest; associating the edge geometry for a particular point of interest with a height parameter for a level at the particular point of interest; and storing the association to the height parameter database.
(Claim 12) generating a geofence relative to a toll location along the route of the transportation service; identifying a direction of a vehicle associated with the user device on the route; based on the direction of the vehicle, determining a level based on a height parameter associated with a segment of roadway of the route; and based on the level and the geofence, determining whether to apply a toll to a cost associated with the route.
(Claim 11) generating a geofence relative to a toll location along the route; identifying a direction of a vehicle associated with the computing device on the route; based on the direction of the vehicle, determining a level based on a height parameter associated with a segment of roadway of the route; and based on the level and the geofence, determining whether to apply a toll to a cost associated with the route.
As shown in the table above, all the elements of the application 18/812,225 claims 1-4, 6-13 and 15-21 are to be found in patent 12,111,175 in view of Rakah (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0211541) in view of Musk (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0257317) (as the application 18/812,225 claims 1-13 and 15-21 fully encompasses patent 12,111,175 in view of Rakah (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0211541) in view of Musk (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0257317)). The difference between the application 18/812,225 claims 1-4, 6-13 and 15-21 and the patent 12,111,175 in view of Rakah (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0211541) in view of Musk (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0257317) lies in the fact that the patent claim includes many more elements and is thus much more specific. Thus the invention of patent 12,111,175 in view of Rakah (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0211541) in view of Musk (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0257317) is in effect a “species” of the “generic” invention of the application 18/812,225 claims 1-4, 6-13 and 15-21. It has been held that the generic invention is “anticipated” by the “species”. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Since application 18/812,225 claims 1-4, 6-13 and 15-21 is anticipated by patent 12,111,175 in view of Rakah (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0211541) in view of Musk (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0257317), it is not patentably distinct from patent 12,111,175 in view of Rakah (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0211541) in view of Musk (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0257317). Therefore, claims 1-4, 6-13 and 15-21 are rejected for double patenting.
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.
(Examiner’s Note: Claim 20 is not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim falls within the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. Specifically, the claim language “a machine storage medium” falls within the category of “articles of manufacture.” This is because the term “machine storage medium” is given a special definition in spec. para. [0078] which defines a “machine storage medium” as non-transitory.)
Claims 1-4, 6-13, and 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1, 13, and 20 recite a method, system, and machine storage medium, respectively, for performing the method of: generating, by a networked system, a height parameter database by correlating derived height parameters with different levels of multilevel roadways for a plurality of points of interest, the height parameter database being configured to resolve ambiguities in navigation caused by overlapping or stacked roadways; receiving, at the networked system from a user device of a user, a request that includes a point of interest associated with a level of a multilevel roadway; in response to receiving the request, determining a service provider to provide a transportation service associated with the request, the determining comprising: accessing location information including a detected attribute from devices of a plurality of potential service providers; using the location information and the detected attribute from the devices of the plurality of potential service providers and the height parameter database, determining a height parameter associated with each of the plurality of potential service providers, the height parameter indicating a level of roadway at which each of the plurality of potential service providers are located; and based on the level of the roadway for each of the plurality of potential service providers, selecting a service provider from the plurality of potential service providers that satisfies a predetermined threshold associated with the point of interest; establishing the transportation service between the user and the selected service provider; generating and causing presentation of an optimized route using the height parameter associated with the selected service provider and the level of the multilevel roadway associated with the point of interest; continuously aggregating, by the networked system, new trip data while monitoring the user device as the user device traverses the optimized route of the transportation service; and continuously updating, by the networked system, the height parameter database based on an analysis of the new trip data, the analysis including processing sensor data to distinguish between levels of multilevel roadways. Therefore, claims 1, 13, and 20 are each directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention: a method, a machine, and an article of manufacture, respectively.
Step 2A – Prong One: The limitations generating ... a height parameter ... by correlating derived height parameters with different levels of multilevel roadways for a plurality of points of interest, the height parameter ... being configured to resolve ambiguities in navigation caused by overlapping or stacked roadways; receiving ... a request that includes a point of interest associated with a level of a multilevel roadway; in response to receiving the request, determining a service provider to provide a transportation service associated with the request, the determining comprising: accessing location information including a detected attribute from ... a plurality of potential service providers; using the location information and the detected attribute from ... the plurality of potential service providers and the height parameter ... determining a height parameter associated with each of the plurality of potential service providers the height parameter indicating a level of roadway at which each of the plurality of potential service providers are located; and based on the level of the roadway for each of the plurality of potential service providers, selecting a service provider from the plurality of potential service providers that satisfies a predetermined threshold associated with the point of interest; establishing the transportation service between the user and the selected service provider; generating and causing presentation of an optimized route using the height parameter associated with the selected service provider and the level of the multilevel roadway associated with the point of interest; continuously aggregating ... new trip data while monitoring ... the optimized route of the transportation service; and continuously updating ... the height parameter ... based on an analysis of the new trip data, the analysis including processing sensor data to distinguish between levels of multilevel roadways, as drafted, is a method that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, only covers concepts of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” (e.g., commercial interactions – business relations). That is, nothing in the claim elements disclose anything outside the groupings of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” (e.g., commercial interactions – business relations). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1, 13, and 20 merely describe how to generally “apply” the concept of the aforementioned abstract idea using generic computer components. The additional elements of claims 1, 13, and 20, a networked system (claims 1, 13, and 20), a height parameter database (claims 1, 13, and 20), a user device (claims 1, 13, and 20), devices of a plurality of potential service providers (claims 1, 13, and 20), a computing device (claims 1, 13, and 20), a system (claim 13), one or more processors (claims 13 and 20), a storage device (claim 13), a machine storage medium (claim 20), and a machine (claim 20), are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as generic computer tools to perform the aforementioned abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computerized system is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, alone and in combination, the additional elements of claims 1, 13, and 20 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claims as a whole merely describe the abstract idea generally “applied” to a generic computer environment. The additional elements of claims 1, 13, and 20, a networked system (described in spec. para. [0026]), a height parameter database (described in spec. para. [0051]), a user device (described in spec. para. [0021]), devices of a plurality of potential service providers (described in spec. para. [0021]), a computing device (described in spec. para. [0021]), a system (described in spec. para. [0018]), one or more processors (described in spec. para. [0073]), a storage device (described in spec. para. [0078]), a machine storage medium (described in spec. para. [0078]), and a machine (described in spec. para. [0020]), are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as generic computer components upon which the abstract idea is “applied.” The high level of generality in which this additional element is described indicates that the additional element is sufficiently known such that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of the additional element to satisfy the statutory disclosure requirements. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims add significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 2-4, 6-12, 15-19, and 21 have been given the full two-part analysis including analyzing the limitations both individually and in combination. Claims 2-4, 6-12, 15-19, and 21 when analyzed individually, and in combination, are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the recited limitations of the dependent claims merely further narrow the abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two: The limitations of the dependent claims fail to integrate an abstract idea into a practical application because the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” a method of the aforementioned abstract idea. Although, claims 2 and 12 recite the additional element a sensor, claims 8 and 17 recite the additional element pressure sensors, these additional elements are merely insignificant extra-solution activity. Specifically, the claimed sensors are used for “Mere Data Gathering” to acquire the data which is analyzed by the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B: Performing the further narrowed abstract ideas of the dependent claims on the additional elements of the independent claim, individually or in combination, does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas and amount to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Similarly, the recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept. Although, claims 2 and 12 recite the additional element a sensor (described in spec. para. [0023]), claims 8 and 17 recite the additional element pressure sensors (described in spec. para. [0023]), these additional elements are merely insignificant extra-solution activity. Specifically, the claimed sensors are used for “Mere Data Gathering” to acquire the data which is analyzed by the abstract idea. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). Furthermore, the high level of generality in which the additional elements are described indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently known such that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of the additional elements to satisfy the statutory disclosure requirements. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims add significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Reasons for Novelty
Claims 1-4, 6-13, and 15-21 are considered novel over the prior art. Specifically, the combination of the following claim limitations are considered non-obvious over the prior art: “receiving, at the networked system from a user device of a user, a request that includes a point of interest associated with a level of a multilevel roadway”; “determining a height parameter associated with each of the plurality of potential service providers, the height parameter indicating a level of roadway each of the plurality of potential service providers are located”; “based on the level of the roadway for each of the plurality of potential service providers, selecting a service provider from the plurality of potential service providers that satisfies a predetermined threshold associated with the point of interest”; and “continuously aggregating, by the networked system, new trip data while monitoring the computing device as the computing device traverses a route of the transportation service; and continuously updating, by the networked system, the height parameter database based on an analysis of the new trip data.” The closest prior art includes the following: Musk (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0257317); Ervin (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0080865); Zhang (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0191591); and Chen (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0078140). One of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing would not have found it obvious to combine these references with other prior art in order to teach the claimed invention. Therefore, claims 1-4, 6-13, and 15-21 are considered novel over the prior art and rejections under 35 USC § 102 or 35 USC § 103 are not appropriate.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRIS GOMEZ whose telephone number is (571) 272-0926. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 AM – 4:30 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, SHANNON CAMPBELL can be reached at (571) 272-5587. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/CHRISTOPHER GOMEZ/ Examiner, Art Unit 3628