DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted on December 6, 2024, October 27, 2025, January 12, 2026 and May 15, 2026 has been considered by the Examiner and made of record in the application file.
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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,219,427 B2. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the claimed limitations recited in the present application are transparently found in the U.S. Patent No. 12,219,427 B2 with obvious wording variations; they are substantially similar in scope
The independent claims 1, 11 and 20 of the current application include broader limitations of the independent claims 1, 10 and 19 of the U.S. Patent No. 12,219,427 B2.
The limitation of claim 2 of the current application can be read on limitations of claim 2 of the U.S. Patent No. 12,219,427 B2.
The limitation of claim 3 of the current application can be read on limitations of claim 2 of the U.S. Patent No. 12,219,427 B2.
The limitation of claim 4 of the current application can be read on limitations of claim 4 of the U.S. Patent No. 12,219,427 B2.
The limitation of claim 5 of the current application can be read on limitations of claim 3 of the U.S. Patent No. 12,219,427 B2.
The limitation of claim 6 of the current application can be read on limitations of claim 5 of the U.S. Patent No. 12,219,427 B2.
The limitation of claim 7 of the current application can be read on limitations of claim 6 of the U.S. Patent No. 12,219,427 B2.
The limitation of claim 8 of the current application can be read on limitations of claim 7 of the U.S. Patent No. 12,219,427 B2.
The limitation of claim 9 of the current application can be read on limitations of claim 8 of the U.S. Patent No. 12,219,427 B2.
The limitation of claim 10 of the current application can be read on limitations of claim 9 of the U.S. Patent No. 12,219,427 B2.
The limitation of claim 12 of the current application can be read on limitations of claim 11 of the U.S. Patent No. 12,219,427 B2.
The limitation of claim 13 of the current application can be read on limitations of claim 11 of the U.S. Patent No. 12,219,427 B2.
The limitation of claim 14 of the current application can be read on limitations of claim 13 of the U.S. Patent No. 12,219,427 B2.
The limitation of claim 15 of the current application can be read on limitations of claim 12 of the U.S. Patent No. 12,219,427 B2.
The limitation of claim 16 of the current application can be read on limitations of claim 15 of the U.S. Patent No. 12,219,427 B2.
The limitation of claim 17 of the current application can be read on limitations of claim 15 of the U.S. Patent No. 12,219,427 B2.
The limitation of claim 18 of the current application can be read on limitations of claim 16 of the U.S. Patent No. 12,219,427 B2.
The limitation of claim 19 of the current application can be read on limitations of claim 17 of the U.S. Patent No. 12,219,427 B2.
Nonetheless, claims 1-20 of the present application made the claim a broader version of claim 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,219,427 B2. Therefore, since omission of an element and its function in a combination is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same functions as before (In re Karlson (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184 (1963)), claims 1-20 is not patentably distinct from claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,219,427 B2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Xu et al (US Pat. Pub. No. 2020/0314593).
Regarding claim 1, Xu et al discloses a method comprising:
detecting, by a hardware processor of a network system, an initiation of a request for a transportation service at a client device of a user (see at least paragraph 19; discloses transportation service request);
receiving an indication of a location of the client device and corresponding signal strengths of nearby Wi-Fi or Bluetooth access points observed by the client device (see at least paragraph 20; obtain passenger position and obtain network condition);
based on the location of the client device and the corresponding signal strengths of the nearby Wi-Fi or Bluetooth access points observed by the client device, identifying one or more top ranked pickup points (see at least paragraph 20; based on network condition, determine pick-up locations); and
causing, by the network system on a user interface on the client device, presentation of a pickup point recommendation that includes the one or more top ranked pickup points (see at least paragraph 20; recommending to passenger the order of the ranking of pick-up locations).
Regarding claim 11, Xu et al discloses a system comprising: one or more hardware processors; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more hardware processors, cause the one or more hardware processors to perform operations comprising:
detecting an initiation of a request for a transportation service at a client device of a user (see at least paragraph 19; discloses transportation service request);
receiving an indication of a location of the client device and corresponding signal strengths of nearby Wi-Fi or Bluetooth access points observed by the client device (see at least paragraph 20; obtain passenger position and obtain network condition);
based on the location of the client device and the corresponding signal strengths of the nearby Wi-Fi or Bluetooth access points observed by the client device, identifying one or more top ranked pickup points (see at least paragraph 20; based on network condition, determine pick-up locations); and
causing, on a user interface on the client device, presentation of a pickup point recommendation that includes the one or more top ranked pickup points (see at least paragraph 20; recommending to passenger the order of the ranking of pick-up locations).
Regarding claim 20, Xu et al discloses a machine-storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more hardware processors of a machine, cause the machine to perform operations comprising:
detecting an initiation of a request for a transportation service at a client device of a user (see at least paragraph 19; discloses transportation service request);
receiving an indication of a location of the client device and corresponding signal strengths of nearby Wi-Fi or Bluetooth access points observed by the client device (see at least paragraph 20; obtain passenger position and obtain network condition);
based on the location of the client device and the corresponding signal strengths of the nearby Wi-Fi or Bluetooth access points observed by the client device, identifying one or more top ranked pickup points (see at least paragraph 20; based on network condition, determine pick-up locations); and
causing, on a user interface on the client device, presentation of a pickup point recommendation that includes the one or more top ranked pickup points (see at least paragraph 20; recommending to passenger the order of the ranking of pick-up locations).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 2-10 and 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Xu et al (US Pat. Pub. No. 2020/0314593) in view of Peinhardt et al (US Pat. Pub. No. 2015/0160328).
Regarding claim 2, Xu et al specifically does not disclose determining a telematics vector associated with the client device based on the signal strengths of the nearby Wi-Fi or Bluetooth access points, wherein the identifying the one or more top ranked pickup points is based on the telematics vector.
However, Peinhardt et al from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches determining a telematics vector associated with the client device based on the signal strengths of the nearby Wi-Fi or Bluetooth access points, wherein the identifying the one or more top ranked pickup points is based on the telematics vector (see at least paragraph 38).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify to incorporate above mention feature as taught by Peinhardt et al into the system of Xu et al for purpose of including the altitude or elevation, in order to more accurately define what level the point of interest is at; providing three-dimensional location information.
Regarding claim 3, Peinhardt et al discloses the identifying the one or more top ranked pickup points comprises ranking nearby pickup points within a predetermined distance of the location of the client device based on a cosine similarity of a telemetric vector associated with the client device and a median telematics vector of each nearby pickup point (see at least paragraph 38). Same motivation as claim 2.
Regarding claim 4, Peinhardt et al discloses the one or more top ranked pickup points are elevation-aware, the method further comprising: generating a plurality of elevation aware pickup points, the generating comprising clustering historical pickup points using a clustering algorithm and a clustering distance function that includes an elevation weight, the elevation weight indicating an amount of influence elevation has in the clustering (see at least paragraph 38). Same motivation as claim 2.
Regarding claim 5, Peinhardt et al discloses the one or more top ranked pickup points are elevation-aware, the method further comprising: generating a plurality of elevation-aware pickup points and a corresponding median telematics vector for each of the plurality of elevation-aware pickup points; and storing each of the plurality of elevation-aware pickup points in a geospatial index with the corresponding median telematics vector (see at least paragraph 65). Same motivation as claim 2..
Regarding claim 6, Peinhardt et al discloses the corresponding median telematics vector comprises a median of all telematics vectors associated with a corresponding pickup point of the plurality of elevation-aware pickup points, each telematics vector being indexed signal strengths of Wi-Fi or Bluetooth signal strength at a time a trip begins (see at least paragraphs 38 and 65). Same motivation as claim 2.
Regarding claim 7, Peinhardt et al discloses the one or more top ranked pickup points are elevation-aware, the method further comprising generating a plurality of elevation aware pickup points, the generating comprising: determining driver locations from aggregated trip data; and performing elevation estimation based on the driver locations (see at least paragraphs 38 and 65). Same motivation as claim 2.
Regarding claim 8, Peinhardt et al discloses the determining the driver locations comprises: retrieving aggregated driver location estimates from the aggregated trip data for a particular area; and running a map-matching algorithm on the driver location estimates by relating the driver location estimate to edges or locations in an existing graph (see at least paragraphs 38 and 65). Same motivation as claim 2.
Regarding claim 9, Peinhardt et al discloses the performing elevation estimation comprises: determining an elevation estimate difference between an elevation estimate of a driver location and an elevation of a map-matched driver location; determining a per-trip median difference for a time window up to a beginning of a trip; and determining a calibrated elevation estimate by summing the elevation estimate of the driver location at the beginning of the trip and an elevation calibration constant (see at least paragraphs 38 and 65). Same motivation as claim 2.
Regarding claim 10, Peinhardt et al discloses the elevation estimate of the driver location is determined using a barometer reading accessed from a device of a driver (see at least paragraph 25). Same motivation as claim 2..
Regarding claims 12-19, see above rejection of claims 2-9.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure.
The following prior art are cited to show a method, which is considered pertinent to the claimed invention:
Rong et al (US Pat. Pub. No. 11,092,449) directed toward transportation service; receiving passenger position.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LITON MIAH whose telephone number is (571)270-3124. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30am -5:00pm.
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, Rafael Perez-Gutierrez can be reached on 571-272-7915. 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.
/LITON MIAH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2642
Prosecution Insights