DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This is a final action in reply to the response filed on July 10, 2026.
Claims 1, 9 and 17 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 .
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
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 1-20 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) without significantly more. Per MPEP 2106.03 Eligibility Step 1: The Four Categories of Statutory Subject Matter [R-07.2022]. Step 1 is directed to determining whether or not the claims fall within a statutory class. Herein, claims 1-8 falls within statutory class of a process, claims 9-16 falls within statutory class of a machine and claims 17-20 falls within statutory class of an article of manufacturing. Hence, the claims qualify as potentially eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C §101. With Step 1 being directed to a statutory category, per MPEP 2106.04 Eligibility Step 2A: Whether a Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception [R-07.2022]. Step 2 is the two-part analysis from Alice Corp. (also called the Mayo test). The 2019 PEG makes two changes in Step 2A: It sets forth new procedure for Step 2A (called “revised Step 2A”) under which a claim is not “directed to” a judicial exception unless the claim satisfies a two-prong inquiry. The two-prong inquiry is as follows: Prong One: evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception. If claim recites an exception, then Prong Two: evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. The claim(s) recite(s) the following abstract idea indicated by non-boldface font and additional limitations indicated by boldface font:
Claim 1:
receiving, via user interaction with a graphical user interface of a passenger mobile device, a transportation request indicating an event and a request for transportation services upon completion of the event;
monitoring GPS information of the passenger mobile device over time to determine updated locations of the passenger mobile device;
detecting that the passenger mobile device is at the event by matching an updated location of the passenger mobile device with a location of the event;
determining, based on analyzing data from an event information source of a third-party server device, a predicted event completion time; and
in response to detecting that the passenger mobile device is at the event and determining the predicted event completion time, transmitting, by a server device, navigational data to direct a driver computing device to navigate to a pickup location of the event at the predicted event completion time.
Claim 9:
at least one processor;
and a non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to:
receive, via user interaction with a graphical user interface of a passenger mobile device, a transportation request indicating an event and a request for transportation services upon completion of the event;
monitor GPS information of the passenger mobile device over time to determine updated locations of the passenger mobile device;
detect that the passenger mobile device is at the event by matching an updated location of the passenger mobile device with a location of the event;
determine, based on analyzing data from an event information source of a third-party server device, a predicted event completion time;
in response to detecting that the passenger mobile device is at the event and determining the predicted event completion time, transmit, by a server device, navigational data to direct a driver computing device to navigate to a pickup location of the event at the predicted event completion time.
Claim 17:
receive, via user interaction with a graphical user interface of a passenger mobile device, a transportation request indicating an event and a request for transportation services upon completion of the event;
monitor GPS information of the passenger mobile device over time to determine updated locations of the passenger mobile device;
detect that the passenger mobile device is at the event by matching an updated location of the passenger mobile device with a location of the event;
determine, based on analyzing data from an event information source of a third-party server device, a predicted event completion time; and determining the predicted event completion time; at the predicted event completion time; and
in response to detecting that the passenger mobile device is at the event and determining the predicted event completion time, transmit, by a server device, navigational data to direct a driver computing device to navigate to a pickup location of the event at the predicted event completion time.
Per Prong One of Step 2A, the identified recitation of an abstract idea falls within at least one of the Abstract Idea Groupings consisting of: Mathematical Concepts, Mental Processes, or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Particularly, the identified recitation falls within Mental Processes, concepts performed in the human mind including observations, evaluation, judgement and opinion. Per Prong Two of Step 2A, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim as a whole does not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application. The processor, non-transitory computer readable medium, passenger mobile device, server device and driver computing device is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic computing system/device and mobile device. This processor, non-transitory computer readable medium, passenger mobile device, server device and driver computing device is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computing devices each comprising at least a processor, memory and display device. Further, processor configured to cause receiving/determining/transmitting data is mere instruction to apply an exception using a generic computer component which cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, this/these additional element(s) does/do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, since the claims are directed to the determined judicial exception in view of the two prongs of Step 2A, MPEP 2106.05 Eligibility Step 2B: Whether a Claim Amounts to Significantly More [R-07.2022] is directed to Step 2B. Therein, per Step 2B the additional elements and combinations therewith are examined in the claims to determine whether the claims as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. It is noted here that the additional elements are to be considered both individually and as an ordered combination. In this case, the claims each at most comprise additional elements of a processor, non-transitory computer readable medium, passenger mobile device, server device and driver computing device. Taken individually, the additional limitations each are generically recited and thus does not add significantly more to the respective limitations. Further, executing all the steps/functions by a user/service subsystem is mere instruction to apply an exception using a generic computer component which cannot provide an inventive concept in Step 2B (or, looking back to Step 2A, cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application). For further support, the Applicant’s specification supports the claims being directed to use of a generic processor, non-transitory computer readable medium, passenger mobile device, server device and driver computing device type structure at paragraphs 0051: “backend server 302 include a computer system to facilitate performance of its operations. As an example, backend server 302 includes one or more processors 308, memory elements 310, and communication interfaces 312, among other hardware and software. These components may work together in order to provide backend server functionality described herein. Processor 308 may have any suitable characteristics of the processors 202 and 204 described above. In particular embodiments, backend server 302 may utilize multiple processors to perform the functions described herein. In various embodiments, reference to a processor may refer to multiple discrete processors communicatively coupled together.” Paragraph 0052 “memory 310 may have any suitable characteristics of memories 206 and 208 described above. Memory 310 may store any suitable data or information utilized by backend server 302, including software embedded in a computer readable medium, and/or encoded logic incorporated in hardware or otherwise stored (e.g., firmware). Memory 310 may also store the results and/or intermediate results of the various calculations and determinations performed by processor 308.” Paragraph 0014: “Mobile devices 104 and 108 may include any electronic computing device operable to receive, transmit, process, and store any appropriate data. For example, mobile devices 104 and 108 may include laptop computers, tablet computers, smartphones, personal digital assistants, and other devices capable of connecting (e.g., wirelessly) to one or more networks 120.” And paragraph 0025: “In general, “servers,” and other “computing devices” may include electronic computing devices operable to receive, transmit, process, store, or manage data and information associated with system 100. “ See also figures 2 and 3.
Taken as an ordered combination, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are directed to limitations referenced in Alice Corp. that are not enough to qualify as significantly more when recited in a claim with an abstract idea include, as a non-limiting or non-exclusive examples: i. Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)); ii. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); iii. 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)); or v. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, e.g., a claim describing how the abstract idea of hedging could be used in the commodities and energy markets, as discussed in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 595, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010) or a claim limiting the use of a mathematical formula to the petrochemical and oil-refining fields, as discussed in Parker v. Flook. The courts have recognized the following computer functions inter alia to be well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner: performing repetitive calculations; receiving, processing, and storing data (e.g., the present claims); electronically scanning or extracting data; electronic recordkeeping; automating mental tasks (e.g., process/machine for performing the present claims); and receiving or transmitting data (e.g., the present claims). The dependent claims 2-8, 10-16 and 18-20 do not cure the above stated deficiencies, and in particular, the dependent claims further narrow the abstract idea without reciting additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception or providing significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 2 and 10 further limit the abstract idea by receiving a first user interaction with the graphical user interface indicating a flight arrival event (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 3 and 11 further limit the abstract idea by receiving a second user interaction with the graphical user interface indicating a destination location for the transportation services after the flight arrival event (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 4, 12 and 19 further limit the abstract idea by transmitting a digital notification to the passenger mobile device indicating the pickup location of the event (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 5 and 13 further limit the abstract idea by receiving, via an additional user interaction with an additional graphical user interface of an additional passenger mobile device, a transportation request indicating the event and an additional request for transportation services upon completion of the event; and generating a predicted driver computing device demand for the event based on the user interaction and the additional user interaction (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 6 and 14 further limit the abstract idea by transmitting navigational data to direct a plurality of driver computing devices to the event based on the predicted driver computing device demand (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 7 and 15 further limit the abstract idea by receiving, via an additional user interaction with an additional graphical user interface of an additional passenger mobile device, a transportation request indicating an additional event and an additional request for transportation services upon completion of the additional event (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 8 and 16 further limit the abstract idea by selecting a first subset of driver computing devices to pre-emptively navigate to the event based on the user interaction; and selecting a second subset of driver computing devices to pre-emptively navigate to the additional event based on the additional user interaction (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 18 further limit the abstract idea by receiving a first user interaction with the graphical user interface indicating a flight arrival event; and receiving a second user interaction with the graphical user interface indicating a destination location for the transportation services after the flight arrival event (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 19 further limit the abstract idea by transmitting a digital notification to the passenger mobile device indicating the pickup location of the event (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). And claim 20 further limit the abstract idea by generating a predicted driver computing device demand for the event based on the user interaction and the additional user interaction; and transmit navigational data to direct a plurality of driver computing devices to the event based on the predicted driver computing device demand (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). The identified recitation of the dependents claims falls within the Mental Processes, concepts performed in the human mind including observations, evaluation, judgement and opinion. Since there are no elements or ordered combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, the claims are not eligible subject matter under 35 USC §101. Thus, viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 7/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection. “Applicant submits that the currently amended independent claims are directed to patent-eligible subject matter and not directed to a Mental Process or any other abstract idea. Even assuming, arguendo, that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, the amendments to the claims integrate any such abstract idea into a practical application.” (Remarks, pages 11-12).
In response to Applicant’s arguments. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 recites a method for picking up a user when an event is completed, which includes receiving a transportation request indicating an event and a request for transportation services upon completion of the event, monitoring GPS information of the passenger mobile device over time to determine updated locations of the passenger mobile device, detecting that the passenger mobile device is at the event by matching an updated location of the passenger mobile device with a location of the event, determining, based on analyzing data from an event information source of a third-party server device, a predicted event completion time; and in response to detecting that the passenger mobile device is at the event and determining the predicted event completion time, transmitting, by a server device, navigational data to direct a driver computing device to navigate to a pickup location of the event at the predicted event completion time as shown in the Applicant's disclosure in paragraph 0002 "preemptively navigating drivers to an event location to transport passengers upon completion of the event." Therefore, claim 1 recites an abstract idea falling within the Guidance's subject-matter grouping to the group of Mental Processes, concepts performed in the human mind including observations (transportation request indicating an event upon completion of the event, GPS information of the passenger mobile device, event information source from third-party service), evaluation (passenger mobile device location matching the event location, predicted event completion time), judgement and opinion (navigational data to pickup location of the event at the predicted event completion time). Per Prong Two of Step 2A, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim as a whole does not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application.
The processor, non-transitory computer readable medium, passenger mobile device, server device and driver computing device is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of receiving/determining/transmitting data. This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Considering the claims as a whole, these additional limitations merely add generic computer activities i.e., receiving/determining/transmitting to receive inputs, analyze the inputs in order to let drivers know when to pick up passengers when the event ends. The recited processor, non-transitory computer readable medium, passenger mobile device, server device and driver computing device, merely links the abstract idea to a computer environment. In this way, the processor, non-transitory computer readable medium, passenger mobile device, server device and driver computing device involvement is merely a field of use which only contributes nominally and insignificantly to the recited method, which indicates absence of integration. Claim 1 uses the processor, non-transitory computer readable medium, passenger mobile device, server device and driver computing device as a tool, in its ordinary capacity, to carry out the abstract idea. As to this level of computer involvement, mere automation of manual processes using generic computers does not necessarily indicate a patent-eligible improvement in computer technology. Considered as a whole, the claimed method does not improve the functioning of the computer itself or any other technology or technical field. Further, a processor configured to cause receiving/determining/transmitting data to a device is mere instruction to apply an exception using a generic computer component which cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, this/these additional element(s) does/do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The same rationale applies to claims 9 and 17.
With regards to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections. Please see the updated rejection below as necessitated by amendments where Kim in view of Sweeney and Peng teaches the newly added limitations of claims 1, 9 and 17.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al., (US 9,911,170 B2) hereinafter “Kim” in view of Sweeney et al., (US 2010/0273509 A1) hereinafter “Sweeney” and Yefei Peng (US 2016/0335576), hereinafter “Peng”.
Claim 1:
Kim as shown discloses a computer-implemented method, the method comprising:
receiving, via user interaction with a graphical user interface of a passenger mobile device (Figure 1A, 120 Client Device Interface), a transportation request indicating an event and a request for transportation services upon completion of the event (col. 12, lines 62-67: “the pre-request can include a starting location (e.g., a current location of the user when the pre-request was made, a starting transit station or stop) (212), a specified or transfer location (e.g., where the user will end the travel “completion of the event” using a method of transit, such as a transit station or stop) (214)” see also col. 6, lines 57-61: “a pre-request 183 is a request indicating that a transport service is needed at a time in the future (as compared to a time when the pre-request 183 is made) to transport the user from a specified location to another location.” And col. 7, lines 4-8: “the pre-request 183 can include information about a method of transit and/or a specified location data point corresponding to a location that the user is traveling to (and subsequently needs a transport service from).”);
monitoring GPS information of the passenger mobile device over time to determine updated locations of the passenger mobile device (col. 7, lines 15-19: “the request proxy 150 can provide the specified location data point to the client ETA determine 140 and cause the client ETA determine 140 to periodically determine the ETA of the user to the specified location data point (referred to herein as the user ETA 143).” And col. 7, lines 23-30: “When the pre-request 183 is made, the client application 181 can periodically transmit position information 141 of the user to the system 100. The position information 141 can correspond to a current location data point of the user's client device 180 at an instance in time. Such a location data point can be generated by a location detection component of the client device 180 (e.g., a global positioning system (GPS) receiver).”);
Kim teaches as explained above monitor and update locations of the passenger mobile device as shown in col. 2, lines 16-24: “the user's device can periodically provide its current location data point to the system, and the system can dynamically determine the user's rate of travel based on the location data points. The system can also use transit information, such as routes that a transit vehicle (e.g., a plane, a train, a bus, a light-rail train, a bike, a car, etc.) can travel and/or predefined stops or stations, along with the user's rate of travel to determine the first ETA” see also col. 9, lines 47-51: “The client ETA determine 140 can also use map information 171 to determine the user ETA 143. The map database 170 can store map information 171 corresponding to different geographic regions, including information about highways, roads, intersections, points of interest, geographical features, etc. (e.g., as latitude and longitude coordinates). Kim is silent with regard to the following limitations. However, Sweeney in an analogous art of transportation management for the purpose of providing the following limitations as shown does:
detecting that the passenger mobile device is at the event by matching an updated location of the passenger mobile device with a location of the event; and in response to detecting that the passenger mobile device is at the event, (¶ 0026: “mass transportation tracking application 118 may be configured to send a message to a user-specified identifier, such as, but not limited to, a phone number and/or email address, indicating that user 104 has arrived (e.g., to automatically notify a friend and/or hotel/rental car shuttle bus that user 104 has arrived and for them to come to the drop off/pick-up location). In some embodiments, the message may include location information associated with user 104 based on the location of the mobile signal detection unit 130 detecting the signal associated with mobile device 114 (e.g., the message may indicate that user 104 is waiting by exit 3 of terminal A);
Both Kim and Sweeney teach transportation management. Kim teaches in the Abstract: “ arranging a transport service for a user.” Sweeney teaches in the Abstract “providing location information for a mobile device associated with a passenger of a mass transportation vehicle.” Thus, they are deemed to be analogous references as they are reasonably pertinent to each other and are directed towards solving similar problems within the same environment. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Sweeney would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Sweeney to the teaching of Kim would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such as detecting that the passenger mobile device is at the event by matching an updated location of the passenger mobile device with a location of the event; and in response to detecting that the passenger mobile device is at the event into similar systems. Further, as noted by Sweeney “maintaining one or more location-based services associated with a mobile device while the mobile device is in transit on a mass transportation vehicle, such as, but not limited to, an airplane.” (Sweeney, ¶ 0002).
Kim teaches in col. 8, lines 43-47: “the client ETA determine 140 can access other databases or sources, such as third-party sources, to determine information about traffic, weather conditions, accidents, road closures, etc., in order to periodically determine the user ETA 143.” Kim in view of Sweeny teaches that the passenger mobile device is at the event. Kim in view of Sweeney is silent with regard to the following limitations. However, Peng in an analogous art of transportation management for the purpose of providing the following limitations as shown does:
determining, based on analyzing data from an event information source of a third-party server device, a predicted event completion time; and determining the predicted event completion time; at the predicted event completion time (¶ 0054: “ the dispatch system 100 can utilize network resources, such as third-part resources, to determine additional characteristics for the event. For example, the dispatch system can identify a time of day (311), a time of week (312), a time of year or season (313), the weather during the event (314), the volume of drop-offs for the event (307), the volume of pick-ups for the event (309), and/or a ratio between the respective volumes. Other data may be further indicative of the event, such as user reviews or news reports from third party resources, etc..”), ¶ 0012: “the dispatch system can identify passenger drop-off spikes and corresponding passenger pick-up spikes at or near certain event locations (also referred to herein as venues). These spike pairs can be associated with the start and completion of an event (e.g., a sporting event, a concert, a business conference, etc.)” and ¶ 0033: “the matching engine 140 can identify a predicted pick-up request spike in the matching correlation model, and submit a forecast for the predicted pick-up request spike to a dispatch engine 155 for processing.”);
Both Kim and Peng teach transportation management. Kim teaches in the Abstract: “ arranging a transport service for a user.” Peng teaches in the Abstract “dispatch system is provided to collect and store historical passenger pick-up and drop-off data.” Thus, they are deemed to be analogous references as they are reasonably pertinent to each other and are directed towards solving similar problems within the same environment. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Sweeney would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Sweeney to the teaching of Kim would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such as determining, based on analyzing data from an event information source of a third-party server device, a predicted event completion time; and determining the predicted event completion time; at the predicted event completion time into similar systems. Further, as noted by Sweeney “maintaining one or more location-based services associated with a mobile device while the mobile device is in transit on a mass transportation vehicle, such as, but not limited to, an airplane.” (Sweeney, ¶ 0002).
In addition, Kim teaches:
transmitting, by a server device, navigational data to direct a driver computing device to navigate to a pickup location of the event at the predicted event completion time (col. 14, lines 61-65: “the system 100 can perform the transport service arrangement process by selecting a driver to provide the transport service for the user. The system 100 can then notify the user of the transport service and provide the user with information about the vehicle ETA and/or the location for pickup (e.g., the specified location data point).”);
Claims 9 and 17:
The limitations of claims 9 and 17 (col. 4, lines 61-67) encompass substantially the same scope as claim 1. Accordingly, those similar limitations are rejected in substantially the same manner as claim 1, as described above. The following are the limitations of claim 11 that differ from claim 1.
Kim as shown discloses a computing system, the system comprising:
at least one processor; and a non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to: (Figure 5 and col. 4, lines 61-67);
Kim is silent with regard to the following limitations. However, Sweeney in an analogous art of transportation management for the purpose of providing the following limitations as shown does:
Claims 2 and 10:
Kim teaches in col. 2, lines 16-24: “the user's device can periodically provide its current location data point to the system, and the system can dynamically determine the user's rate of travel based on the location data points. The system can also use transit information, such as routes that a transit vehicle (e.g., a plane, a train, a bus, a light-rail train, a bike, a car, etc.) can travel and/or predefined stops or stations, along with the user's rate of travel to determine the first ETA”. Kim is silent with regard to the following limitations. However, Sweeney in an analogous art of transportation management for the purpose of providing the following limitations as shown does:
wherein receiving, via the user interaction with the graphical user interface of the passenger mobile device, the transportation request indicating the event and the request for transportation services upon completion of the event comprises receiving a first user interaction with the graphical user interface indicating a flight arrival event (¶ 0045: “a user may specify mass transportation tracking application 118 to provide travel information to the calling party, such as, but not limited to, the flight number, time of arrival, arrival gate, etc.”);
Both Kim and Sweeney teach transportation management. Kim teaches in the Abstract: “ arranging a transport service for a user.” Sweeney teaches in the Abstract “providing location information for a mobile device associated with a passenger of a mass transportation vehicle.” Thus, they are deemed to be analogous references as they are reasonably pertinent to each other and are directed towards solving similar problems within the same environment. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Sweeney would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Sweeney to the teaching of Kim would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such as receiving, via the user interaction with the graphical user interface of the passenger mobile device, the transportation request indicating the event and the request for transportation services upon completion of the event comprises receiving a first user interaction with the graphical user interface indicating a flight arrival event into similar systems. Further, as noted by Sweeney “maintaining one or more location-based services associated with a mobile device while the mobile device is in transit on a mass transportation vehicle, such as, but not limited to, an airplane.” (Sweeney, ¶ 0002).
Claims 3 and 11:
Kim as shown discloses the following limitations:
wherein receiving, via the user interaction with the graphical user interface of the passenger mobile device, the transportation request indicating the event and the request for transportation services upon completion of the event comprises receiving a second user interaction with the graphical user interface indicating a destination location for the transportation services after the flight arrival event (col. 6 lines 23-29: “the client application 181 can present a user interface to enable a user to select or specify a method of transit, a start location data point, a specified or transfer location data point (e.g., a first destination location point), a final destination location data point (e.g., a second destination location point), a start time, and/or an end time.” See also col. 12, lines 62-67 to col. 13, lines 1-5: “the pre-request can include a starting location (e.g., a current location of the user when the pre-request was made, a starting transit station or stop) (212), a specified or transfer location (e.g., where the user will end the travel using a method of transit, such as a transit station or stop) (214), a destination location (e.g., where the user wants to continue to travel to after using the method of transit) (216), a method of transit (218), and/or other information, such as a vehicle type. One of more of the locations can be provided as an address, a point of interest, or a location data point.”);
Claims 4, 12 and 19:
Kim as shown discloses the following limitations:
further comprising in response to detecting that the passenger mobile device is at the event, transmitting a digital notification to the passenger mobile device indicating the pickup location of the event (col. 14, lines 63-65: “The system 100 can then notify the user of the transport service and provide the user with information about the vehicle ETA and/or the location for pickup (e.g., the specified location data point).”)
Claim 18:
The limitations of claim 18 encompasses substantially the same scope as claims 2 and 3. Accordingly, those similar limitations are rejected in substantially the same manner as claims 2 and 3, as described above.
Claims 5 and 13:
Kim as shown discloses a computer-implemented method, the method comprising:
further comprising: receiving, via an additional user interaction with an additional graphical user interface (Figure 1A, 120 Client Device Interface) of an additional passenger mobile device, a transportation request indicating the event and an additional request for transportation services upon completion of the event (col. 12, lines 62-67: “the pre-request can include a starting location (e.g., a current location of the user when the pre-request was made, a starting transit station or stop) (212), a specified or transfer location (e.g., where the user will end the travel “completion of the event” using a method of transit, such as a transit station or stop) (214)” see also col. 6, lines 57-61: “a pre-request 183 is a request indicating that a transport service is needed at a time in the future (as compared to a time when the pre-request 183 is made) to transport the user from a specified location to another location.” And col. 7, lines 4-8: “the pre-request 183 can include information about a method of transit and/or a specified location data point corresponding to a location that the user is traveling to (and subsequently needs a transport service from).” See also claim 1: “wherein the transport service is automatically initiated as part of a process that anticipates the transport service for the user, and reduces overall wait times of multiple users with respect to receiving the transport services.”);
Kim as explained above anticipates the transport service. Kim is silent with regard to the following limitations. However, Peng in an analogous art of transportation management for the purpose of providing the following limitations as shown does:
and generating a predicted driver computing device demand for the event based on the user interaction and the additional user interaction (¶ 0016: “Using a multitude of data gathered comprising, for example, timestamps and locations for drop-offs and pick-ups, corresponding event locations, event schedule information gathered from information resources, weather data, and identified drop-off and pick-up spike pairs, a dispatch system may construct correlation models to forecast a demand spike (e.g., a surge in passenger pick-up requests) for a given spike in passenger drop-offs at a given location.” See also ¶ 0024);
Both Kim and Peng teach transportation management. Kim teaches in the Abstract: “ arranging a transport service for a user.” Sweeney teaches in the Abstract “dispatch system is provided to collect and store historical passenger pick-up and drop-off data.” Thus, they are deemed to be analogous references as they are reasonably pertinent to each other and are directed towards solving similar problems within the same environment. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Peng would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Peng to the teaching of Kim in view of Sweeney would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such as generating a predicted driver computing device demand for the event based on the user interaction and the additional user interaction into similar systems. Further, as noted by Peng “Based on the forecasted demand spike, the dispatch system can submit demand notifications to transport vehicles in order to anticipate the forecasted demand spike and service passenger pick-up requests more efficiently.” (Peng, ¶ 0016).
Claims 6 and 14:
Kim as explained above anticipates the transport service. Kim is silent with regard to the following limitations. However, Peng in an analogous art of transportation management for the purpose of providing the following limitations as shown does:
further comprising transmitting navigational data to direct a plurality of driver computing devices to the event based on the predicted driver computing device demand (¶ 0064: “Once the event location and predicted response rate are determined, along with current available drivers and service traffic, the dispatch engine 155 can generate a demand notification 148 for transmission to select drivers (470, 475). The demand notification 148 can include an incentive (471) to elicit drivers to commit to responding the predicted spike in pick-up requests 182. The dispatch engine 155 can identify to which specific drivers to send the demand notification 148 based on a time factor corresponding to an estimated time the driver will take to reach the event location (476). Additionally or alternatively, the dispatch engine 155 can select drivers based on location and proximity to the event location (477), as well as the determined response rate (478).”);
Both Kim and Peng teach transportation management. Kim teaches in the Abstract: “ arranging a transport service for a user.” Peng teaches in the Abstract “dispatch system is provided to collect and store historical passenger pick-up and drop-off data.” Thus, they are deemed to be analogous references as they are reasonably pertinent to each other and are directed towards solving similar problems within the same environment. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Peng would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Peng to the teaching of Kim in view of Sweeney would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such as further comprising transmitting navigational data to direct a plurality of driver computing devices to the event based on the predicted driver computing device demand into similar systems. Further, as noted by Peng “Based on the forecasted demand spike, the dispatch system can submit demand notifications to transport vehicles in order to anticipate the forecasted demand spike and service passenger pick-up requests more efficiently.” (Peng, ¶ 0016).
Claim 20:
The limitations of claim 20 encompasses substantially the same scope as claims 5 and 6. Accordingly, those similar limitations are rejected in substantially the same manner as claims 5 and 6, as described above.
Claims 7 and 15:
Kim as shown discloses a computer-implemented method, the method comprising:
further comprising receiving, via an additional user interaction with an additional graphical user interface (Figure 1A, 120 Client Device Interface) of an additional passenger mobile device, a transportation request indicating an additional event and an additional request for transportation services upon completion of the additional event (col. 12, lines 62-67: “the pre-request can include a starting location (e.g., a current location of the user when the pre-request was made, a starting transit station or stop) (212), a specified or transfer location (e.g., where the user will end the travel “completion of the additional event” using a method of transit, such as a transit station or stop) (214)” see also col. 6, lines 57-61: “a pre-request 183 is a request indicating that a transport service is needed at a time in the future (as compared to a time when the pre-request 183 is made) to transport the user from a specified location to another location.” And col. 7, lines 4-8: “the pre-request 183 can include information about a method of transit and/or a specified location data point corresponding to a location that the user is traveling to (and subsequently needs a transport service from).” See also claim 1: “wherein the transport service is automatically initiated as part of a process that anticipates the transport service for the user, and reduces overall wait times of multiple users with respect to receiving the transport services.”);
Claims 8 and 16:
Kim as explained above anticipates the transport service. Kim is silent with regard to the following limitations. However, Peng in an analogous art of transportation management for the purpose of providing the following limitations as shown does:
selecting a first subset of driver computing devices to pre-emptively navigate to the event based on the user interaction; and selecting a second subset of driver computing devices to pre-emptively navigate to the additional event based on the additional user interaction (¶0015: The dispatch system can identify the associated pick-up spike for this matching drop-off spike or spike group, and thus transmit demand notifications (e.g., demand surge alerts) to a selected number of drivers to fulfill the anticipated demand spike.” See also ¶ 0064: “Once the event location and predicted response rate are determined, along with current available drivers and service traffic, the dispatch engine 155 can generate a demand notification 148 for transmission to select drivers (470, 475). The demand notification 148 can include an incentive (471) to elicit drivers to commit to responding the predicted spike in pick-up requests 182. The dispatch engine 155 can identify to which specific drivers to send the demand notification 148 based on a time factor corresponding to an estimated time the driver will take to reach the event location (476). Additionally or alternatively, the dispatch engine 155 can select drivers based on location and proximity to the event location (477), as well as the determined response rate (478).”);
Both Kim and Peng teach transportation management. Kim teaches in the Abstract: “ arranging a transport service for a user.” Peng teaches in the Abstract “dispatch system is provided to collect and store historical passenger pick-up and drop-off data.” Thus, they are deemed to be analogous references as they are reasonably pertinent to each other and are directed towards solving similar problems within the same environment. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Peng would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Peng to the teaching of Kim in view of Sweeney would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such as selecting a first subset of driver computing devices to pre-emptively navigate to the event based on the user interaction; and selecting a second subset of driver computing devices to pre-emptively navigate to the additional event based on the additional user interaction into similar systems. Further, as noted by Peng “Based on the forecasted demand spike, the dispatch system can submit demand notifications to transport vehicles in order to anticipate the forecasted demand spike and service passenger pick-up requests more efficiently.” (Peng, ¶ 0016).
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 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 NADJA CHONG whose telephone number is (571)270-3939. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00 am - 2:00 pm ET, 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, RUTAO WU can be reached on 571.272.6045. 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NADJA N CHONG CRUZ/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623
Prosecution Insights