Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and are presented for examination on the merits.
Priority
Applicant's claim of priority to U.S. patent application 17/669,276 filed 2/10/2022, through to its parent (US 13/353,250, dated 1/18/2012), under 35 U.S.C. 120 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 3/3/2025 and 11/4/2025 were filed before the filing of a first office action on the merits. As such, the submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Objections
Drawings
Please confirm that all reference labels are within the preferred margin, for reproduction purposes.
Throughout, the drawings are objected to because the labels, external to objects and boxes, are shown without leader lines, and labels, internal to objects and boxes, are shown without underlining. 37 CFR 1.84(q). I.E. remove underlines from external references; add underline to labels in boxes.
Extend communication links in FIG. 7.
Is there an arrow missing from 1108 in FIG. 11?
Leader lines without arrows should abut the item referencing (see, e.g., FIG. 14), or add an arrowhead.
Throughout, maintain consistent font sizing where possible.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 they recite non-patentable subject matter under MPEP § 2106, e.g., the 2019 PEG, October update. The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (e.g., an abstract idea, etc.) without practical application or significantly more.
More particularly, when considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Broad categories of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices, certain methods of organizing human activities, an idea itself, and mathematical relationships/formulas. See, generally Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. __ (2014) (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.,132 S. Ct. 1289, 1294, 1297-98 (2012)); Federal Register notice titled 2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility (79 FR 74618), which is found at: http:// www. gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-12-16/pdf/2014-29414.pdf; 2015 Update to the Interim Guidance; the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Fed. Reg., Vol. 84, No. 4, January 7, 2019; and associated Office memoranda.
Under MPEP § 2106, Step 2a-prong 1, Claims 1-20 recite a judicial exception(s), including a method of organizing human activity (e.g. fundamental economic principle). More particularly, the entirety of the method steps is directed towards customized user interfacing based on geographic locations (e.g., to present a selectable list of events). This is a long-standing commercial practice previously performed by humans (e.g., mobile networks, mobile device manufacturers, event producers, etc.) manually and via generic computing, at the time of invention. As such, the inventions include an abstract idea under § 2106, and Alice Corporation.
Under step 2a-prong 2, the claims fail to recite a practical application of the exception, because the extraneous limitations (e.g., the structure—a processor, non-transitory computer-readable medium, first and second interfaces, etc.) merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g), generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)) and/or generally instruct an artisan to apply it (the method) across generic computing technology. A claim does not cease to be abstract for section 101 purposes simply because the claim confines the abstract idea to a particular technological environment in order to effectuate a real-world benefit. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 222; BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1287 (Fed. Cir. 2018); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2014). That is to say, the claims are not directed to a new software or computer, but rather employs pre-existing software to do what’s been previously done. “[I]t is not enough, however, to merely improve a fundamental practice or abstract process by invoking a computer merely as a tool.” Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (citations omitted). More particularly, the claims fail to recite an improvement to the functioning of a computer or technology (under MPEP § 2106.05(a)), the use of a particular machine (under § 2106.05(b)), effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article (§ 2106.05(c)), or apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (§ 2106.05(e)).
Under part 2b, the additional elements offered by the dependent claims either further delineate the abstract idea, add further abstract idea(s), adds insignificant extra-solution activity, or further instruct the artisan to apply it (the abstract idea(s)) across generic computing technology. The claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This is because no one claim effects an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself, or move beyond a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. Under Alice, merely applying or executing the abstract idea on one or more generic computer system (e.g., a computer system comprising a generic database; a generic element (NIC) for providing website access, etc.; a generic element for receiving user input; and a generic display on the computer, in any of their forms) to carry out the abstract idea more efficiently fails to cure patent ineligibility. See, e.g., Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347 (claims reciting a “scanner” are nevertheless directed to an abstract idea); Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Serv. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324–25 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims reciting an “interface,” “network,” and a “database” are nevertheless directed to an abstract idea).
Courts have recognized the following computer functions to be well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner: performing repetitive calculations, receiving, processing, and storing data, electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, electronic recordkeeping, automating mental tasks, and receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, MPEP 2106.05(d), wherein the italicized tasks are particularly germane to the instant invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
a. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
b. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
c. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
d. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 for being unpatentable over US 8315905 to Adair, in view of US 2006/0253247 to de Silva et al.
With respect to Claims 1, 8, and 15, Adair teaches a system, method, and device disposed in and comprising a vehicle (FIG. 1), the device comprising: one or more processors (FIG. 1); and non-transitory computer-readable media (FIG. 1) storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the device to perform operations comprising: initiating an application stored in association with the device (col 1, ln 15-19), the application configured to display interactive elements of a user interface (FIGS. 1, 8); determining a user identifier of a user that is riding in the vehicle (col 1, ln 15-19); sending, to a remote system: geographic location data indicating a current geographic location of the device (FIG. 8), the geographic location data generated via one or more sensors of the device (col 3, ln 50-54, gps); and the user identifier of the user (FIG. 8); receiving, from the remote system and based at least in part on the geographic location data and the user identifier, a list of events associated with the current geographic location of the device and associated with the user (FIG. 8).
Adair fails to expressly teach the user interfaces and selectable elements, but de Silva teaches displaying the events via the user interface ([0053]; FIG. 6D-6F), wherein individual events of the list of events are associated with an interactive element of the interactive elements ([0053]; FIG. 6D-6F); receiving a selection of a first interactive element of the interactive elements ([0053]); and transitioning, based at least in part on the selection, the user interface from a first user interface window having the events to a second user interface window configured to display additional information about an event corresponding to the first interactive element ([0053]; FIG. 6D-6F); and displaying, based at least in part on the transitioning, the additional information via the second user interface window ([0053]; FIG. 6D-6F). Silva discusses the advantages of obtaining desired information in an area, e.g., during long trips ([0073]). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Adair to provide interface and interactive elements as taught by Silva in order to give the user desired information in an area.
With respect to Claims 2, and 16, Adair fails to expressly teach, but Silva teaches displaying, in the first user interface window, an option to view information about a driver of the vehicle; receiving input data selecting the option; transitioning, based at least in part on receiving the input data, the user interface from the first user interface window to a third user interface window associated with viewing the information about the driver; querying at least one of the remote system or a different device associated with the driver for the information about the driver; and displaying the information about the driver via the third user interface window in response to receiving the information about the driver from the at least one of the remote system or the different device associated with the driver. (FIG. 1B-1F; FIG. 5B, “Personal Services/Shops” are inputted by user (driver)) Under the same rationale as Claim 1, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Adair to include this limitation taught by Silva.
With respect to Claims 3, and 17, Adair teaches determining a current time when the application is initiated; and sending the current time to the remote system along with the geographic location data and the user identifier (FIG. 8, returning list of events to user teaches possession of sender’s IP identification in the network), and wherein the list of events as received from the remote system is based at least in part on the current time (col 4, ln 64-65; see “time” throughout; “time of day”; col 3, ln 50-55; gps and triangulation includes consideration of time; “current” or “currently” also teaches conveyance of current time).
With respect to Claim 4, and 18, Adair teaches wherein: the device is a customer-facing device disposed in the vehicle; and the device is paired to a merchant-facing device disposed in the vehicle (col 9, ln 50-60; col 11, ln 31-38; col 12, ln 30-45, platform and server may be in the vehicle; FIG. 1, “wireless”)). (see also silva FIG. 3; [0034])
With respect to Claims 5, and 14, Adair teaches displaying, in the first user interface window of the user interface, an amount due indicator; determining, based at least in part on changes to the geographic location data over time, that an amount due associated with riding in the vehicle has changed; and dynamically updating the amount due indicator to show a change in the amount due. (col 13, ln 15-60)
With respect to Claims 6, and 12, Adair teaches receiving, from the remote system, information categories for information to be displayed via the user interface, the information categories based at least in part on the user identifier (col 5, ln 60-67). Adair fails to expressly teach, but Silva teaches associating individual ones of the information categories with a set of the interactive elements of the user interface; receiving input data indicating a selected interactive element of the set of the interactive elements; and displaying information for an information category corresponding to the selected interactive element (FIG. 6D-6F).
With respect to Claims 7, and 13, Adair teaches determining that the user identifier is associated with previously customized information categories, and wherein receiving the information categories comprises receiving at least the previously customized information categories. (col 5, ln 60-67, user selected categories)
With respect to Claims 9, and 19, Adair teaches displaying an option to view a real time map of an area associated with the vehicle; receiving input data selecting the option; transitioning, based at least in part on the input data, the user interface from the first uscr interface window displaying the events to a third user interface window configured to display the real time map of the area; and displaying, based at least in part on the transitioning, the real time map via the third user interface window, wherein displaying the real time map includes dynamically updating the real time map as the device moves. (FIG. 2; col 5, ln 57-65), see also Silva, FIG. 6F)
With respect to Claims 10, and 20, Adair fails to expressly teach, but Silva teaches determining, while the third user interface window is displayed, a real time location of the device; and displaying, concurrently with the real time map, an indicator of the real time location of the device. (FIG. 1G, 1H (VP, “current vehicle position”)) Under the same rationale as Claim 1, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Adair to include this limitation taught by Silva.
With respect to Claim 11, Adair teaches displaying a payment option associated with receiving an amount of funds from the user for riding in the vehicle; determining that user input data has been received indicating selection of the payment option; transitioning the user interface from the first user interface window to a third user interface window configured to receive payment information; receiving the payment information via the third user interface window; and facilitating payment of the amount of funds from an account of the user to an account of a driver of the vehicle. (col 6, ln 37-50, pay-per-initiation, pay-per-trip)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM J JACOB whose telephone number is (571)270-3082. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00-5:00, alternating Fri. off.
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, Matthew Gart can be reached on 5712723955. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WILLIAM J JACOB/Examiner, Art Unit 3696
Prosecution Insights