DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The action is in reply to the Application 18/933,783 filed on 10/31/2024.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
The action is made NON-FINAL.
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 .
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, 10-16, and 18-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-6, 11, 14, and 19-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,067,401 B2 in view of Racah et al. (US 2017/0314948 A1; hereinafter, “Racah”).
With respect to Claim 1, the current application states:
determining a set of matched users and transport providers having a common rendezvous location, the set of matched users and transport providers comprising a first user matched to a first transport provider and a second user matched to a second transport provider;
generating a dynamic queue comprising a plurality of transport providers including the first transport provider and the second transport provider, the dynamic queue describing an order in which the plurality of transport providers are to arrive at the common rendezvous location to pick up the matched users;
detecting a change in estimated time of arrival (ETA) of the first user;
in response to the detecting, dynamically assigning the first transport provider to a different user and assigning a different transport provider to the first user; and
transmitting first navigation data to the first transport provider, the first navigation data indicating the assigning of the different user for pickup
Claim 19 of US 11,067,401 B2 states:
determine a set of matched users and transport providers having a common rendezvous location;
based on the location-based data, determining dynamic estimated times of arrival (ETAs) to the common rendezvous location for each of the matched users and transport providers;
based on the dynamic ETAs of each of the transport providers, generating a dynamic queue comprising each of the matched transport providers for arriving at the common rendezvous location to pick up the matched users;
dynamically adjusting an order of the matched transport providers in the dynamic queue based on changes to the dynamic ETAs of at least one of the matched users or the matched transport providers to the common rendezvous location, wherein dynamically adjusting the order comprises transmitting, via the network communication interface, updated navigation-related data to one or more of the matched transport providers, the updated navigation-related data causing the user interface displayed on the computing devices of each of the one or more matched transport providers to present updated routing information that enables each of the one or more matched transport providers to arrive at the common rendezvous location in accordance with the dynamically adjusted order of the dynamic queue.
As shown above, Claim 19 of US 11,067,401 B2 does not explicitly teach “in response to the detecting, dynamically assigning the first transport provider to a different user and assigning a different transport provider to the first user” and “the first navigation data indicating the assigning of the different user for pickup”. However, Racah teaches in response to the detecting, dynamically assigning the first transport provider to a different user and assigning a different transport provider to the first user and the first navigation data indicating the assigning of the different user for pickup (See “In some embodiments, the method can further include steps(s) of: continuously tracking, in real-time, by the at least one specifically programmed computer processor, the current vehicle location and the current ride-sharing data to identify at least one condition which requires to re-assign the pair of assigned virtual pickup and dropoff bus stop tasks related to the particular ride-sharing requesting passenger to a second assigned vehicle; dynamically reassigning, by the at least one specifically programmed computer processor, the assigned virtual pickup bus stop task from the first assigned vehicle to the second assigned vehicle; dynamically revising, by the at least one specifically programmed computer processor, the first updated route schedule of the first assigned vehicle to obtain a first revised updated route schedule, by removing the pair of assigned virtual pickup and dropoff bus stop tasks related to the particular ride-sharing, requesting passenger; dynamically revising, by the at least one specifically programmed computer processor, a second updated route schedule of the second assigned vehicle to add a second pair of assigned virtual pickup and dropoff bus stop tasks related to the particular ride-sharing requesting passenger; causing to electronically display, in real-time, via the at least one computer network, by the at least one specifically programmed computer processor, the first revised updated route schedule on the screen of the electronic computing device associated with the first assigned vehicle; and causing to electronically display, in real-time, via the at least one computer network, by the at least one specifically programmed computer processor, the second updated route schedule on a screen of an electronic computing device associated with the second assigned vehicle.” in Paragraph [0009]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of US 11,067,401 B2 to include dynamically assigning the first transport provider to a different user and assigning a different transport provider to the first user in response to detecting a change in ETA of the first user and the first navigation data indicating the assigning of the different user for pickup, as taught by Racah, in order to make the process more effective and efficient.
Regarding dependent Claims 2-8 and 10, the Reference Patent US 11,067,401 B2 in view of Racah teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as described above. Reference Patent US 11,067,401 B2 further teaches:
Current Application: 18/933,783
Patent No. US 11,067,401 B2
Claim 2: adjusting an order of the plurality of transport providers in the queue based on at least a change to an ETA of the second user; and transmitting at least second navigation data to the second transport provider
Claim 19: dynamically adjusting an order of the matched transport providers in the dynamic queue based on changes to the dynamic ETAs of at least one of the matched users or the matched transport providers to the common rendezvous location, wherein dynamically adjusting the order comprises transmitting, via the network communication interface, updated navigation-related data to one or more of the matched transport providers, the updated navigation-related data causing the user interface displayed on the computing devices of each of the one or more matched transport providers to present updated routing information that enables each of the one or more matched transport providers to arrive at the common rendezvous location in accordance with the dynamically adjusted order of the dynamic queue
Claim 3: wherein: the plurality of transport providers in the dynamic queue comprises one or more autonomous vehicles and one or more human-driven vehicles; and the adjusting the order comprises prioritizing delaying the one or more autonomous vehicles over the one or more human-driven vehicles
Claim 5: wherein the matched transport providers in the dynamic queue comprise one or more autonomous vehicles and one or more human-driven vehicles, and wherein the executed instructions cause the computing system to dynamically adjust the dynamic queue by prioritizing delaying the one or more autonomous vehicles over the one or more human-driven vehicles
Claim 4: wherein the second navigation data comprises updated turn-by-turn route data
Claim 20: wherein the updated navigation-related data comprises updated turn-by-turn route data
Claim 5: wherein the updated turn-by-turn route data comprises lane-specific route data that delays the second transport provider by routing the second transport provider through one or more traffic-congested lanes
Claim 3: wherein the updated turn-by-turn route data comprises lane-specific route data that delays a selected transport provider by routing the selected transport provider through one or more traffic-congested lanes
Claim 6: wherein the updated turn-by-turn route data comprises a route detour
Claim 4: wherein the updated turn-by-turn route data comprises a route detour
Claim 7: monitoring the first transport provider while the first transport provider is occupying the common rendezvous location;
determining that the second transport provider is approaching the common rendezvous location;
transmitting an ingress notification to the computing device of the second transport provider, the ingress notification instructing the second transport provider to create an egress gap for the first transport provider; and
transmitting an egress notification to the computing device of the first transport provider, the egress notification instructing the first transport provider to exit the common rendezvous location via the egress gap created by the second transport provider
Claim 6: wherein the executed instructions cause the computing system to further manage ingress to and egress from the common rendezvous location by: monitoring an incoming transport provider that is to replace a current transport provider occupying the common rendezvous location;
upon the incoming transport provider approaching the common rendezvous location, transmit an ingress notification to the computing device of the incoming transport provider to create an egress gap for the current transport provider; and
transmit an egress notification to the current transport provider to exit the common rendezvous location via the egress gap created by the incoming transport provider
Claim 8: wherein: the common rendezvous location comprises a plurality of vehicle spaces, and
the method further comprises routing the plurality of transport providers through the plurality of vehicle spaces by matching each user and transport provider with a specified vehicle space of the plurality of vehicle spaces and transmitting displayable content to the computing devices of each of the users and transport providers indicating the specified vehicle space
Claim 11: wherein the common rendezvous location comprises multiple vehicle spaces, and
wherein the executed instructions cause the computing system to sequentially route the transport providers through the multiple vehicle spaces by matching each matched user and transport provider with a specified one of the vehicle spaces, and transmitting displayable content to the computing devices of each of the matched user and transport provider indicating the specified vehicle space
Claim 10: sequentially routing the first transport provider and the second transport provider through the common rendezvous location based on the dynamic queue, the sequentially routing comprising transmitting, via a network communication interface, further navigation data to a computing device of the first transport provider and the second transport provider, wherein the further navigation data indicates one or more of a vehicle to follow, a precise point to pull over, or which lane to select
Claim 19: wherein sequentially routing the matched transport providers comprises transmitting, via the network communication interface, navigation-related data to the computing device of each of the matched transport providers in the dynamic queue to control the dynamic ETA of each of the matched transport providers to the common rendezvous location, the navigation-related data causing a user interface displayed on each computing device of each matched transport provider to present routing information that enables each matched transport provider to arrive at the common rendezvous location in accordance with the dynamic queue
Examiner notes that Claims 3-6 and 11 of Reference Patent US 11,067,401 B2 are system claims, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to practice method claims described above as the system claims.
Regarding Claim 11, the Reference Patent US 11,067,401 B2 in view of Racah teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as described above. Reference Patent US 11,067,401 B2 does not explicitly teach; however, Racah teaches wherein the dynamically assigning the first transport provider to the different user is triggered in response to the change in the ETA of the first user resulting in a discrepancy between the ETA of the first user and the ETA of the first transport provider exceeding a predetermined threshold (See “In some embodiments, the method can further include steps(s) of: continuously tracking, in real-time, by the at least one specifically programmed computer processor, the current vehicle location and the current ride-sharing data to identify at least one condition which requires to re-assign the pair of assigned virtual pickup and dropoff bus stop tasks related to the particular ride-sharing requesting passenger to a second assigned vehicle; dynamically reassigning, by the at least one specifically programmed computer processor, the assigned virtual pickup bus stop task from the first assigned vehicle to the second assigned vehicle; …” in Paragraph [0164] and “In some embodiments, the exemplary computer transportation systems of the present invention are farther configured to assign a vehicle, among the vehicles connected to the computer transportation system, to a ride requested by a passenger. In some embodiments of the current invention, the computer transportation systems of present invention are configured to dynamically filter candidate vehicle(s) to include only those vehicles in which one or more of the following conditions apply: distance to requested origin shorter than a threshold (e.g., but not limited to 1 km, 2 km, 3 km, 4 km, etc.); expected time of arrival to a virtual but-stop closest to the origin is less than a threshold (e.g., but not limited to 5, 10, 15, 20 minutes etc.,); …; location(s) where the ordering of candidate vehicle(s) are/is based on a distance and/or expected time of arrival (ETA).” in Paragraphs [0081]-[0085]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of US 11,067,401 B2 to include wherein the dynamically assigning the first transport provider to the different user is triggered in response to the change in the ETA of the first user resulting in a discrepancy between the ETA of the first user and the ETA of the first transport provider exceeding a predetermined threshold, as taught by Racah, in order to make the process more effective and efficient.
Claims 12-16 and 18-19 are system claims corresponding to method Claims 1-2, 4, 7-8, and 10-11. All of the limitations in Claims 12-16 and 18-19 are found reciting the same scopes of the respective Claims 1-2, 4, 7-8, and 10-11. Accordingly, Claims 12-16 and 18-19 are rejected by the same rationales presented in the rejection of Claims 1-2, 4, 7-8, and 10-11, respectively set forth above.
Claim 20 is a product claim corresponding to method Claim 1. All of the limitations in Claim 20 are found reciting the same scopes of the respective Claim 1. Accordingly, Claim 20 is rejected by the same rationales presented in the rejection of Claim 1, respectively set forth above.
Claims 9 and 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,067,401 B2 in view of Racah and Bryson et al. (US 2017/0219362 A1; hereinafter, “Bryson”).
Regarding Claim 9, the Reference Patent US 11,067,401 B2 in view of Racah teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as described above. Reference Patent US 11,067,401 B2 in view of Racah does not explicitly teach; however, Bryson teaches dynamically changing a specified vehicle space assigned to a transport provider based on ETAs of users and the plurality of transport providers and ingress and egress of vehicles in the plurality of vehicle spaces (See “For example, when the passenger 108A seeks to depart from the building 101, the egress locations 102A and 102B are closest. However, the queue time for each of these locations may be lengthy due to earlier pickup requests from other passengers 108. In this example, it may be determined that the egress location 102C should be used to save time and avoid waiting in line for other passengers 108 to depart. This egress location 102C may be desired even though the distance from the passenger 108A and the autonomous vehicle 106A to the egress location 102C is greater than to locations 102A, 102B. It should be appreciated that the determination of the egress location may further be based on the travel time for the passenger and the autonomous vehicle to reach the desired egress location.” in Paragraph [0043] and “Returning to query block 156, when it is determined that the autonomous vehicle is en-route to the egress location, the method 120 proceeds to block 164 where a new egress location and time are determined. In other words, the autonomous vehicles that are en-route may be re-directed to other egress locations to allow their passengers to depart from the facility 100 while providing access for the emergency vehicle. When the new egress location and time are determined, the method 120 proceeds to transmit the revised information in block 162. It should be appreciated that the information transmitted in block 162 may include information that the presence of an emergency vehicle resulted in the change of egress location.” in Paragraph [0057]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of US 11,067,401 B2 in view of Racah to include dynamically changing a specified vehicle space assigned to a transport provider based on ETAs of users and the plurality of transport providers and ingress and egress of vehicles in the plurality of vehicle spaces, as taught by Bryson, in order to increase the efficiency and flow of traffic and reduce wait times for the passengers.
Claim 17 is a system claim corresponding to method Claim 9. All of the limitations in Claim 17 are found reciting the same scopes of the respective Claim 9. Accordingly, Claim 17 is rejected by the same rationales presented in the rejection of Claim 9, respectively set forth above.
Claims 1-8, 10-16, and 18-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-6, 11, 14, and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,740,095 B2 in view of Racah.
With respect to Claim 1, the current application states:
determining a set of matched users and transport providers having a common rendezvous location, the set of matched users and transport providers comprising a first user matched to a first transport provider and a second user matched to a second transport provider;
generating a dynamic queue comprising a plurality of transport providers including the first transport provider and the second transport provider, the dynamic queue describing an order in which the plurality of transport providers are to arrive at the common rendezvous location to pick up the matched users;
detecting a change in estimated time of arrival (ETA) of the first user;
in response to the detecting, dynamically assigning the first transport provider to a different user and assigning a different transport provider to the first user; and
transmitting first navigation data to the first transport provider, the first navigation data indicating the assigning of the different user for pickup
Claim 20 of US 11,067,401 B2 states:
determining a set of matched users and transport providers having a common rendezvous location, the set of matched users and transport providers comprising a first user matched to a first transport provider and a second user matched to a second transport provider;
generating a dynamic queue comprising each of the transport providers, the queue describing an order in which the transport providers are to arrive at the common rendezvous location to pick up the users;
dynamically adjusting an order of the transport providers in the dynamic queue based on changes to the ETA of at least one of the first transport provider or the second transport provider; and
transmitting updated navigation-related data to one or more of the transport providers, the updated navigation-related data indicating that the second transport provider is to arrive at the common rendezvous location before the first transport provider
As shown above, Claim 20 of US 11,740,095 B2 does not explicitly teach “in response to the detecting, dynamically assigning the first transport provider to a different user and assigning a different transport provider to the first user” and “the first navigation data indicating the assigning of the different user for pickup”. However, Racah teaches in response to the detecting, dynamically assigning the first transport provider to a different user and assigning a different transport provider to the first user and the first navigation data indicating the assigning of the different user for pickup (See “In some embodiments, the method can further include steps(s) of: continuously tracking, in real-time, by the at least one specifically programmed computer processor, the current vehicle location and the current ride-sharing data to identify at least one condition which requires to re-assign the pair of assigned virtual pickup and dropoff bus stop tasks related to the particular ride-sharing requesting passenger to a second assigned vehicle; dynamically reassigning, by the at least one specifically programmed computer processor, the assigned virtual pickup bus stop task from the first assigned vehicle to the second assigned vehicle; dynamically revising, by the at least one specifically programmed computer processor, the first updated route schedule of the first assigned vehicle to obtain a first revised updated route schedule, by removing the pair of assigned virtual pickup and dropoff bus stop tasks related to the particular ride-sharing, requesting passenger; dynamically revising, by the at least one specifically programmed computer processor, a second updated route schedule of the second assigned vehicle to add a second pair of assigned virtual pickup and dropoff bus stop tasks related to the particular ride-sharing requesting passenger; causing to electronically display, in real-time, via the at least one computer network, by the at least one specifically programmed computer processor, the first revised updated route schedule on the screen of the electronic computing device associated with the first assigned vehicle; and causing to electronically display, in real-time, via the at least one computer network, by the at least one specifically programmed computer processor, the second updated route schedule on a screen of an electronic computing device associated with the second assigned vehicle.” in Paragraph [0009]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of US 11,740,095 B2 to include dynamically assigning the first transport provider to a different user and assigning a different transport provider to the first user in response to detecting a change in ETA of the first user and the first navigation data indicating the assigning of the different user for pickup, as taught by Racah, in order to make the process more effective and efficient.
Regarding dependent Claims 2-8 and 10, the Reference Patent US 11,740,095 B2 in view of Racah teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as described above. Reference Patent US 11,740,095 B2 further teaches:
Current Application: 18/933,783
Patent No. US 11,740,095 B2
Claim 2: adjusting an order of the plurality of transport providers in the queue based on at least a change to an ETA of the second user; and transmitting at least second navigation data to the second transport provider
Claim 20: dynamically adjusting an order of the transport providers in the dynamic queue based on changes to the ETA of at least one of the first transport provider or the second transport provider; and transmitting updated navigation-related data to one or more of the transport providers, the updated navigation-related data indicating that the second transport provider is to arrive at the common rendezvous location before the first transport provider
Claim 3: wherein: the plurality of transport providers in the dynamic queue comprises one or more autonomous vehicles and one or more human-driven vehicles; and the adjusting the order comprises prioritizing delaying the one or more autonomous vehicles over the one or more human-driven vehicles
Claim 5: wherein the transport providers in the dynamic queue comprise one or more autonomous vehicles and one or more human-driven vehicles, and wherein the executed instructions cause the computing system to dynamically adjust the dynamic queue by prioritizing delaying the one or more autonomous vehicles over the one or more human-driven vehicles
Claim 4: wherein the second navigation data comprises updated turn-by-turn route data
Claim 2: wherein the updated navigation-related data comprises updated turn-by-turn route data
Claim 5: wherein the updated turn-by-turn route data comprises lane-specific route data that delays the second transport provider by routing the second transport provider through one or more traffic-congested lanes
Claim 3: wherein the updated turn-by-turn route data comprises lane-specific route data that delays a selected transport provider by routing the selected transport provider through one or more traffic-congested lanes
Claim 6: wherein the updated turn-by-turn route data comprises a route detour
Claim 4: wherein the updated turn-by-turn route data comprises a route detour
Claim 7: monitoring the first transport provider while the first transport provider is occupying the common rendezvous location;
determining that the second transport provider is approaching the common rendezvous location;
transmitting an ingress notification to the computing device of the second transport provider, the ingress notification instructing the second transport provider to create an egress gap for the first transport provider; and
transmitting an egress notification to the computing device of the first transport provider, the egress notification instructing the first transport provider to exit the common rendezvous location via the egress gap created by the second transport provider
Claim 6: wherein the instructions cause the computing system to manage ingress to and egress from the common rendezvous location by: monitoring an incoming transport provider that is to replace a current transport provider occupying the common rendezvous location;
upon the incoming transport provider approaching the common rendezvous location, transmit an ingress notification to the computing device of the incoming transport provider to create an egress gap for the current transport provider; and transmit an egress notification to the current transport provider to exit the common rendezvous location via the egress gap created by the incoming transport provider
Claim 8: wherein: the common rendezvous location comprises a plurality of vehicle spaces, and
the method further comprises routing the plurality of transport providers through the plurality of vehicle spaces by matching each user and transport provider with a specified vehicle space of the plurality of vehicle spaces and transmitting displayable content to the computing devices of each of the users and transport providers indicating the specified vehicle space
Claim 11: wherein the common rendezvous location comprises multiple vehicle spaces, and
wherein the executed instructions cause the computing system to sequentially route the transport providers through the multiple vehicle spaces by matching each matched user and transport provider with a specified one of the vehicle spaces, and transmitting displayable content to the computing devices of each of the matched user and transport provider indicating the specified vehicle space
Claim 10: sequentially routing the first transport provider and the second transport provider through the common rendezvous location based on the dynamic queue, the sequentially routing comprising transmitting, via a network communication interface, further navigation data to a computing device of the first transport provider and the second transport provider, wherein the further navigation data indicates one or more of a vehicle to follow, a precise point to pull over, or which lane to select
Claim 20: routing the transport providers through the common rendezvous location in accordance with the dynamic queue at least in part by transmitting navigation-related data to a computing device of each of the transport providers in the dynamic queue, navigation-related data transmitted to a first transport provider causing the computing device of the first transport provider to autonomously maneuver the first transport provider to the common rendezvous location at an estimated time of arrival (ETA) for the first transport provider, and the navigation-related data transmitted to the second transport provider causing the computing device of the second transport provider to autonomously maneuver the second transport provider to the common rendezvous location at an ETA for the second transport provider, the ETA for the first transport provider being before the ETA for the second transport provider
Examiner notes that Claims 2-6 and 11 of Reference Patent US 11,740,095 B2 are system claims, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to practice method claims described above as the system claims.
Regarding Claim 11, the Reference Patent US 11,740,095 B2 in view of Racah teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as described above. Reference Patent US 11,740,095 B2 does not explicitly teach; however, Racah teaches wherein the dynamically assigning the first transport provider to the different user is triggered in response to the change in the ETA of the first user resulting in a discrepancy between the ETA of the first user and the ETA of the first transport provider exceeding a predetermined threshold (See “In some embodiments, the method can further include steps(s) of: continuously tracking, in real-time, by the at least one specifically programmed computer processor, the current vehicle location and the current ride-sharing data to identify at least one condition which requires to re-assign the pair of assigned virtual pickup and dropoff bus stop tasks related to the particular ride-sharing requesting passenger to a second assigned vehicle; dynamically reassigning, by the at least one specifically programmed computer processor, the assigned virtual pickup bus stop task from the first assigned vehicle to the second assigned vehicle; …” in Paragraph [0164] and “In some embodiments, the exemplary computer transportation systems of the present invention are farther configured to assign a vehicle, among the vehicles connected to the computer transportation system, to a ride requested by a passenger. In some embodiments of the current invention, the computer transportation systems of present invention are configured to dynamically filter candidate vehicle(s) to include only those vehicles in which one or more of the following conditions apply: distance to requested origin shorter than a threshold (e.g., but not limited to 1 km, 2 km, 3 km, 4 km, etc.); expected time of arrival to a virtual but-stop closest to the origin is less than a threshold (e.g., but not limited to 5, 10, 15, 20 minutes etc.,); …; location(s) where the ordering of candidate vehicle(s) are/is based on a distance and/or expected time of arrival (ETA).” in Paragraphs [0081]-[0085]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of US 11,740,095 B2 to include wherein the dynamically assigning the first transport provider to the different user is triggered in response to the change in the ETA of the first user resulting in a discrepancy between the ETA of the first user and the ETA of the first transport provider exceeding a predetermined threshold, as taught by Racah, in order to make the process more effective and efficient.
Claims 12-16 and 18-19 are system claims corresponding to method Claims 1-2, 4, 7-8, and 10-11. All of the limitations in Claims 12-16 and 18-19 are found reciting the same scopes of the respective Claims 1-2, 4, 7-8, and 10-11. Accordingly, Claims 12-16 and 18-19 are rejected by the same rationales presented in the rejection of Claims 1-2, 4, 7-8, and 10-11, respectively set forth above.
Claim 20 is a product claim corresponding to method Claim 1. All of the limitations in Claim 20 are found reciting the same scopes of the respective Claim 1. Accordingly, Claim 20 is rejected by the same rationales presented in the rejection of Claim 1, respectively set forth above.
Claims 9 and 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,740,095 B2 in view of Racah and Bryson.
Regarding Claim 9, the Reference Patent US 11,740,095 B2 in view of Racah teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as described above. Reference Patent US 11,740,095 B2 in view of Racah does not explicitly teach; however, Bryson teaches dynamically changing a specified vehicle space assigned to a transport provider based on ETAs of users and the plurality of transport providers and ingress and egress of vehicles in the plurality of vehicle spaces (See “For example, when the passenger 108A seeks to depart from the building 101, the egress locations 102A and 102B are closest. However, the queue time for each of these locations may be lengthy due to earlier pickup requests from other passengers 108. In this example, it may be determined that the egress location 102C should be used to save time and avoid waiting in line for other passengers 108 to depart. This egress location 102C may be desired even though the distance from the passenger 108A and the autonomous vehicle 106A to the egress location 102C is greater than to locations 102A, 102B. It should be appreciated that the determination of the egress location may further be based on the travel time for the passenger and the autonomous vehicle to reach the desired egress location.” in Paragraph [0043] and “Returning to query block 156, when it is determined that the autonomous vehicle is en-route to the egress location, the method 120 proceeds to block 164 where a new egress location and time are determined. In other words, the autonomous vehicles that are en-route may be re-directed to other egress locations to allow their passengers to depart from the facility 100 while providing access for the emergency vehicle. When the new egress location and time are determined, the method 120 proceeds to transmit the revised information in block 162. It should be appreciated that the information transmitted in block 162 may include information that the presence of an emergency vehicle resulted in the change of egress location.” in Paragraph [0057]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of US 11,740,095 B2 in view of Racah to include dynamically changing a specified vehicle space assigned to a transport provider based on ETAs of users and the plurality of transport providers and ingress and egress of vehicles in the plurality of vehicle spaces, as taught by Bryson, in order to increase the efficiency and flow of traffic and reduce wait times for the passengers.
Claim 17 is a system claim corresponding to method Claim 9. All of the limitations in Claim 17 are found reciting the same scopes of the respective Claim 9. Accordingly, Claim 17 is rejected by the same rationales presented in the rejection of Claim 9, respectively set forth above.
Claims 1-8, 10-16, and 18-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-6, 11, 14, and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,209,874 B2 in view of Racah.
With respect to Claim 1, the current application states:
determining a set of matched users and transport providers having a common rendezvous location, the set of matched users and transport providers comprising a first user matched to a first transport provider and a second user matched to a second transport provider;
generating a dynamic queue comprising a plurality of transport providers including the first transport provider and the second transport provider, the dynamic queue describing an order in which the plurality of transport providers are to arrive at the common rendezvous location to pick up the matched users;
detecting a change in estimated time of arrival (ETA) of the first user;
in response to the detecting, dynamically assigning the first transport provider to a different user and assigning a different transport provider to the first user; and
transmitting first navigation data to the first transport provider, the first navigation data indicating the assigning of the different user for pickup
Claim 1 of US 12,209,874 B2 states:
determining a first estimated time of arrival (ETA) to a common rendezvous location for a first transport provider matched to a first user, the determining of the first ETA being based at least in part on location data from a computing device of the first user and at least in part on location data indicating a location of the first transport provider;
determining a second ETA to the common rendezvous location for a second transport provider matched to a second user, the determining of the second ETA being based at least in part on location data from a computing device of the second user and at least in part on location data indicating a location of the second transport provider;
generating a queue comprising a plurality of matched users and transport providers, the plurality of matched users and transport providers comprising the first user, the first transport provider matched to the first user, the second user, and the second transport provider matched to the second user, the generating of the queue being based at least in part on the first estimated ETA and the second estimated ETA;
adjusting an order of the first transport provider and the second transport provider in the queue based on at least one of a change to the first ETA or a change to the second ETA; and
transmitting, via the network communication interface, at least one of updated first navigation data to the first transport provider or updated second navigation data to the second transport provider
As shown above, Claim 1 of US 12,209,874 B2 does not explicitly teach “in response to the detecting, dynamically assigning the first transport provider to a different user and assigning a different transport provider to the first user” and “the first navigation data indicating the assigning of the different user for pickup”. However, Racah teaches in response to the detecting, dynamically assigning the first transport provider to a different user and assigning a different transport provider to the first user and the first navigation data indicating the assigning of the different user for pickup (See “In some embodiments, the method can further include steps(s) of: continuously tracking, in real-time, by the at least one specifically programmed computer processor, the current vehicle location and the current ride-sharing data to identify at least one condition which requires to re-assign the pair of assigned virtual pickup and dropoff bus stop tasks related to the particular ride-sharing requesting passenger to a second assigned vehicle; dynamically reassigning, by the at least one specifically programmed computer processor, the assigned virtual pickup bus stop task from the first assigned vehicle to the second assigned vehicle; dynamically revising, by the at least one specifically programmed computer processor, the first updated route schedule of the first assigned vehicle to obtain a first revised updated route schedule, by removing the pair of assigned virtual pickup and dropoff bus stop tasks related to the particular ride-sharing, requesting passenger; dynamically revising, by the at least one specifically programmed computer processor, a second updated route schedule of the second assigned vehicle to add a second pair of assigned virtual pickup and dropoff bus stop tasks related to the particular ride-sharing requesting passenger; causing to electronically display, in real-time, via the at least one computer network, by the at least one specifically programmed computer processor, the first revised updated route schedule on the screen of the electronic computing device associated with the first assigned vehicle; and causing to electronically display, in real-time, via the at least one computer network, by the at least one specifically programmed computer processor, the second updated route schedule on a screen of an electronic computing device associated with the second assigned vehicle.” in Paragraph [0009]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of US 12,209,874 B2 to include dynamically assigning the first transport provider to a different user and assigning a different transport provider to the first user in response to detecting a change in ETA of the first user and the first navigation data indicating the assigning of the different user for pickup, as taught by Racah, in order to make the process more effective and efficient.
Regarding dependent Claims 2-8 and 10, the Reference Patent US 12,209,874 B2 in view of Racah teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as described above. Reference Patent US 12,209,874 B2 further teaches:
Current Application: 18/933,783
Patent No. US 12,209,874 B2
Claim 2: adjusting an order of the plurality of transport providers in the queue based on at least a change to an ETA of the second user; and transmitting at least second navigation data to the second transport provider
Claim 1: adjusting an order of the first transport provider and the second transport provider in the queue based on at least one of a change to the first ETA or a change to the second ETA; and transmitting, via the network communication interface, at least one of updated first navigation data to the first transport provider or updated second navigation data to the second transport provider
Claim 3: wherein: the plurality of transport providers in the dynamic queue comprises one or more autonomous vehicles and one or more human-driven vehicles; and the adjusting the order comprises prioritizing delaying the one or more autonomous vehicles over the one or more human-driven vehicles
Claim 5: the first transport provider being an autonomous vehicle, and the second transport provider being a human-driven vehicle, the adjusting of the order of the first transport provider and the second transport provider comprising delaying the first transport provider
Claim 4: wherein the second navigation data comprises updated turn-by-turn route data
Claim 2: the updated navigation-related data comprising updated turn-by-turn route data
Claim 5: wherein the updated turn-by-turn route data comprises lane-specific route data that delays the second transport provider by routing the second transport provider through one or more traffic-congested lanes
Claim 3: the updated turn-by-turn route data comprising lane-specific route data that delays a selected transport provider by routing the selected transport provider through one or more traffic-congested lanes
Claim 6: wherein the updated turn-by-turn route data comprises a route detour
Claim 4: the updated turn-by-turn route data comprises a route detour
Claim 7: monitoring the first transport provider while the first transport provider is occupying the common rendezvous location;
determining that the second transport provider is approaching the common rendezvous location;
transmitting an ingress notification to the computing device of the second transport provider, the ingress notification instructing the second transport provider to create an egress gap for the first transport provider; and
transmitting an egress notification to the computing device of the first transport provider, the egress notification instructing the first transport provider to exit the common rendezvous location via the egress gap created by the second transport provider
Claim 6: monitoring this first transport provider while the first transport provider is occupying the common rendezvous location;
determining that the second transport provider is approaching the common rendezvous location;
transmitting an ingress notification to the computing device of the second transport provider, the ingress notification instructing the second transport provider to create an egress gap for the first transport provider; and transmitting an egress notification to the computing device of the first transport provider, the egress notification instructing the first transport provider to exit the common rendezvous location via the egress gap created by the second transport provider
Claim 8: wherein: the common rendezvous location comprises a plurality of vehicle spaces, and
the method further comprises routing the plurality of transport providers through the plurality of vehicle spaces by matching each user and transport provider with a specified vehicle space of the plurality of vehicle spaces and transmitting displayable content to the computing devices of each of the users and transport providers indicating the specified vehicle space
Claim 11: the common rendezvous location comprising multiple vehicle spaces, the method further comprising: matching the first transport provider to a first vehicle space of the multiple vehicle spaces; and sending displayable content to at least one of the computing device of the first user or the computing device of the first transport provider, the displayable content describing the first vehicle space
Claim 10: sequentially routing the first transport provider and the second transport provider through the common rendezvous location based on the dynamic queue, the sequentially routing comprising transmitting, via a network communication interface, further navigation data to a computing device of the first transport provider and the second transport provider, wherein the further navigation data indicates one or more of a vehicle to follow, a precise point to pull over, or which lane to select
Claim 1: sequentially routing the first transport provider and the second transport provider through the common rendezvous location based on the queue, the sequentially routing comprising transmitting, via a network communication interface, first navigation data to a computing device of the first transport provider and second navigation data to a computing device of the second transport provider, the first navigation data causing the computing device of the first transport provider to autonomously maneuver the first transport provider to the common rendezvous location
Regarding Claim 11, the Reference Patent US 12,209,874 B2 in view of Racah teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as described above. Reference Patent US 12,209,874 B2 does not explicitly teach; however, Racah teaches wherein the dynamically assigning the first transport provider to the different user is triggered in response to the change in the ETA of the first user resulting in a discrepancy between the ETA of the first user and the ETA of the first transport provider exceeding a predetermined threshold (See “In some embodiments, the method can further include steps(s) of: continuously tracking, in real-time, by the at least one specifically programmed computer processor, the current vehicle location and the current ride-sharing data to identify at least one condition which requires to re-assign the pair of assigned virtual pickup and dropoff bus stop tasks related to the particular ride-sharing requesting passenger to a second assigned vehicle; dynamically reassigning, by the at least one specifically programmed computer processor, the assigned virtual pickup bus stop task from the first assigned vehicle to the second assigned vehicle; …” in Paragraph [0164] and “In some embodiments, the exemplary computer transportation systems of the present invention are farther configured to assign a vehicle, among the vehicles connected to the computer transportation system, to a ride requested by a passenger. In some embodiments of the current invention, the computer transportation systems of present invention are configured to dynamically filter candidate vehicle(s) to include only those vehicles in which one or more of the following conditions apply: distance to requested origin shorter than a threshold (e.g., but not limited to 1 km, 2 km, 3 km, 4 km, etc.); expected time of arrival to a virtual but-stop closest to the origin is less than a threshold (e.g., but not limited to 5, 10, 15, 20 minutes etc.,); …; location(s) where the ordering of candidate vehicle(s) are/is based on a distance and/or expected time of arrival (ETA).” in Paragraphs [0081]-[0085]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of US 12,209,874 B2 to include wherein the dynamically assigning the first transport provider to the different user is triggered in response to the change in the ETA of the first user resulting in a discrepancy between the ETA of the first user and the ETA of the first transport provider exceeding a predetermined threshold, as taught by Racah, in order to make the process more effective and efficient.
Claims 12-16 and 18-19 are system claims corresponding to method Claims 1-2, 4, 7-8, and 10-11. All of the limitations in Claims 12-16 and 18-19 are found reciting the same scopes of the respective Claims 1-2, 4, 7-8, and 10-11. Accordingly, Claims 12-16 and 18-19 are rejected by the same rationales presented in the rejection of Claims 1-2, 4, 7-8, and 10-11, respectively set forth above.
Claim 20 is a product claim corresponding to method Claim 1. All of the limitations in Claim 20 are found reciting the same scopes of the respective Claim 1. Accordingly, Claim 20 is rejected by the same rationales presented in the rejection of Claim 1, respectively set forth above.
Claims 9 and 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,209,874 B2 in view of Racah and Bryson.
Regarding Claim 9, the Reference Patent US 12,209,874 B2 in view of Racah teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as described above. Reference Patent US 12,209,874 B2 in view of Racah does not explicitly teach; however, Bryson teaches dynamically changing a specified vehicle space assigned to a transport provider based on ETAs of users and the plurality of transport providers and ingress and egress of vehicles in the plurality of vehicle spaces (See “For example, when the passenger 108A seeks to depart from the building 101, the egress locations 102A and 102B are closest. However, the queue time for each of these locations may be lengthy due to earlier pickup requests from other passengers 108. In this example, it may be determined that the egress location 102C should be used to save time and avoid waiting in line for other passengers 108 to depart. This egress location 102C may be desired even though the distance from the passenger 108A and the autonomous vehicle 106A to the egress location 102C is greater than to locations 102A, 102B. It should be appreciated that the determination of the egress location may further be based on the travel time for the passenger and the autonomous vehicle to reach the desired egress location.” in Paragraph [0043] and “Returning to query block 156, when it is determined that the autonomous vehicle is en-route to the egress location, the method 120 proceeds to block 164 where a new egress location and time are determined. In other words, the autonomous vehicles that are en-route may be re-directed to other egress locations to allow their passengers to depart from the facility 100 while providing access for the emergency vehicle. When the new egress location and time are determined, the method 120 proceeds to transmit the revised information in block 162. It should be appreciated that the information transmitted in block 162 may include information that the presence of an emergency vehicle resulted in the change of egress location.” in Paragraph [0057]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of US 12,209,874 B2 in view of Racah to include dynamically changing a specified vehicle space assigned to a transport provider based on ETAs of users and the plurality of transport providers and ingress and egress of vehicles in the plurality of vehicle spaces, as taught by Bryson, in order to increase the efficiency and flow of traffic and reduce wait times for the passengers.
Claim 17 is a system claim corresponding to method Claim 9. All of the limitations in Claim 17 are found reciting the same scopes of the respective Claim 9. Accordingly, Claim 17 is rejected by the same rationales presented in the rejection of Claim 9, respectively set forth above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 7-8 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 7 and 15 recite the limitations "the computing device of the second transport provider" and "the computing device of the first transport provider" in Lines 6 and 9 respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. For examining purposes, the limitations "the computing device of the second transport provider" and "the computing device of the first transport provider" are interpreted to be "a computing device of the second transport provider" and "a computing device of the first transport provider", respectively. Therefore, Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
Claims 8 and 16 recite the limitation "the computing devices of each of the users" in Lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examining purposes, the limitation "the computing devices of each of the users" are interpreted to be "computing devices of each of the users". Therefore, Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-20 are directed to one of the four statutory categories (process, machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter) since the claimed invention falls into “a process” (a method for coordinating transport through a common rendezvous location), “a machine” (a system for coordinating transport through a common rendezvous location), and “an article of manufacture” (a non-transitory computer-readable medium for coordinating transport through a common rendezvous location) categories.
Regarding Claims 1-20, the claim invention is directed to a judicial exception to patentability, an abstract idea.
Claim 1 recites the following limitations:
A computer-implemented method of coordinating transport, the method being performed by … and comprising:
determining a set of matched users and transport providers having a common rendezvous location, the set of matched users and transport providers comprising a first user matched to a first transport provider and a second user matched to a second transport provider;
generating a dynamic queue comprising a plurality of transport providers including the first transport provider and the second transport provider, the dynamic queue describing an order in which the plurality of transport providers are to arrive at the common rendezvous location to pick up the matched users;
detecting a change in estimated time of arrival (ETA) of the first user;
in response to the detecting, dynamically assigning the first transport provider to a different user and assigning a different transport provider to the first user; and
transmitting first navigation data to the first transport provider, the first navigation data indicating the assigning of the different user for pickup.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The limitations for Claim 1 described above fall within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” for commercial interactions such as managing business relations between transport providers and users. Accordingly, this claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites additional elements – “one or more processors of a computing system”. The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of determining, generating, detecting, assigning, and transmitting navigation data to the transport provider by using generic computer components. The claimed computer components are recited at high level of generality and merely invoked as a tool to perform a process for coordinating transport through a common rendezvous location (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer component is not a practical application. Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. This claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a computer system to perform a process for coordinating transport through a common rendezvous location amount to no more than how to generally “apply” the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. As a result, this claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2, 4-6, 9, and 11 are directed to substantially the same abstract idea as Claim 1 and are rejected for substantially the same reasons. The additional recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the additional recited limitations of the claims further narrow the abstract idea. These dependent claims further narrow the abstract idea of Claim 1 such as by defining “further comprising: adjusting an order of the plurality of transport providers in the queue based on at least a change to an ETA of the second user; and transmitting at least second navigation data to the second transport provider” in Claim 2, by defining “wherein the second navigation data comprises updated turn-by-turn route data” in Claim 4, by defining “wherein the updated turn-by-turn route data comprises lane-specific route data that delays the second transport provider by routing the second transport provider through one or more traffic-congested lanes” in Claim 5, by defining “wherein the updated turn-by-turn route data comprises a route detour” in Claim 6, by defining “further comprising: dynamically changing a specified vehicle space assigned to a transport provider based on ETAs of users and the plurality of transport providers and ingress and egress of vehicles in the plurality of vehicle spaces” in Claim 9, and by defining “wherein the dynamically assigning the first transport provider to the different user is triggered in response to the change in the ETA of the first user resulting in a discrepancy between the ETA of the first user and the ETA of the first transport provider exceeding a predetermined threshold” in Claim 11.
Step 2A, Prong 2: These dependent claims do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because they do not recite additional elements.
Step 2B: These dependent claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because they do not recite additional elements. Therefore, these claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 3, 7-8, and 10 are directed to substantially the same abstract idea as Claim 1 and are rejected for substantially the same reasons. The additional recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the additional recited limitations of the claims further narrow the abstract idea. These dependent claims further narrow the abstract idea of Claim 1 such as by defining “wherein: the plurality of transport providers in the dynamic queue comprises one or more … and one or more …; and the adjusting the order comprises prioritizing delaying the one or more … over the one or more …” in Claim 3, by defining “further comprising: monitoring the first transport provider while the first transport provider is occupying the common rendezvous location; determining that the second transport provider is approaching the common rendezvous location; transmitting an ingress notification to … of the second transport provider, the ingress notification instructing the second transport provider to create an egress gap for the first transport provider; and transmitting an egress notification to … of the first transport provider, the egress notification instructing the first transport provider to exit the common rendezvous location via the egress gap created by the second transport provider” in Claim 7, by defining “wherein: the common rendezvous location comprises a plurality of vehicle spaces, and the method further comprises routing the plurality of transport providers through the plurality of vehicle spaces by matching each user and transport provider with a specified vehicle space of the plurality of vehicle spaces and transmitting … to … of each of the users and transport providers indicating the specified vehicle space” in Claim 8, and by defining “further comprising: sequentially routing the first transport provider and the second transport provider through the common rendezvous location based on the dynamic queue, the sequentially routing comprising transmitting, via …, further navigation data to … of the first transport provider and the second transport provider, wherein the further navigation data indicates one or more of a vehicle to follow, a precise point to pull over, or which lane to select” in Claim 10.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Claims 3, 7-8, and 10 do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application. Claim 3 recites additional elements – “autonomous vehicles” and “human-driven vehicles”, Claim 7 recites an additional element – “the computing device”, Claim 8 recites additional elements – “displayable content” and “the computing devices”, and Claim 10 recites additional elements – “a network communication interface” and “a computing device”. The additional elements “autonomous vehicles” and “human-driven vehicles” represent mere generally linking of the use of the judicial exception (the abstract idea) to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). Other additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). The limitations of these dependent claims do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application because individually or in combination, this additional element does not impose any meaningful limits on a practicing the abstract idea and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and represent mere generally linking of the use of the judicial exception (the abstract idea) to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Step 2B: Claims 3, 7-8, and 10 do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 3, 7-8, and 10 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a computer system to perform a process for coordinating transport through a common rendezvous location amount to no more than how to generally “apply” the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and represent mere generally linking of the use of the judicial exception (the abstract idea) to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and representing mere generally linking of the use of the judicial exception (the abstract idea) to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, these claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 12 recites the following limitations:
A system for coordinating transport, the system comprising:
… to perform operations comprising:
determining a set of matched users and transport providers having a common rendezvous location, the set of matched users and transport providers comprising a first user matched to a first transport provider and a second user matched to a second transport provider;
generating a dynamic queue comprising a plurality of transport providers including the first transport provider and the second transport provider, the dynamic queue describing an order in which the plurality of transport providers are to arrive at the common rendezvous location to pick up the matched users;
detecting a change in estimated time of arrival (ETA) of the first user;
in response to the detecting, dynamically assigning the first transport provider to a different user and assigning a different transport provider to the first user; and
transmitting first navigation data to the first transport provider, the first navigation data indicating the assigning of the different user for pickup.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The limitations for Claim 12 described above fall within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” for commercial interactions such as managing business relations between transport providers and users. Accordingly, this claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 12 recites additional elements – “one or more processors; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors”. The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of determining, generating, detecting, assigning, and transmitting navigation data to the transport provider by using generic computer components. The claimed computer components are recited at high level of generality and merely invoked as a tool to perform a process for coordinating transport through a common rendezvous location (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer component is not a practical application. Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. This claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim 12 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a computer system to perform a process for coordinating transport through a common rendezvous location amount to no more than how to generally “apply” the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. As a result, this claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 13, 14, 17, and 19 are directed to substantially the same abstract idea as Claim 12 and are rejected for substantially the same reasons. The additional recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the additional recited limitations of the claims further narrow the abstract idea. These dependent claims further narrow the abstract idea of Claim 12 such as by defining “further comprise: adjusting an order of the plurality of transport providers in the queue based on at least a change to an ETA of the second user; and transmitting at least second navigation data to the second transport provider” in Claim 13, by defining “wherein the second navigation data comprises updated turn-by-turn route data” in Claim 14, by defining “further comprising: dynamically changing a specified vehicle space assigned to a transport provider based on ETAs of users and the plurality of transport providers and ingress and egress of vehicles in the plurality of vehicle spaces” in Claim 17, and by defining “wherein the dynamically assigning the first transport provider to the different user is triggered in response to the change in the ETA of the first user resulting in a discrepancy between the ETA of the first user and the ETA of the first transport provider exceeding a predetermined threshold” in Claim 19.
Step 2A, Prong 2: These dependent claims do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because they do not recite additional elements.
Step 2B: These dependent claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because they do not recite additional elements. Therefore, these claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 15-16 and 18 are directed to substantially the same abstract idea as Claim 12 and are rejected for substantially the same reasons. The additional recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the additional recited limitations of the claims further narrow the abstract idea. These dependent claims further narrow the abstract idea of Claim 12 such as by defining “wherein the operations further comprise: monitoring the first transport provider while the first transport provider is occupying the common rendezvous location; determining that the second transport provider is approaching the common rendezvous location; transmitting an ingress notification to … of the second transport provider, the ingress notification instructing the second transport provider to create an egress gap for the first transport provider; and transmitting an egress notification to … of the first transport provider, the egress notification instructing the first transport provider to exit the common rendezvous location via the egress gap created by the second transport provider” in Claim 15, by defining “wherein: the common rendezvous location comprises a plurality of vehicle spaces, and the method further comprises routing the plurality of transport providers through the plurality of vehicle spaces by matching each user and transport provider with a specified vehicle space of the plurality of vehicle spaces and transmitting … to … of each of the users and transport providers indicating the specified vehicle space” in Claim 16, and by defining “wherein the operations further comprise: sequentially routing the first transport provider and the second transport provider through the common rendezvous location based on the dynamic queue, the sequentially routing comprising transmitting, via …, further navigation data to … of the first transport provider and the second transport provider, wherein the further navigation data indicates one or more of a vehicle to follow, a precise point to pull over, or which lane to select” in Claim 18.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Claims 15-16 and 18 do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application. Claim 15 recites an additional element – “the computing device”, Claim 16 recites additional elements – “displayable content” and “the computing devices”, and Claim 18 recites additional elements – “a network communication interface” and “a computing device”. The additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). The limitations of these dependent claims do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application because individually or in combination, this additional element does not impose any meaningful limits on a practicing the abstract idea and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Step 2B: Claims 15-16 and 18 do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 15-16 and 18 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a computer system to perform a process for coordinating transport through a common rendezvous location amount to no more than how to generally “apply” the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, these claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 20 recites the following limitations:
… to perform operations comprising:
determining a set of matched users and transport providers having a common rendezvous location, the set of matched users and transport providers comprising a first user matched to a first transport provider and a second user matched to a second transport provider;
generating a dynamic queue comprising a plurality of transport providers including the first transport provider and the second transport provider, the dynamic queue describing an order in which the plurality of transport providers are to arrive at the common rendezvous location to pick up the matched users;
detecting a change in estimated time of arrival (ETA) of the first user;
in response to the detecting, dynamically assigning the first transport provider to a different user and assigning a different transport provider to the first user; and
transmitting first navigation data to the first transport provider, the first navigation data indicating the assigning of the different user for pickup.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The limitations for Claim 20 described above fall within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” for commercial interactions such as managing business relations between transport providers and users. Accordingly, this claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 20 recites additional elements – “a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a computing system, cause the computing system”. The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of determining, generating, detecting, assigning, and transmitting navigation data to the transport provider by using generic computer components. The claimed computer components are recited at high level of generality and merely invoked as a tool to perform a process for coordinating transport through a common rendezvous location (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer component is not a practical application. Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. This claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim 20 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a computer system to perform a process for coordinating transport through a common rendezvous location amount to no more than how to generally “apply” the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. As a result, this claim is not patent eligible.
Novelty/Non-Obviousness
Claims 1-20 would be allowable over prior art of record; however, they remain rejected under other statues. After having performed a search of prior art, including all feature limitations of independent claims 1, 12, and 20, the references fail to teach or suggest alone, or in combination with other art, independent claims 1, 12, and 20 in their entirety; and in particular, “generating a dynamic queue comprising a plurality of transport providers including the first transport provider and the second transport provider, the dynamic queue describing an order in which the plurality of transport providers are to arrive at the common rendezvous location to pick up the matched users” in combination with other claim limitations, as recited in Claim 1, similarly in Claims 12 and 20.
Regarding the novelty/non-obviousness of the invention, the closet prior art is found to be Cao; Raymond (US 2016/0364679 A1; hereinafter, “Cao”) in view of Bryson et al. (US 2017/0219362 A1; hereinafter, “Bryson”) and Racah et al. (US 2017/0314948 A1; hereinafter, “Racah”). Cao teaches systems and methods for on-demand transportation. Bryson teaches a system and method for scheduling a pickup of a passenger with an autonomous vehicle at a facility with a plurality of egress locations. Bryson also discloses that the autonomous vehicle may enter a queue of other autonomous vehicles and wait for its turn to pick up the passenger and when the autonomous vehicle is in the queue, it is determined whether the vehicle position needs to be adjusted. Racah teaches a system and method for continuously updating computer-generated routes with continuously configurable virtual bus stops for passenger ride-sharing of a fleet of ride-sharing vehicles. However, the combination of references fails to disclose “generating a dynamic queue comprising a plurality of transport providers including the first transport provider and the second transport provider, the dynamic queue describing an order in which the plurality of transport providers are to arrive at the common rendezvous location to pick up the matched users” as recited in Claims 1, 12 and 20. As a result, neither alone nor in combination, do the references teach the limitations described above.
Examiner concludes that the references mentioned above, alone or in combination, fail to teach independent claims 1, 12, and 20, in their entirety.
By virtue of their dependence on novel/non-obvious claims 1 and 12, claims (2-11) and (13-19) are novel/non-obvious, respectively.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAYAR M KYU whose telephone number is (571)272-3419. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00 am - 6:00 pm.
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, Jeffrey Zimmerman can be reached at 571-272-4602. 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.
/T.M.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3628 /GEORGE CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628