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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/05/2024, 01/09/2025, 05/01/2025, 07/31/2025 & 11/20/2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a computer-implemented method that includes the steps of receiving ride data, sending matched information, detecting events and displaying messages and graphics. This correlates to routing ride-sharing or tax related dispatch operations. This is a case of “method of organizing human activity”, “fundamental business practices” and “mental processes”.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim only recites purely generic elements such as a “requestor computing device”, “provider computing device”, “provider communication device”, “display screen”, “processor” and “non-transitory computer-readable medium”. The generic computing elements and functions perform the operations of transmitting, displaying and storing information/data. Accordingly, the element(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the devices are generic in nature and do not require new hardware, new sensor systems, new event based detection mechanism, unconventional processing and a technical solution to a technical problem. The claim only list and detail conventional processes, such as receiving a trip request, sending route/pickup data, detecting proximity events and showing information on screen. These are mere steps and instruction using a generic computer component(s) to apply the exception, there is no inventive concept present. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim(s) 1, 9 & 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for Specification Page 4 ¶ [0024], Page 20 ¶ [0058], Page 31 ¶ [0079], does not reasonably provide enablement for “entry event”, “additional ride event” & “ride event”. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make use of the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
The claim requires detecting multiple types of events in which the specification does not describes the various type of events detection.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 8-9, 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Truong et al. (US 2016/0253617 A1).
Re Claim 1, 9 & 17, Truong teaches a computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, from a requestor computing device of a requestor, a transportation request comprising a request location and a destination location; (Truong; FIG. 1-3; ¶ [0020]-[0040]; A request from a rider, via computing device, the transportation request comprising a request location and destination location.)
sending matched information comprising the request location and the destination location to a provider computing device of a vehicle to cause the provider computing device to navigate to the request location; (Truong; FIG. 1-3; ¶ [0020]-[0040]; Matching and rider with a driver, transmitting the data to each participant device. The driver navigates to the riders location.)
in response to detecting an entry event of the requestor computing device relative to the vehicle, providing, for display via a display screen of a provider communication device within the vehicle, a requestor entry message; (Truong; FIG. 1-3; ¶ [0020]-[0040], [0059]-[0061]; Detecting a rider entering the drivers vehicle, displaying notification on each participants device.)
in response to detecting a ride event, providing, for display via the display screen of the provider communication device within the vehicle, requestor information; and (Truong; FIG. 1; ¶ [0020]-[0050]; Detecting ride events, such as pick up, drop off, and trip completion. Displaying the data to the provider device.)
in response to detecting an additional ride event: (Truong; FIG. 1; ¶ [0020]-[0050]; Detecting ride events, such as pick up, drop off, and trip completion. Displaying the data to the provider device.)
providing, for display via the display screen of the provider communication device within the vehicle, information graphics associated with the destination location; and (Truong; FIG. 1; ¶ [0020]-[0050]; Detecting ride events, such as pick up, drop off, and trip completion. Displaying the data to the provider device. Display destination/drop off location data.)
providing, for display via a display screen of the requestor computing device within the vehicle, the information graphics associated with the destination location. (Truong; FIG. 1; ¶ [0020]-[0050]; Detecting ride events, such as pick up, drop off, and trip completion. Displaying the data to the provider device. Display destination/drop off location data.)
Re Claim 8 & 16, Truong discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein detecting the entry event comprises detecting a threshold proximity between the requestor computing device and the vehicle. (Truong; FIG. 1; ¶ [0030]-[0040]; Detecting the location between the rider and the driver vehicle.)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2, 7, 10, 15, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Truong et al. (US 2016/0253617 A1) and further in view of Cao (US 2016/0364678 A1).
Re Claim 2, 10 & 18, Truong discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, yet does not explicitly suggest wherein providing the requestor entry message comprises: in response to detecting the entry event of the requestor computing device, providing provider information from a provider profile associated with the provider computing device for display via the display screen of the provider communication device.
However, in analogous art, Cao teaches wherein providing the requestor entry message comprises:
in response to detecting the entry event of the requestor computing device, providing provider information from a provider profile associated with the provider computing device for display via the display screen of the provider communication device. (Cao; FIG. 1; ¶ [0088]-[0097]; The embodiment(s) detail the sharing of a driver/provider account/profile to a rider associated with various detecting entry related events.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify Truong in view of Cao to share driver/rider information for the reasons of providing a ride-sharing services for riders who wish to purchase rides. (Cao Abstract)
Re Claim 7 & 15, Truong discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, yet does not explicitly suggest further comprising in response to detecting the ride event: providing, for display via the display screen of the provider communication device within the vehicle, the requestor information; and providing, for display via the display screen of the requestor computing device, the requestor information.
However, in analogous art, Cao teaches further comprising in response to detecting the ride event:
providing, for display via the display screen of the provider communication device within the vehicle, the requestor information; and (Cao; FIG. 1; Summary, ¶ [0080]-[0097]; The sharing of rider/driver information between the stated participants. Displaying the account/profile data on the screen of the respective devices.)
providing, for display via the display screen of the requestor computing device, the requestor information. (Cao; FIG. 1; Summary, ¶ [0080]-[0097]; The sharing of rider/driver information between the stated participants. Displaying the account/profile data on the screen of the respective devices.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify Truong in view of Cao to share driver/rider information for the reasons of providing a ride-sharing services for riders who wish to purchase rides. (Cao Abstract)
Claim(s) 3-6, 11-14, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Truong et al. (US 2016/0253617 A1) and further in view of Brahme (US 2015/0254581 A1).
Re Claim 3, 11 & 19, Truong discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, yet does not explicitly suggest wherein detecting the ride event comprises: detecting that the requestor computing device or the provider computing device is within a threshold distance of a destination location.
However, in analogous art, Brahme teaches wherein detecting the ride event comprises:
detecting that the requestor computing device or the provider computing device is within a threshold distance of a destination location. (Brahme; FIG. 1; Summary, ¶ [0104]-[0110]; The embodiment(s) detail displaying on a driver, rider display device proximity range to a stop. The data is presented to the driver/rider during the trip to the destination.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify Truong in view of Brahme to display the proximity to a destination location for the reasons of providing a rideshare service to affiliated parties that includes route locating share information. (Brahme Abstract)
Re Claim 4 & 12, Truong discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, yet does not explicitly suggest wherein providing, for display via the display screen of the provider communication device within the vehicle, the information graphics associated with the destination location comprises providing a proximity indicator regarding the destination location via the display screen of the provider communication device.
However, in analogous art, Brahme teaches wherein providing, for display via the display screen of the provider communication device within the vehicle, the information graphics associated with the destination location comprises providing a proximity indicator regarding the destination location via the display screen of the provider communication device. (Brahme; FIG. 1; Summary, ¶ [0104]-[0110]; The embodiment(s) detail displaying on a driver, rider display device proximity range to a stop. The data is presented to the driver/rider during the trip to the destination.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify Truong in view of Brahme to display the proximity to a destination location for the reasons of providing a rideshare service to affiliated parties that includes route locating share information. (Brahme Abstract)
Re Claim 5 & 13, Truong-Brahme discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 4, wherein providing, for display via the display screen of the requestor computing device within the vehicle, the information graphics associated with the destination location comprises providing the proximity indicator regarding the destination location via the display screen of the requestor computing device. (Brahme; FIG. 1; Summary, ¶ [0104]-[0110]; The embodiment(s) detail displaying on a driver, rider display device proximity range to a stop. The data is presented to the driver/rider during the trip to the destination.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify Truong in view of Brahme to display the proximity to a destination location for the reasons of providing a rideshare service to affiliated parties that includes route locating share information. (Brahme Abstract)
Re Claim 6 & 14, Truong-Brahme discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 4, further comprising, in response to detecting a drop-off event, removing the requestor information from the display screen of the provider communication device. (Brahme; FIG. 1-6; ¶ [0098]-[0102]; The process exits once the trip has ended.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify Truong in view of Brahme to display the proximity to a destination location for the reasons of providing a rideshare service to affiliated parties that includes route locating share information. (Brahme Abstract)
Re Claim 20, Truong discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 17, yet does not explicitly suggest further comprising instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the computing device to: provide, for display via the display screen of the provider communication device within the vehicle, the information graphics associated with the destination location by providing a proximity indicator regarding the destination location via the display screen of the provider communication device; and provide, for display via the display screen of the requestor computing device within the vehicle, the information graphics associated with the destination location by providing the proximity indicator regarding the destination location via the display screen of the requestor computing device.
However, in analogous art, Brahme teaches further comprising instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the computing device to:
provide, for display via the display screen of the provider communication device within the vehicle, the information graphics associated with the destination location by providing a proximity indicator regarding the destination location via the display screen of the provider communication device; and (Brahme; FIG. 1; Summary, ¶ [0104]-[0110]; The embodiment(s) detail displaying on a driver, rider display device proximity range to a stop. The data is presented to the driver/rider during the trip to the destination.)
provide, for display via the display screen of the requestor computing device within the vehicle, the information graphics associated with the destination location by providing the proximity indicator regarding the destination location via the display screen of the requestor computing device. (Brahme; FIG. 1; Summary, ¶ [0104]-[0110]; The embodiment(s) detail displaying on a driver, rider display device proximity range to a stop. The data is presented to the driver/rider during the trip to the destination.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify Truong in view of Brahme to display the proximity to a destination location for the reasons of providing a rideshare service to affiliated parties that includes route locating share information. (Brahme Abstract)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER B ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571)270-0702. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-3:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicholas R Taylor can be reached at 571-272-3889. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER B ROBINSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443