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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/4/2026 have been fully considered, and are persuasive. The amended language has overcome the prior issues raised in the previously pending rejections under 35 USC 112. Additionally, the amended language has claimed beyond the previously relied upon prior art combination of Camp in view of Marco. However, after further search and consideration, new grounds of rejection are presently presented further based on the teachings and suggestions of Kim (US-20160055605-A1).
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter for the reasons given below in the 35 USC 112 written description rejection. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Regarding claim 21, the claim has been amended to recite “wherein repeatedly determining the ETA is further based on a number of service providers in the set.” Particular individual elements of this language are discussed in, e.g., [48] (for the ETA determination) and [9-10,16] (for the consideration of a number of service providers). However, while these elements are discussed individually, there is no written description support for the language presently claimed which requires the ETA determination to be “based on” the number of services providers.
Further regarding claim 21, said claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for making a repeated determination of an ETA (e.g., [48]) as well as use and consideration of a number of service providers (e.g., [10,26]) does not reasonably provide enablement for basing the ETA on a number of service providers as claimed. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. In other words, the claimed scope of the invention and the disclosed scope of the invention differ to such an extent that issues are raised with regards to compliance under 35 USC 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph.
The existence of a repeated ETA determination in the specification and the existence of a consideration (or other use) of a number of service providers does not also support where this ETA is “based on a number of service providers”. Such a combination is not discussed or otherwise suggested in the specification.
In addition to not mentioning that the claimed consideration could occur, the specification is wholly absent regarding how such a particular determination could be made. That is, even if a general note that such a determination could be made was in the specification, merely noting a determination or calculation can occur is fails to support the specific claim language absent disclosure detailing how said determination or calculation is performed.
Claims 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, 16, 21, and 22 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. Regarding claim 1, said claim has been amended to recite: “repeatedly determining, based on historical data regarding an availability of service providers within the geographical region and the current location of one or more service providers in the set, an estimated time” (emphasis added).
It is clear that the “based on historical data regarding” is intended to further specify the “availability of service providers within the geographical region”. However, it is not clear whether or not the “historical data regarding” aspect is also intended to apply to the “current location”. The interpretation that “historical data regarding” applies to both the “service providers” and “current location” appears reasonable on initial review; such an interpretation is suggested by the grammatical arrangement of the language. However, consideration of an historical current location does not appear relevant “the current location of one or more service providers” as “current location” is applicable to what is “current” and not what is “historical”. Furthermore, consideration of where a user is historically currently located appears to be both a logical contradiction (historical conflicting with current) as well as of little relance to making ETA calculations, as where a user has been in the past does not appear to have any connection to how long it will take for a taxi to arrive at where a user currently is. In other words, the grammatical arrangement of the language directly conflicts with a rational and reasonable reading of the language, resulting in an unclear and indefinite claim. Regarding claims 8 and 15, each of said claims recites language analogous to claim 1, and thus suffers from issues corresponding to those addressed above. Regarding claims 2, 9, 16, 21, and 22, each of said claims depends on one of claims 1, 8, and 15, and fails to clarify the issues noted above.
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marco (US-20170186126-A1) in view of Kim (US-20160055605-A1) and Camp (US-9959512-B2).
Regarding claim 1, Marco shows a network computer system comprising: one or more processors (Fig. 3 item 208); and one or more memory resources storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations (Fig. 3 item 310) comprising:
communicating, over one or more networks (Fig. 1 showing networks 120), with a plurality of computing devices (Fig. 1 showing devices 104 and 108), each computing device of the plurality of computing devices being associated with a service provider (Fig. 4 describing a passenger/driver pairing service) of a plurality of service providers (Figs. 1 and 2, where drivers/providers 108 are paired with passengers 104);
receiving, over the one or more networks (Fig. 1 showing networks 120), an indication from a user device of a user that a service application is active on the user device ([10,42] discussing when a user opens a transportation app; see also Fig. 4 step 402);
determining, based on communicating with the plurality of computing devices, a current location of each service provider of the plurality of service providers (Fig. 1, driver application 108 provides location information, as discussed in [19]);
determining, when the service application is active, a current location of the user device ([14]);
based on the current location of each service provider of the plurality of service providers, determining, a set of service providers of the plurality of service providers ([15] discussing consideration of “proximity of the driver to the passenger” and to “select a plurality of drivers”) that are located corresponding to the current location of the user device ([15-16] discussing consideration of the “location of driver”, [44] noting “drivers closer to passenger”, and [66], the “driver that is closest to the pick-up location”) and that are available to fulfill service requests ([18], see “the driver may be ‘available’”);
use of determined ETA for the current location of the user device before receiving a service request from the user device ([15] discussing when performing “selection of a driver” including “potential drivers”, consideration of “the proximity of the driver to the passenger” and “estimated pick-up time”; note that [14] establishes that the pick-up location can be the “current location” of the user device);
receiving, over the one or more networks, the service request from the user device, the service request ([15] discussing a “request for the ride”) identifying a service location ([12,14-15,47,60]);
based in part on the service location, selecting a service provider from the set of the for the service request ([15-16] discussing determining a set of “potential driver(s)” and then [19] noting “When a driver is selected to provide . . . a ride”);
determining an ETA ([16] discussing “estimated pickup time”) for the selected service provider ([16] see “driver has been selected”) to arrive at the service location based on the current location ([61-62]) of the selected service provider ([15-16]).
Marco does not show: consideration of a location within a geographical region;
repeatedly determining, based on data regarding an availability of service providers within the geographical region and the current location of one or more service providers of the set, an estimated time of arrival (ETA) for a service provider of the set to arrive at the pickup location of the user device; and informing the user of information including a most recently determined ETA for the current location of the user device. Kim shows: consideration of a location within a geographical region ([40] discussing a “dispatch radius”);
repeatedly determining ([10,12] see “periodically determine or check” an ETA, and [46] see “periodically determines the user ETA” and “vehicle ETA”), based on data regarding an availability of service providers within the geographical region ([40] discussing consideration of a “set of drivers” within a “dispatch radius”) and the current location of one or more service providers of the set ([41] discussing a “driver database” with location and availability status), an estimated time of arrival (ETA) for a service provider of the set to arrive at the pickup location of the user device ([9-10,41-42]); and informing the user of information including a most recently determined ETA for the current location of the user device ([61,65] discussing “status messages . . . to provide updates to the user”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the transportation techniques of Marco with the status message update techniques of Kim in order to better keep prospective passengers apprised of the status of the pending requests, increasing the likelihood they will complete a transaction and continue utilizing the service.
The above combination does not show where the determining based on historical information; where the location considered is the current location of the user device; and causing the user device to display the ETA determined for the selected service provider. Camp shows where the determining is based on historical information (col. 14 lines 5-30, discussing where “Historical information may also be utilized to predict likely transport request times and locations”; see also col. 16 lines 21-29, col. 19 lines 21-29); where the location considered is the current location of the user device (col. 19 line 60 – col. 20 line 10 discussing where the relevant location is the “location of the customer”); and causing the user device to display the ETA determined for the selected service provider (Fig. 7C, col. 19 line 40 – col. 20 line 15, discussing a process where “information about the selected driver/responder is sown to the user” including the “estimated time of arrival”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the transportation techniques of the above combination with the determination and display techniques of Camp in order to make more accurate estimates regarding service provisioning times (via consideration of historical data) as well as further ensuring the user is fully apprised of time estimates regarding their requested service.
Regarding claims 8 and 15, the limitations of said claims are addressed in the analysis of claim 1.
Claims 2, 9, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marco in view of Kim and Camp, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Ramanujam (US-20150339928-A1).
Regarding claim 2, the above combination shows the set of one or more service providers (Marco, [15] discussing to “select a plurality of drivers”). The above combination does not show where the service providers are an autonomous entity. Ramanujam shows where the service providers are an autonomous entity (Abstract, Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the ride sharing and passenger/driver pairing of the above combination with the use of autonomous entities in order to increase the overall activity on the application (and thus revenue potential) by leveraging additional types of transportation providers and options.
Regarding claims 9 and 16, the limitations of said claims are addressed in the analysis of claim 2.
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marco in view of Kim and Camp, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Cheng (US-20160180346-A1).
Regarding claim 21, the above combination shows repeatedly determining the ETA (Kim, [10,12,46]). The above combination does not show consideration of a number of service providers in the area. Cheng shows consideration of a number of service providers in the area ([24-28] the chance of having a potentially shorter waiting time, and thus a lower ETA, is considered based on the count of candidate taxis) .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the ride sharing a time calculations of the above combination with the candidate driver count considerations of Cheng in order to enable improved accuracy in the wait-time information given to prospective customers, thus improving their resultant experience.
Regarding claim 22, the above combination shows repeatedly determining the ETA (Kim, [10,12,46]), as well as consideration of the applicable geographic region (Kim, [40]). The above combination does not show predicting, based on the historical data regarding the availability of service providers, that one or more additional service providers not in the set will become available to fulfill service requests; and determining the ETA based on a predicted time at which at least one of the one or more additional service providers will become available. Cheng shows: predicting, based on the historical data regarding the availability of service providers ([31] also noting the location of the request is considered), that one or more additional service providers not in the set will become available to fulfill service requests ([24-28]); and determining the ETA based on a predicted time at which at least one of the one or more additional service providers will become available ([24-28]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the ride sharing a time calculations of the above combination with the candidate driver count considerations of Cheng in order to enable improved accuracy in the wait-time information given to prospective customers, thus improving their resultant experience.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 JOHN M MACILWINEN whose telephone number is (571)272-9686. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 - 5:00.
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, Glenton B Burgess can be reached at (571) 272 - 3949. 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.
JOHN MACILWINEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2442
/JOHN M MACILWINEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454
