DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
• This action is in reply to the Application Number 18/960,593 filed on 11/26/2024.
• Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
• This action is made FINAL in response to the Remarks and Amendments filed on 06/22/2026.
• The amendments have overcome 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/05/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The complete step-by-step analysis under 35 U.S.C. 101 is provided below:
STEP One: Do Claims 1, 8, 15 Fall Within One of The Statutory Categories?
Yes, Claim 1 is directed towards a method (process), Claim 8 is directed towards a non-transitory storage medium (article of manufacture), and Claim 15 is directed towards a machine.
STEP Two A , Prong One: Is a Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes, Claim 1 recites determining, for the pick-up event between a first time associated with the start indicator and a second time associated with the end indicator, one or more vehicle turns, one or more vehicle stops, and a door close based on provider device motion data; and generating a pick-up event score for the pick-up event of picking up the requester, the pick-up event score based on the one or more vehicle turns, the one or more vehicle stops, and the door close. These steps are mental process and mathematical relation, and a human can perform the limitations in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, a person of skilled art can determine, for the pick-up event between a first time associated with the start indicator and a second time associated with the end indicator, one or more vehicle turns, one or more vehicle stops, and a door close based on provider device motion data; and generating a pick-up event score for the pick-up event based on the one or more vehicle turns, the one or more vehicle stops, and the door close using mathematic relation. Thus, the claim recites a mental process and mathematic relation. Claim 8 recites the same functions as in claim 1 being executed on a non-transitory storage medium. Thus, claim 8 is mental process and mathematical relation. Claim 15 merely recites the same function in claim 1 as a system. Thus, claim 15 is mental process and mathematical relation as well.
STEP Two A , Prong Two: Is the Abstract Idea integrated into a Practical Application?
No, the claim 8 and 15 recite additional elements of detecting a start indicator indicating a start of a pick-up event by determining that a transportation vehicle associated with a provider device is within a threshold distance of a pick-up location; detecting an end indicator indicating an end of the pick-up event by receiving a pick-up indication from the provider device while the provider device is within the threshold distance of the pick-up location. The receiving steps from a provider device is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering picking up event data for use in the evaluating step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The “processor and memory” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose vehicle control environment. The processor and memory are recited at a high level of generality and is merely automates the evaluating step. Accordingly, even 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. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
STEP Two B: Does the Claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the Judicial Exception?
No, As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the receiving steps from a provider device were considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background recites that the processor and provider device are all conventional processor and provider device, and the specification does not provide any indication that the vehicle processor is anything other than a conventional computer within a vehicle and the provider device is anything other than a conventional smart device. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. The claim is ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are not patent eligible under the same rational as provided for the rejection of claims 1, 8, and 15.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 8-9 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nemec (US20180338229A1) in view of Farmer (US20180328747A1), further in view of Fuchs (EP 3462403 A1) and Grokop (US20130245986A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 8 and 15:
Nemec teaches:
A method comprising: detecting a start indicator indicating a start of a pick-up event by determining that a transportation vehicle associated with a provider device is within a threshold distance of a pick-up location; (Nemec, para [05], “ providing a notification”, and para[59], “vehicle 100 has just reached a predetermined distance (represented by distance bar 772) from the pickup location (represented by marker 770). Once the vehicle is within the predetermined distance of the pickup location, using near-field communication, BLUETOOTH® or other wireless protocols, the computing devices 110 may attempt to communicate and establish a link with the passenger's client computing device, such as client computing device 420. When this link is successfully established, the client device can be authenticated.”) Examiner note: Nemec teaches providing a start indicator notice as the vehicle is approaching predetermined distance of the pickup location.
the pick-up event comprising a pick-up of a requester via the transportation vehicle; (Nemec, para [56], “dispatch the selected vehicle to pick up to the user”)
detecting an end indicator indicating an end of the pick-up event by receiving a pick-up indication from the provider device while the provider device is within the threshold distance of the pick-up location; the pick-up indication indicating that the requester has been picked up; (Nemec, para [05], “ providing a notification”, para[22], “Once boarding is complete”, and para[85],”the passenger initiates a trip (for instance, by pressing a start ride button within the vehicle)…the computing devices 110 may automatically close the one or more doors upon the passenger initiating the trip”) Examiner note: Nemec teaches detecting a pick-up end indicator when the passenger initiate a trip by pressing a start ride button within the vehicle which indicating the pick-up is completed.
Nemec does not explicitly teach, but Farmer teaches:
for the pick-up event between a first time associated with the start indicator and a second time associated with the end indicator, (Farmer, para [39], “pickup locations, time to pickup, time from pickup to start of ride”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Nemec with these above teachings from Farmer in order to include the pick-up event between a first time associated with the start indicator and a second time associated with the end indicator. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Nemec’s systems and methods for deterring passengers with Farmer’s teaching in order to determine “accurate travel time estimates and time of arrival estimates”( Farmer, Description)
Nemec does not explicitly teach, but Fuchs teaches:
determining one or more vehicle turns , and a door close based on provider device motion data; (See Fuchs, Para[0063], “the accelerometers can detect the minor accelerations in the vehicle when a person enters the car and closes the door, takes a corner”, and para [55], “driver can use a portable device (e.g., a smartphone, PDA, computer or other device) equipped with a data collection and assessment environment, including one or more data collection devices (e.g., accelerometer”)
and generating a … event score for the … event based on the one or more vehicle turns, the one or more vehicle stops, and the door close. (See Fuchs, Para[0063],” a vehicle responds in a physically-measurable manner to driver-based driving actions, e.g., by the driver turning the vehicle sharply at a corner. This enables the system to associate patterns with a driver’s driving behavior, and to determine a risk score”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Nemec with these above teachings from Fuchs in order to determine one or more vehicle turns , and a door close based on provider device motion data; generate a pickup event score for the pickup event based on the one or more vehicle turns, the one or more vehicle stops, and the door close. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Nemec’s systems and methods for deterring passengers with Fuchs’ teaching as “to improve their driving skills or obtain liability insurance quotes.”( Fuchs, Description)
Nemec does not explicitly teach, but Grokop teaches:
determining one or more vehicle stops based on provider device motion data; (See Grokop, Para[0020],” sensor that may be used to classify the motion and/or position state of a mobile device, for example to determine whether the mobile device is riding in a vehicle, is an accelerometer. Accelerometer signals may be used in detecting vehicular movement, but it can be difficult to do this based on instantaneous accelerometer information. For instance, if a user is driving on a smooth straight road at constant speed, or is stopped at a traffic light”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Nemec with these above teachings from Grokop in order to determine one or more vehicle stops based on provider device motion data. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Nemec’s systems and methods for deterring passengers with Grokop’ teaching as “improve the accuracy of detecting vehicular movement”( Grokop, Description)
Regarding Claims 2, 9 and 16:
Nemec in view of Farmer, Fuchs and Grokop, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 1, 8 and 15. Nemec further teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein detecting the start indicator comprises determining that the provider device is within the threshold distance from the pick-up location (Nemec, para[59], “vehicle 100 has just reached a predetermined distance (represented by distance bar 772) from the pickup location (represented by marker 770)”, para[88],” determine whether a pedestrian is within a first threshold distance of the vehicle.”)
after receiving an indicator that the provider device has accepted a transportation request associated with the pick-up location. (Nemec, para [05], “ providing a notification”, para[55], “a user such as user 432 may use client computing device 130 to send a request to one or more server computing devices 110 for a vehicle. As part of this, the user may identify a pickup location, a destination location”)
Claim(s) 3, 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nemec (US20180338229A1) in view of Farmer (US20180328747A1), further in view of Fuchs (EP 3462403 A1) and Grokop (US20130245986A1) and Ge (US 20110111768 A1).
Regarding Claims 3, 10 and 17:
Nemec in view of Farmer, Fuchs and Grokop, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 1, 8 and 15. Nemec further teaches:
after receiving an indicator that the provider device has performed a pick-up at the pick-up location. (Nemec, para [05], “ providing a notification”, para [06] ,” after the pedestrian enters the vehicle, maneuver the vehicle to a destination with the pedestrian as an occupant of the vehicle.”)
Nemec does not explicitly teach, but Ge teaches:
determining that the provider device is beyond the threshold distance from the … location (claim 1, “ a selecting unit for controlling the mobile phone to perform a location update when the mobile phone moves out the predetermined scope ”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Nemec with these above teachings from Ge in order to determine that the provider device is beyond the threshold distance from the pickup location. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Nemec’s systems and methods for deterring passengers with Ge’s teaching improve the accuracy and efficiency of the on-demand transportation information system.
Claim(s) 4-5, 11-12 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nemec (US20180338229A1) in view of Farmer (US20180328747A1), further in view of Fuchs (EP 3462403 A1) and Grokop (US20130245986A1) and Lundsgaard (US20170265044A1).
Regarding Claims 4, 11 and 18:
Nemec in view of Farmer, Fuchs and Grokop, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 1, 8 and 15. Nemec further teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein determining the one or more vehicle turns comprises: determining that the provider device is between… the start indicator and …the end indicator for the pick-up event; (Nemec, para[59], “vehicle 100 has just reached a predetermined distance (represented by distance bar 772) from the pickup location (represented by marker 770). Once the vehicle is within the predetermined distance of the pickup location, using near-field communication, BLUETOOTH® or other wireless protocols, the computing devices 110 may attempt to communicate and establish a link with the passenger's client computing device, such as client computing device 420. When this link is successfully established, the client device can be authenticated.”)
Nemec does not explicitly teach, but Farmer teaches:
a first time associated with the start indicator and a second time associated with the end indicator, (Farmer, para [39], “pickup locations, time to pickup, time from pickup to start of ride”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Nemec with these above teachings from Farmer in order to include the pick-up event between a first time associated with the start indicator and a second time associated with the end indicator. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Nemec’s systems and methods for deterring passengers with Farmer’s teaching in order to determine “accurate travel time estimates and time of arrival estimates”( Farmer, Description)
Nemec does not explicitly teach, but Lundsgaard teaches:
receiving, from a gyroscope associated the provider device, gyroscopic motion data indicating speed and direction of the provider device (Lundsgaard, para [40], “The mobile device 220 includes a set of mobile device sensors 221, which may include, for example, gyroscope 226 and accelerometer 223. The mobile device sensors 221 may be capable of detecting and recording various conditions at the mobile device 220 and operational parameters of the mobile device 220. For example, sensors 221 may detect and store data corresponding to the mobile device's location (e.g., GPS coordinates), speed and direction”)
determining direction changes of the provider device from the gyroscopic motion data; (Lundsgaard, para [40], “speed and direction in one or multiple axes (forward and back, left and right, and up and down for example)”)
and classifying one or more of the direction changes as a vehicle turn based on comparing the direction changes with a threshold direction change.( Lundsgaard, para[65], “the magnitude of movement and/or acceleration …may be compared to a predetermined threshold; if the magnitude of the vector exceeds the predetermined threshold (YES branch from step 630), then the data may reflect a candidate event”, “para [64], “indicating a left or right turn has been made”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Nemec with these above teachings from Lundsgaard in order to receive, from a gyroscope associated the provider device, gyroscopic motion data indicating speed and direction of the provider device between the start indicator and the end indicator; determining direction changes of the provider device from the gyroscopic motion data; and classifying one or more of the direction changes as a vehicle turn based on comparing the direction changes with a threshold direction change.. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Nemec’s systems and methods for deterring passengers with Lundsgaard’s teaching as “identify situations in which a mobile device is being operated within a moving vehicle.”( Lundsgaard, Description)
Regarding Claims 5, 12 and 19:
Nemec in view of Farmer, Fuchs and Grokop, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 1, 8 and 15. Nemec teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein determining the door close comprises: determining a stop location indicated by accelerometer data of the provider device; (Nemec, para [51], “a vehicle is likely to stop for a given pickup or destination location.”, para[78], “accelerometer or gyroscope information”) Examiner note: it is unclear how to determine a stop location using only accelerometer data of provider device. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required. For examining purpose, this limitation are interpreted as any teaching regarding the determine stop location disclosed by the references.
Nemec does not explicitly teach, but Lundsgaard teaches:
determining one or more of a change in roll or a change in pitch indicated by a gyroscope of the provider device; (Lundsgaard, para[57], “acceleration data may represent a movement vector in all three dimensions (e.g., rightward, forward, and upward, ”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Nemec with these above teachings from Lundsgaard in order to determine one or more of a change in roll or a change in pitch indicated by a gyroscope of the provider device. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Nemec’s systems and methods for deterring passengers with Lundsgaard’s teaching as “identify situations in which a mobile device is being operated within a moving vehicle.”( Lundsgaard, Description)
Nemec does not explicitly teach, but Fuchs teaches:
and combining the stop location with the one or more of the change in roll or the change in pitch to indicate the door close.( Fuchs, para[29], “the accelerometers can detect the minor accelerations in the vehicle when a person enters the car and closes the door, ”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Nemec with these above teachings from Fuchs in order to combine the stop location with the one or more of the change in roll or the change in pitch to indicate the door close. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Nemec’s systems and methods for deterring passengers with Fuchs’ teaching as “to improve their driving skills or obtain liability insurance quotes.”( Fuchs, Description)
Claim(s) 6-7, 13-14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nemec (US20180338229A1) in view of Farmer (US20180328747A1), further in view of Fuchs (EP 3462403 A1) and Grokop (US20130245986A1) and Rasmusson (US20180136656A1).
Regarding Claims 6, 13 and 20:
Nemec in view of Farmer, Fuchs and Grokop, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 1, 8 and 15. Nemec does not explicitly teach, but Fuchs teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein generating the pick-up event score for the pick-up event comprises: determining… model vehicle behavior data indicating model movement between the start indicator and the end indicator;(, para [11], “characterizing driver performance and using such characterization to determine a risk score”)
performing a comparison of the one or more vehicle turns, the one or more vehicle stops, and the door close of the provider device motion data with the model vehicle behavior data; and generating the … score based on the comparison. (See Fuchs, Para[0063],” A pattern recognition module 618 is configured with one or more defined operating patterns, each of which operating patterns reflects either a known change in vehicle status, or a known vehicle operating or driving behavior. For example, a vehicle responds in a physically-measurable manner to driver-based driving actions, e.g., by the driver turning the vehicle sharply at a corner. This enables the system to associate patterns with a driver’s driving behavior, and to determine a risk score”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Nemec with these above teachings from Fuchs in order to determine model vehicle behavior data indicating model movement between the start indicator and the end indicator; perform a comparison of the one or more vehicle turns, the one or more vehicle stops, and the door close of the provider device motion data with the model vehicle behavior data; and generating the score based on the comparison. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Nemec’s systems and methods for deterring passengers with Fuchs’ teaching as “to improve their driving skills or obtain liability insurance quotes.”( Fuchs, Description)
Nemec does not explicitly teach, but Rasmusson teaches:
from historical pick-up events at the pick-up location (Rasmusson, Abstract, “The historical data includes past pick-up or drop-off locations for one or more past users”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Nemec with these above teachings from Rasmusson in order to determine that the provider device is beyond the threshold distance from the pickup location. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Nemec’s systems and methods for deterring passengers with Rasmusson’s teaching improve the accuracy and efficiency of the on-demand transportation information system.
Regarding Claims 7, 14:
Nemec in view of Farmer, Fuchs and Grokop, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claims 1, 8. Nemec does not explicitly teach, but Rasmusson teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: generating a provider score breakdown indicating performance scores for the provider device, wherein the provider score breakdown includes two or more of a cumulative pick-up event score, a cumulative drop-off event score, or a cumulative transit score; (See Rasmusson, claim 11,” viability score is based on a weighted composite of the characterization score and a historical score based on the historical data, the viability score being represented as VS=(CS)w+HS(v)”)
and providing the provider score breakdown for display together with a digital map on the provider device.( Rasmusson, Abstract, “calculating, based at least in part on the autonomous-vehicle sensor data and historical data a viability score for each of the potential pick-up or drop-off locations …display a visual representation of at least a portion of the area for pick-up or drop-off ”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Nemec with these above teachings from Rasmusson in order to generate a provider score breakdown indicating performance scores for the provider device, wherein the provider score breakdown includes two or more of a cumulative pick-up event score, a cumulative drop-off event score, or a cumulative transit score and providing the provider score breakdown for display together with a digital map on the provider device. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Nemec’s systems and methods for deterring passengers with Rasmusson’s teaching improve the accuracy and efficiency of the on-demand transportation information system.
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112. Applicant’s amendment has overcome the 35 USC § 112(b) rejections.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101. Applicant argues that the independent claims are not an abstract idea of mental process, instead the claims integrate abstract idea into a practical application. Examiner respectfully disagree. Claim 1 recites determining, for the pick-up event between a first time associated with the start indicator and a second time associated with the end indicator, one or more vehicle turns, one or more vehicle stops, and a door close based on provider device motion data; and generating a pick-up event score for the pick-up event of picking up the requester, the pick-up event score based on the one or more vehicle turns, the one or more vehicle stops, and the door close. These steps are mental process and mathematical relation, and a human can perform the limitations in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, a person of skilled art can determine, for the pick-up event between a first time associated with the start indicator and a second time associated with the end indicator, one or more vehicle turns, one or more vehicle stops, and a door close based on provider device motion data; and generating a pick-up event score for the pick-up event based on the one or more vehicle turns, the one or more vehicle stops, and the door close using mathematic relation. Thus, the claim recites a mental process and mathematic relation. Claim 8 recites the same functions as in claim 1 being executed on a non-transitory storage medium. Thus, claim 8 is mental process and mathematical relation. Claim 15 merely recites the same function in claim 1 as a system. Thus, claim 15 is mental process and mathematical relation as well. the claim 8 and 15 recite additional elements of detecting a start indicator indicating a start of a pick-up event by determining that a transportation vehicle associated with a provider device is within a threshold distance of a pick-up location; detecting an end indicator indicating an end of the pick-up event by receiving a pick-up indication from the provider device while the provider device is within the threshold distance of the pick-up location. The receiving steps from a provider device is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering picking up event data for use in the evaluating step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The “processor and memory” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose vehicle control environment. The processor and memory are recited at a high level of generality and is merely automates the evaluating step. Accordingly, even 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. The claim is directed to the abstract idea. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the receiving steps from a provider device were considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background recites that the processor and provider device are all conventional processor and provider device, and the specification does not provide any indication that the vehicle processor is anything other than a conventional computer within a vehicle and the provider device is anything other than a conventional smart device. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. The claim is ineligible.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 (See applicant’s response, page 13, “Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103”) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAI NMN WANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5633. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0800-1700.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on (571) 272-4896. 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.
/KAI NMN WANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/REDHWAN K MAWARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights