DETAILED ACTION
This action is in reply to a continuation of 18/223,289 filed October 10th, 2024. Claims 1-21 are currently pending.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings were received on October 10th, 2024. These drawings are acceptable.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The use of the terms “Bluetooth” and “Video Electronics Standards Association” in page 16 paragraph 0063, “FireWire”, “Thunderbolt”, “Bluetooth”, “Zigbee”, “WiMAX” in page 21 paragraph 0077, and “WiMax” in page 21 paragraph 0080, which are trade names or marks used in commerce, have been noted in this application. The terms should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 12 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 12 recites “[t]he system of Claim 1” but claim 1 is a method claim.
claim 20 recites “[t]he method of Claim 11” but claim 11 is a system claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-8, 10-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more and the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more and the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 1:
The claim 1 is directed to a statutory category of method.
Step 2a Prong 1:
The method of claim 1 is a mental process. The mental process of claim 1 merely consists of determining a source based at least in part on said request; and generating a suggested route based at least in part on said start location, said end location, and said route segments, said suggested route comprising a plurality of said route segments, at least one of said route segments being associated with a different mode of transportation than another of said route segments which under its BRI consists of determining a nearby form of public transportation and deciding whether to use it for part of a route that a person is planning to take. For example, the examiner walks to and from work every day and they decide on whether to walk the entire distance or use the metro on part of the journey between work and their house based on the schedule of the metro, the weather, the examiner’s condition when going to and from work, and whether the examiner is running late.
Step 2a Prong 2:
Claim 1 recites the additional elements of [a] method comprising: receiving a request for a route, wherein said request comprises a start location and an end location; obtaining route segments from said source; and transmitting said suggested route in response to said request which are insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. These additional elements are merely insignificant extra solution activities. These additional elements are insufficient to find a practical application because they are merely steps of gathering and outputting data in a known manner.
Step 2b:
The additional elements of a] method comprising: receiving a request for a route, wherein said request comprises a start location and an end location; obtaining route segments from said source; and transmitting said suggested route in response to said request, which were considered insignificant extra solution activities in step 2a, are similarly insufficient for a finding of significantly more because they are well-understood, routine, and convention activities for computers. For example, the MPEP provides that known and routine activities of a computer are insufficient for showing significantly more than the identified abstract idea and the courts have recognized that receiving and transmitting data is one such activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i) “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added))”.
Claims 2-8, 10-18, and 20 fall under the same judicial exceptions of claim 1 and are similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more and the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Regarding claim 2, claim 2 recites the same mental process of claim 1 but with the additional mental steps of determining a user account identifier based at least in part on said request; and obtaining user preferences associated with said user account identifier; and wherein said step of generating a suggested route includes generating said suggested route based at least in part on said user preferences which under its BRI merely consists of reading data on the user and their preferences and generating the route based on said preference.
Regarding claim 3, claim 3 recites the same mental process of claim 2 but with the additional element of wherein said user preferences identify a particular accommodation required on at least one of said route segments which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more as this is merely an insignificant extra-solution activity of stating the type of data that is part of the user preferences. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(iii) “Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)”.
Regarding claim 4, claim 4 recites the same mental process of claim 2 but with the additional element of wherein said user preferences identify a particular route parameter to be optimized in said suggested route which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more as this is merely an insignificant extra-solution activity of stating the type of data that is part of the user preferences. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(iii) “Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)”.
Regarding claim 5, claim 5 recites the same mental process of claim 1 but with the additional mental step of said step of generating a suggested route includes generating said suggested route based at least in part on said user preferences which under its BRI merely consists of generating the route based on the preference of the user. Claim 5 further recites the additional element of said step of receiving a request for a route includes receiving user preferences with said request which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more as this is merely an insignificant extra-solution activity of stating the type of data that is part of the user preferences. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(iii) “Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)”.
Regarding claim 6, claim 6 recites the same mental process of claim 5 but with the additional element of wherein said user preferences identify a particular accommodation required on at least one of said route segments which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more as this is merely an insignificant extra-solution activity of stating the type of data that is part of the user preferences. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(iii) “Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)”.
Regarding claim 7, claim 7 recites the same mental process of claim 5 but with the additional element of wherein said user preferences identify a particular route parameter to be optimized in said suggested route which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more as this is merely an insignificant extra-solution activity of stating the type of data that is part of the user preferences. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(iii) “Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)”.
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 recites the same mental process of claim 1 but with the additional mental step of generating a list including data associated with said plurality of said route segments which under its BRI merely consists of determining additional information relevant to the route segments. Claim 8 further recites the additional element of transmitting said list in response to said request which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more as this is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of computers. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i) “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added))”.
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 recites the same mental process of claim 1 but with the additional element of wherein available modes of transportation for certain route segments include ride sharing and car sharing which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more as this is merely an insignificant extra-solution activity of stating the type of data that is part of the user preferences. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(iii) “Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)”.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 recites the same mental process of claim 1 but is in the statutory category of system and it recites the additional element of [a] system comprising: one or more computer processors; and one or more memories comprising computer-executable instructions operable to cause said system to which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more as this is merely stating the technological environment that the judicial exception is being executed in. See MPEP 2106.05(h)(x) “Requiring that the abstract idea of creating a contractual relationship that guarantees performance of a transaction (a) be performed using a computer that receives and sends information over a network, or (b) be limited to guaranteeing online transactions, because these limitations simply attempted to limit the use of the abstract idea to computer environments, buySAFE Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1354, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1095-96 (Fed. Cir. 2014)”.
Regarding claims 12-18 and 20, they are rejected under the same analysis as claims 2-8 and 10 with regards to claim 1 but they depend upon claim 11.
Given the above analysis, examiner has determined that claims 1-8, 10-18, and 20 are not eligible subject matter under 101 and are thus rejected.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claims 1-8, 10-18, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by San Filippo et al. (US Pub. No. 20140278071 A1), herein after San Filippo.
Regarding claim 1, San Filippo teaches [a] method comprising: receiving a request for a route, wherein said request comprises a start location and an end location (San Filippo: Para. 0035, teaching generating a route between a user's current location and a destination; and Para. 0051, teaching that the route is generated upon request from the user); determining a source based at least in part on said request; obtaining route segments from said source (San Filippo: Para. 0202, teaching determining nearby public transit routes to use as a route segment in navigation; and Para. 0132, teaching obtaining the public transit schedules from public sources); generating a suggested route based at least in part on said start location, said end location, and said route segments, said suggested route comprising a plurality of said route segments (San Filippo: Para. 0035, teaching generating a route between a user's current location and a destination; and Para. 0202, teaching determining route segments that use different mode of transportation in a route), at least one of said route segments being associated with a different mode of transportation than another of said route segments (San Filippo: Para. 0202, teaching determining route segments that use different mode of transportation in a route); and transmitting said suggested route in response to said request (San Filippo: Para. 0105 and 0117, teaching sending the route information from a server to a user device for display).
Regarding claim 2, San Filippo remains as applied as in claim 1 and goes on to further teach [t]he method of Claim 1, further comprising: determining a user account identifier based at least in part on said request; and obtaining user preferences associated with said user account identifier (San Filippo: Para. 0038, teaching that user preference data such as the user's calendar data and trip information; Para. 0111, teaching connecting to third party sources for information on the user's calendar and connecting to them using authentication services; and Para. 0139, teaching that the data associated with a user in these third party sources are connected to a user identifier); and wherein said step of generating a suggested route includes generating said suggested route based at least in part on said user preferences (San Filippo: Para. 0050, teaching generating the fastest route based on the preferred mode of transit of the user).
Regarding claim 3, San Filippo remains as applied as in claim 2 and goes on to further teach [t]he method of Claim 2, wherein said user preferences identify a particular accommodation required on at least one of said route segments (San Filippo: Para. 0142, teaching determining the intended objective of a route and recommending appropriate locations nearby the route or destination that could satisfy the intended objective; and Para. 0146, teaching determining if the user has pets or children with them and generating routes and recommended destinations that accommodates having children and/or pets with the user).
Regarding claim 4, San Filippo remains as applied as in claim 2 and goes on to further teach [t]he method of Claim 2, wherein said user preferences identify a particular route parameter to be optimized in said suggested route (San Filippo: Para. 0050, teaching generating the fastest route based on the preferred mode of transit of the user).
Regarding claim 5, San Filippo remains as applied as in claim 1 and goes on to further teach [t]he method of Claim 1, wherein: said step of receiving a request for a route includes receiving user preferences with said request; and said step of generating a suggested route includes generating said suggested route based at least in part on said user preferences (San Filippo: Para. 0202, teaching determining route segments that use different mode of transportation in a route and generating route segments according to the user's preferences).
Regarding claim 6, San Filippo remains as applied as in claim 5 and goes on to further teach [t]he method of Claim 5, wherein said user preferences identify a particular accommodation required on at least one of said route segments (San Filippo: Para. 0142, teaching determining the intended objective of a route and recommending appropriate locations nearby the route or destination that could satisfy the intended objective; and Para. 0146, teaching determining if the user has pets or children with them and generating routes and recommended destinations that accommodates having children and/or pets with the user).
Regarding claim 7, San Filippo remains as applied as in claim 5 and goes on to further teach [t]he method of Claim 5, wherein said user preferences identify a particular route parameter to be optimized in said suggested route (San Filippo: Para. 0050, teaching generating the fastest route based on the preferred mode of transit of the user).
Regarding claim 8, San Filippo remains as applied as in claim 1 and goes on to further teach [t]he method of Claim 1, further comprising: generating a list including data associated with said plurality of said route segments; and transmitting said list in response to said request (San Filippo: Para. 0202, teaching determining route segments that use different mode of transportation in a route and generating route segments according to the user's preferences; and Para. 0105 and 0117, teaching sending the route information from a server to a user device for display).
Regarding claim 10, San Filippo remains as applied as in claim 1 and goes on to further teach [t]he method of Claim 1, wherein available modes of transportation for certain route segments include ride sharing and car sharing (San Filippo: Para. 0179, teaching that the modes of transport includes car or taxi services; and Para. 0299, teaching that the modes of transport includes shared vehicle services).
Regarding claim 11, San Filippo teaches [a] system comprising: one or more computer processors; and one or more memories comprising computer-executable instructions operable to cause said system to (San Filippo: Para. 0410, teaching the use of special-purpose computer devices programmed to perform the steps of the invention using hardware such as processors): receive a request for a route, wherein said request comprises a start location and an end location (San Filippo: Para. 0035, teaching generating a route between a user's current location and a destination; and Para. 0051, teaching that the route is generated upon request from the user); determine a source based at least in part on said request; obtain route segments from said source (San Filippo: Para. 0202, teaching determining nearby public transit routes to use as a route segment in navigation; and Para. 0132, teaching obtaining the public transit schedules from public sources); generate a suggested route based at least in part on said start location, said end location, and said route segments, said suggested route comprising a plurality of said route segments (San Filippo: Para. 0035, teaching generating a route between a user's current location and a destination; and Para. 0202, teaching determining route segments that use different mode of transportation in a route), at least one of said route segments being associated with a different mode of transportation than another of said route segments (San Filippo: Para. 0202, teaching determining route segments that use different mode of transportation in a route); and transmit said suggested route in response to said request (San Filippo: Para. 0105 and 0117, teaching sending the route information from a server to a user device for display).
Regarding claim 12, San Filippo remains as applied as in claim 11 and goes on to further teach [t]he system of Claim 1, wherein said computer-executable instructions are further operable to cause said system to: determine a user account identifier based at least in part on said request; obtain user preferences associated with said user account identifier (San Filippo: Para. 0038, teaching that user preference data such as the user's calendar data and trip information; Para. 0111, teaching connecting to third party sources for information on the user's calendar and connecting to them using authentication services; and Para. 0139, teaching that the data associated with a user in these third party sources are connected to a user identifier); and generate said suggested route based at least in part on said user preferences (San Filippo: Para. 0050, teaching generating the fastest route based on the preferred mode of transit of the user).
Regarding claim 13, San Filippo remains as applied as in claim 12 and goes on to further teach [t]he system of Claim 12, wherein said user preferences identify a particular accommodation required on at least one of said route segments (San Filippo: Para. 0142, teaching determining the intended objective of a route and recommending appropriate locations nearby the route or destination that could satisfy the intended objective; and Para. 0146, teaching determining if the user has pets or children with them and generating routes and recommended destinations that accommodates having children and/or pets with the user).
Regarding claim 14, San Filippo remains as applied as in claim 12 and goes on to further teach [t]he system of Claim 12, wherein said user preferences identify a particular route parameter to be optimized in said suggested route (San Filippo: Para. 0050, teaching generating the fastest route based on the preferred mode of transit of the user).
Regarding claim 15, San Filippo remains as applied as in claim 11 and goes on to further teach [t]he system of Claim 11, wherein: said request for a route includes user preferences; and said computer-executable instruction are further operable to cause said system to generate said suggested route by generating said suggested route based at least in part on said user preferences (San Filippo: Para. 0202, teaching determining route segments that use different mode of transportation in a route and generating route segments according to the user's preferences).
Regarding claim 16, San Filippo remains as applied as in claim 15 and goes on to further teach [t]he system of Claim 15, wherein said user preferences identify a particular accommodation required on at least one of said route segments (San Filippo: Para. 0142, teaching determining the intended objective of a route and recommending appropriate locations nearby the route or destination that could satisfy the intended objective; and Para. 0146, teaching determining if the user has pets or children with them and generating routes and recommended destinations that accommodates having children and/or pets with the user).
Regarding claim 17, San Filippo remains as applied as in claim 15 and goes on to further teach [t]he system of Claim 15, wherein said user preferences identify a particular route parameter to be optimized in said suggested route (San Filippo: Para. 0050, teaching generating the fastest route based on the preferred mode of transit of the user).
Regarding claim 18, San Filippo remains as applied as in claim 11 and goes on to further teach [t]he system of Claim 11, wherein said computer-executable instructions are further operable to cause said system to: generate a list including data associated with said plurality of said route segments; and transmit said list in response to said request (San Filippo: Para. 0202, teaching determining route segments that use different mode of transportation in a route and generating route segments according to the user's preferences; and Para. 0105 and 0117, teaching sending the route information from a server to a user device for display).
Regarding claim 20, San Filippo remains as applied as in claim 11 and goes on to further teach [t]he method of Claim 11, wherein available modes of transportation for certain route segments include ride sharing and car sharing (San Filippo: Para. 0179, teaching that the modes of transport includes car or taxi services; and Para. 0299, teaching that the modes of transport includes shared vehicle services).
Regarding claim 21, San Filippo teaches [a] non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions therein for causing a device to (San Filippo: Para. 0412, teaching that the steps of the invention may be executed using instructions stored on a non-transitory computer readable medium): receive a request for a route, wherein said request comprises a start location and an end location (San Filippo: Para. 0035, teaching generating a route between a user's current location and a destination; and Para. 0051, teaching that the route is generated upon request from the user); determine a source based at least in part on said request; obtain route segments from said source (San Filippo: Para. 0202, teaching determining nearby public transit routes to use as a route segment in navigation; and Para. 0132, teaching obtaining the public transit schedules from public sources); generate a suggested route based at least in part on said start location, said end location, and said route segments, said suggested route comprising a plurality of said route segments (San Filippo: Para. 0035, teaching generating a route between a user's current location and a destination; and Para. 0202, teaching determining route segments that use different mode of transportation in a route), at least one of said route segments being associated with a different mode of transportation than another of said route segments (San Filippo: Para. 0202, teaching determining route segments that use different mode of transportation in a route); and transmit said suggested route in response to said request (San Filippo: Para. 0105 and 0117, teaching sending the route information from a server to a user device for display).
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 (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 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 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over San Filippo as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Marueli et al. (US Pub. No. 20170191845 A1), herein after Marueli.
Regarding claim 9, San Filippo remains as applied as in claim 1, however San Filippo is silent to [t]he method of Claim 1, further comprising: receiving a second request, wherein said second request is a purchase request associated with one of said plurality of said route segments; and initiating a purchase transaction for access to a mode of transportation associated with said one of said plurality of said route segments.
In a similar field, Marueli teaches [t]he method of Claim 1, further comprising: receiving a second request, wherein said second request is a purchase request associated with one of said plurality of said route segments; and initiating a purchase transaction for access to a mode of transportation associated with said one of said plurality of said route segments (Marueli: Para. 0091, teaching upon selection of a route that uses a form of public transit, purchasing a ticket for the public transit for the time specified for the related route segment) for the benefit of improving the facilitation of a user’s route request over a route segment.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the generation of multi-modal routing from San Filippo to purchase tickets over route segments which requires purchasing tickets to utilize, as taught by Marueli, for the benefit of improving the facilitation of a user’s route request over a route segment.
Regarding claim 19, San Filippo remains as applied as in claim 11, however San Filippo is silent to [t]he system of Claim 11, wherein said computer-executable instructions are further operable to cause said system to: receive a second request, wherein said second request is a purchase request associated with one of said plurality of said route segments; and initiate a purchase transaction for access to a mode of transportation associated with said one of said plurality of said route segments.
In a similar field, Marueli teaches [t]he system of Claim 11, wherein said computer-executable instructions are further operable to cause said system to: receive a second request, wherein said second request is a purchase request associated with one of said plurality of said route segments; and initiate a purchase transaction for access to a mode of transportation associated with said one of said plurality of said route segments (Marueli: Para. 0091, teaching upon selection of a route that uses a form of public transit, purchasing a ticket for the public transit for the time specified for the related route segment) for the benefit of improving the facilitation of a user’s route request over a route segment.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention to modify the generation of multi-modal routing from San Filippo to purchase tickets over route segments which requires purchasing tickets to utilize, as taught by Marueli, for the benefit of improving the facilitation of a user’s route request over a route segment.
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 1-8, 10-18, 20, and 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8, 10-18, 20, and 21 of U.S. Patent No. 10996064 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the application are fully embedded in the Patent; the omission of “receiving a second request, said second request being a request to purchase a right of access to a mode of transportation associated with one of said plurality of said route segments” and “initiating a purchase transaction with an entity associated with said mode of transportation for said right of access to said mode of transportation associated with said one of said plurality of said route segments” in claims 1, 11, and 21 in the application as pertained to claims 1, 11, and 21 of the Patent respectively, does not preclude achieving the same end result of planning an optimal route/path between two or more identified locations and these limitations are also recited in dependent claims 9 and 19 of the application. This is an anticipatory rejection under ODP.
Instant Application
Patent
Claim 1. A method comprising: receiving a request for a route, wherein said request comprises a start location and an end location; determining a source based at least in part on said request; obtaining route segments from said source; generating a suggested route based at least in part on said start location, said end location, and said route segments, said suggested route comprising a plurality of said route segments, at least one of said route segments being associated with a different mode of transportation than another of said route segments; and transmitting said suggested route in response to said request.
Claim 1. A method comprising: receiving a request for a route, wherein said request comprises a start location and an end location; determining a source based at least in part on said request; obtaining route segments from said source; generating a suggested route based at least in part on said start location, said end location, and said route segments, said suggested route comprising a plurality of said route segments, at least one of said route segments being associated with a different mode of transportation than another of said route segments; transmitting said suggested route in response to said request; receiving a second request, said second request being a request to purchase a right of access to a mode of transportation associated with one of said plurality of said route segments; and initiating a purchase transaction with an entity associated with said mode of transportation for said right of access to said mode of transportation associated with said one of said plurality of said route segments
Claim 2. The method of Claim 1, further comprising: determining a user account identifier based at least in part on said request; and obtaining user preferences associated with said user account identifier; and wherein said step of generating a suggested route includes generating said suggested route based at least in part on said user preferences.
Claim 2. The method of Claim 1, further comprising: determining a user account identifier based at least in part on said request; and obtaining user preferences associated with said user account identifier; and wherein said step of generating a suggested route includes generating said suggested route based at least in part on said user preferences
Claim 3. The method of Claim 2, wherein said user preferences identify a particular accommodation required on at least one of said route segments.
Claim 3. The method of Claim 2, wherein said user preferences identify a particular accommodation required on at least one of said route segments
Claim 3. The method of Claim 2, wherein said user preferences identify a particular route parameter to be optimized in said suggested route.
Claim 4. The method of Claim 2, wherein said user preferences identify a particular 2 route parameter to be optimized in said suggested route.
Claim 5. The method of Claim 1, wherein: said step of receiving a request for a route includes receiving user preferences with said request; and said step of generating a suggested route includes generating said suggested route based at least in part on said user preferences.
Claim 5. The method of Claim 1, wherein: said step of receiving a request for a route includes receiving user preferences with said request; and said step of generating a suggested route includes generating said suggested route based at least in part on said user preferences.
Claim 6. The method of Claim 5, wherein said user preferences identify a particular accommodation required on at least one of said route segments.
Claim 6. The method of Claim 5, wherein said user preferences identify a particular accommodation required on at least one of said route segments.
Claim 7. The method of Claim 5, wherein said user preferences identify a particular route parameter to be optimized in said suggested route.
Claim 7. The method of Claim 5, wherein said user preferences identify a particular route parameter to be optimized in said suggested route.
Claim 8. The method of Claim 1, further comprising: generating a list including data associated with said plurality of said route segments; and transmitting said list in response to said request.
Claim 8. The method of Claim 1, further comprising: generating a list including data associated with said plurality of said route segments; and transmitting said list in response to said request.
Claim 10. The method of Claim 1, wherein available modes of transportation for certain route segments include ride sharing and car sharing.
Claim 10. The method of Claim 1, wherein available modes of transportation for certain route segments include autonomous vehicles.
Claim 11. A system comprising: one or more computer processors; and one or more memories comprising computer-executable instructions operable to cause said system to: receive a request for a route, wherein said request comprises a start location and an end location; determine a source based at least in part on said request; obtain route segments from said source; generate a suggested route based at least in part on said start location, said end location, and said route segments, said suggested route comprising a plurality of said route segments, at least one of said route segments being associated with a different mode of transportation than another of said route segments; and transmit said suggested route in response to said request.
Claim 11. A system comprising: one or more computer processors; and one or more memories comprising computer-executable instructions operable to cause said system to: receive a request for a route, wherein said request comprises a start location and an end location; 7 determine a source based at least in part on said request; obtain route segments from said source; generate a suggested route based at least in part on said start location, said end location, and said route segments, said suggested route comprising a plurality of said route segments, at least one of said route segments being associated with a different mode of transportation than another of said route segments; [[and]] transmit said suggested route in response to said request; receive a second request, said second request being a request to purchase a right of access to a mode of transportation associated with one of said plurality of said route segments; and initiating a purchase transaction with an entity associated with said mode of transportation for said right of access to said mode of transportation associated with said one of said plurality of said route segments.
Claim 12. The system of Claim 1, wherein said computer-executable instructions are further operable to cause said system to: determine a user account identifier based at least in part on said request; obtain user preferences associated with said user account identifier; and generate said suggested route based at least in part on said user preferences.
Claim 12. The system of Claim 1, wherein said computer-executable instructions are further operable to cause said system to: determine a user account identifier based at least in part on said request; obtain user preferences associated with said user account identifier; and generate said suggested route based at least in part on said user preferences.
Claim 13. The system of Claim 12, wherein said user preferences identify a particular accommodation required on at least one of said route segments.
Claim 13. The system of Claim 12, wherein said user preferences identify a particular accommodation required on at least one of said route segments.
Claim 14. The system of Claim 12, wherein said user preferences identify a particular route parameter to be optimized in said suggested route.
Claim 14. The system of Claim 12, wherein said user preferences identify a particular route parameter to be optimized in said suggested route.
Claim 15. The system of Claim 11, wherein: said request for a route includes user preferences; and said computer-executable instruction are further operable to cause said system to generate said suggested route by generating said suggested route based at least in part on said user preferences.
Claim 15. The system of Claim 11, wherein: said request for a route includes user preferences; and said computer-executable instruction are further operable to cause said system to generate said suggested route by generating said suggested route based at least in part on said user preferences.
Claim 16. The system of Claim 15, wherein said user preferences identify a particular accommodation required on at least one of said route segments.
Claim 16. The system of Claim 15, wherein said user preferences identify a particular accommodation required on at least one of said route segments.
Claim 17. The system of Claim 15, wherein said user preferences identify a particular route parameter to be optimized in said suggested route.
Claim 17. The system of Claim 15, wherein said user preferences identify a particular route parameter to be optimized in said suggested route.
Claim 18. The system of Claim 11, wherein said computer-executable instructions are further operable to cause said system to: generate a list including data associated with said plurality of said route segments; and transmit said list in response to said request.
Claim 18. The system of Claim 11, wherein said computer-executable instructions are further operable to cause said system to: generate a list including data associated with said plurality of said route segments; and transmit said list in response to said request.
Claim 20. The method of Claim 11, wherein available modes of transportation for certain route segments include ride sharing and car sharing.
Claim 20. The method of Claim 11, wherein available modes of transportation for certain route segments include autonomous vehicles.
Claim 21. A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions therein for causing a device to: receive a request for a route, wherein said request comprises a start location and an end location; determine a source based at least in part on said request; obtain route segments from said source; generate a suggested route based at least in part on said start location, said end location, and said route segments, said suggested route comprising a plurality of said route segments, at least one of said route segments being associated with a different mode of transportation than another of said route segments; and transmit said suggested route in response to said request.
Claim 21. A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions therein for causing a device to: receive a request for a route, wherein said request comprises a start location and an end location; determine a source based at least in part on said request; obtain route segments from said source; generate a suggested route based at least in part on said start location, said end location, and said route segments, said suggested route comprising a plurality of said route segments, at least one of said route segments being associated with a different mode of transportation than another of said route segments; transmit said suggested route in response to said request; receive a second request, said second request being a request to purchase a right of access to a mode of transportation associated with one of said plurality of said route segments; and initiate a purchase transaction with an entity associated with said mode of transportation for said right of access to said mode of transportation associated with said one of said plurality of said route segments.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bloom; Andrew M. (US Pub. No. 20100161370 A1) discloses determining an optimal route for emergency services to take to reach a destination with part of the route can be on foot through spaces that their vehicles cannot take.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Aaron K McCullers whose telephone number is (571)272-3523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, Roughly 9 AM - 6 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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at (571) 272-1206. 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.
/A.K.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
