Detailed Action
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment submitted on July 15, 2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on April 21, 2026 is not in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98.
37 CFR 1.98(a) states in part,
(5) Each publication listed in an information disclosure statement must be identified by publisher, author (if any), title, relevant pages of the publication, date, and place of publication.
MPEP §609.04(a) states in part,
(B) All content requirements of 37 CFR 1.98. See MPEP § 609.04(a) for more information.
(1) Requirements for the IDS listing:
(v) Non-patent literature cited by publisher, author (if any), title, relevant pages, and date and place of publication.
The foreign document CN111353676 has not been considered because the document has not been properly identified. The date of publication of “2018-06-07” identified in the IDS does not correspond to the date of the publication of the foreign document, which is “2020-06-30.”
Response to Arguments/Remarks
Priority
The disclosure of the prior-filed applications, Application No. 18/140379, 17/568415, 16/749562, 16/193652, 15/368368, failed to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
Applicant’s amendment to claims 5, 13, and 19 have addressed the issue. The claims have been amended to recite, “determining the mode of operation is based at least in part on historical data associated with the geographic region that the one or more service locations of each service request is within.”
Double Patenting
Claims 1, 8-9, and 16-18 were rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 8, 11, 15, and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,250,264 in view of Frankert US Patent Publication No. 2024/0054593, Spat US Patent Publication No. 2012/0131170, and Hill US Patent Publication No. 2009/0216600.
Applicant requested reconsideration of the rejections in view of the amendments. The double patenting rejections have been reconsidered and are maintained in this Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-20 were 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 subject matter.
The amendments to claims have addressed the rejections. Accordingly, the rejections have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 8-9, 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frankert US Patent Publication No. 2024/0054593, priority to Provisional application No. 62296520 2/17/2016 in view of Spat US Patent Publication No. 2012/0131170 and Hill US Patent Publication No. 2009/0216600.
The amendments to claims 1, 9, and 17 have overcome the rejections. Therefore, the prior rejection has been withdrawn, and new grounds of rejection are made in this Office action. The new grounds of rejection are necessitated by Applicant's amendment, and accordingly, this Office action is made Final.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 8-9, and 16-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 8, 11, 15, and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,250,264 (“Patent ‘264”) in view of Frankert US Patent Publication No. 2024/0054593 (“Frankert”), Spat US Patent Publication No. 2012/0131170 (“Spat”), Hill US Patent Publication No. 2009/0216600 (“Hill”), and Pinto US Patent Publication No. 2008/0255754 (“Pinto”).
As shown below, claims of the application are disclosed by claims of Patent ‘264 with the differences being obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Instant Application
US Patent No. 12,250,264
1. A computing system for managing a network-based service, the computing system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more memory resources storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing system to perform operations comprising:
1. A computing system for managing a network-based service, the computing system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more memory resources storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing system to:
receiving, over one or more networks, a plurality of service requests from computing devices of requesting users, each service request including one or more service locations that are within a geographic region;
receive, over one or more networks, service requests from computing devices of requesting users, each respective service request including a start location in a geographic region and a destination location;
for each service request of the plurality of service requests, determining a value for the service request based at least in part on the one or more locations of the service request;
4. The computing system of claim 1, wherein the executed instructions further cause the computing system to: determine a value for the respective service request based on at least one of a distance or an estimated time of travel between the start location and the destination location of the respective service request;
generating a plurality of invitations for the plurality of service requests, each invitation of the plurality of invitations corresponding to one of the plurality of service requests;
associating each invitation of the plurality of invitations with the value determined for the corresponding service request;
simultaneously transmitting the plurality of invitations to a plurality of computing devices that are associated with a plurality of service providers for within the geographic-region, each invitation of the plurality of invitations being transmitted with the associated value; and
for a respective service request received from a sub-region of the geographic region:
determine a plurality of transport providers available to service the respective service request;
in response to determining to process the respective service request in accordance with the multi-invitation mode, transmit, over the one or more networks, data corresponding to a transport invitation to each of a plurality of provider computing devices operated by the plurality of transport providers,
4. The computing system of claim 1, wherein the executed instructions further cause the computing system to: wherein the data corresponding to the transport invitation transmitted to each of the plurality of provider computing devices includes the value of the respective service request.
causing a set of the plurality of invitations to be displayed on the computing device of each of the plurality of service providers, the displayed set enabling each service provider of the plurality of service providers to accept, via the respective computing device of the service provider, an invitation of the plurality of invitations during a corresponding response interval;
wherein the transport invitation is displayed on a respective provider computing device and selectable by the respective transport provider to accept the respective service request;
receiving, over the one or more networks, an acceptance message corresponding to a first invitation of the displayed set of invitations from the computing device of each service provider of a set of multiple service providers of the plurality of service providers;
selecting, from among the set of multiple service providers, a first service provider to service the service request corresponding to the first invitation; and
receive, over the one or more networks, data corresponding to an acceptance of the transport invitation from each of two or more provider computing devices of the plurality of provider computing devices; and
based on the received data from the two or more provider computing devices, select a transport provider from the respective two or more transport providers associated with the two or more provider computing devices to service the respective service request.
transmitting, over the one or more networks, (i) a confirmation message to the computing device of the first service provider, and
(ii) a message to the computing device of each service provider of the set of multiple service providers that is not selected, the message communicating that the service provider was not selected.
5. The computing system of claim 1, wherein the executed instructions further cause the computing system to: based on selecting the selected transport provider to service the respective service request, transmit, over the one or more networks, a confirmation to the provider computing device of the selected transport provider.
Claims of Patent ‘264 do not disclose “simultaneously” transmitting the plurality of invitations to the plurality of computing devices.
Claims of Patent ‘264 discloses displaying an invitation on the computing device of each of the one or more plurality of service providers enabling each of the plurality of service providers to accept, via the respective computing device of the service provider, an invitation. However, claims do not disclose “causing a set of the plurality of invitations to be displayed” on the computing device of each of one or more of the plurality of service providers the displayed set enabling each of the plurality of service providers to accept, via the respective computing device of the service provider, an invitation of the plurality of invitations “during a corresponding response interval.”
Claims of Patent ‘264 do not disclose, “a message to the computing device of each service provider of the set of multiple service providers that is not selected, the message communicating that the service provider was not selected.”
Frankert teaches simultaneously transmitting a plurality of invitations to a plurality of computing devices (para. [0066] set of service providers is selected by the transportation server. set of service providers can be selected based on proximity to the initial location. para. [0045] transportation server can broadcast to service provider devices the proposed fare. details about the service request… can also be provided to the service provider). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have implemented Frankert’s disclosure of simultaneously transmitting a plurality of invitations to a plurality of computing devices. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to have efficiently provided invitations for consideration by the plurality of providers.
Spat teaches causing a set of a plurality of invitations to be displayed on a computing device of each of one or more of the plurality of service providers, the displayed set enabling each of the plurality of service providers to accept, via the respective computing device of the service provider, an invitation of the plurality of invitations (para. [0039] determining which service providers 400 are eligible to receive the request. para. [0042] provides the request to eligible service provider interface. para. [0050] requests having similar locations and directions. are listed near each other. multiple request may be selected. fig. 4d, para. [0047] FIG. 4d shows a screen which displays requests received from mobile devices 100). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the claimed invention with Spat's disclosure of providing and displaying a set of invitations on a computing device of each of one or more plurality of service providers. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so for benefits of enabling service providers to conveniently view and select a request from a plurality of available requests.
Hill teaches a displaying an invitation of a plurality of invitations during a corresponding response interval (para. [0069] transport transactions may be offered to one or more of the conforming drivers. para. [0070] message may comprise an acceptance window indicating that the driver must accept or decline (by default) the transaction within a specified time period. offers are transmitted simultaneously. para. [0073] driver offer message may be transmitted to the driver. para. [0074] determine whether any driver acceptances were received). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have implemented Hill's disclosure. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do because it would have enabled the providers (drivers) to be aware of the amount of time to make informed decisions while placing a time limit to respond, which would reduce delays in servicing requests.
Pinto teaches transmitting, over one or more networks, (ii) a message to a computing device of each service provider of a set of multiple service providers that is not selected, the message communicating that the service provider was not selected (para. [0042] taxi drivers who wish to accept the call will notify the system using their mobile devices. selection may be transmitted back to the server, which will transmit to the selected driver the exact location of the requesting user, and will notify all the other drivers who responded to the call that the ride is taken). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have implemented Pinto’s disclosure because it would have been similarly desirable to have notified providers, i.e., drivers, who accepted the request, to be notified that the request has been fulfilled by another provider.
Claim 9 is unpatentable over claims 8, 11-12 of Patent ’264. The differences would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art for the reasons given above with respect to claim 1.
Claim 17 is unpatentable over claims 5, 15 and 18 of Patent ’264. The differences would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art for the reasons given above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, claims of Patent ‘264 do not disclose the computing system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of service requests include one or more delivery requests. Spat discloses a plurality of service requests include one or more delivery requests (para. [0023],[0037] delivery). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have implemented Spat's disclosure of one of more delivery requests. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so for benefits of providing the capability to fulfill different types of on-demand services.
Regarding claim 16, claims of Patent ‘264 do not disclose the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 9, wherein the plurality of service requests include one or more delivery requests. Spat discloses a plurality of service requests include one or more delivery requests (para. [0023],[0037] delivery). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have implemented Spat's disclosure of one of more delivery requests. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so for benefits of providing the capability to fulfill different types of on-demand services.
Claims 2 and 10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 8, 11, 15, and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,250,264 (“Patent ‘264”) in view of Frankert, Spa, Hill, Pinto, and Heckman et al. US Patent Publication No. 2006/0136326 (“Heckman”).
Regarding claim 2, claims of Patent ‘264 do not teach the computing system of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise: causing a countdown timer to be initiated on the computing device of each service provider of the plurality of service providers with the displayed set, the countdown timer reflecting a time remaining during the corresponding response interval. Heckman discloses causing a countdown timer to be initiated on a computing device, the countdown timer reflecting a time remaining during the corresponding response interval (claim 5. invitation to execute expires within a predetermined time and includes an indication of said predetermined time, claim 10. said graphical user interface includes a dynamic display of said predetermined period of time and an elapsing of said predetermined period of time to indicate an amount of time left to accept said invitation before expiration of said invitation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have implemented Heckman's disclosure causing a countdown timer to be initiated on a computing device such that a countdown timer is initiated on a computing device of each of the service providers. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to have updated providers of remaining time so that the providers may be presented with additional information to act on received invitations.
Claim 10 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium and comprising subject matter similar to claim 2. As such, claim 10 is unpatentable under a similar rationale as claim 2.
Claims 3-4, 6-7, 11-12, 14-15, 18-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 8, 11, 15, and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,250,264 (“Patent ‘264”) in view of Frankert, Spa, Hill, Pinto, and Medina et al. US Patent Publication No. 2019/0266518 (“Medina”).
Regarding claim 3, claims of Patent ‘264 do not teach the computing system of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise: determining, for each service request of the plurality of service requests, a mode of operation of multiple modes, including a single-invitation mode and a multi-invitation mode; for at least one invitation of the plurality of invitations, selecting a service provider of the plurality of service providers to receive the at least one invitation of the plurality of invitations in the single-invitation mode; and wherein transmitting the plurality of invitations includes transmitting the at least one invitation of the plurality of invitations in the single-invitation mode. Medina teaches determining, for each service request of a plurality of service requests, a mode of operation of multiple modes, including a single-invitation mode and a multi- invitation mode; for at least one invitation of the plurality of invitations, selecting a service provider of the plurality of service providers to receive the at least one invitation in the single-invitation mode; and wherein transmitting the plurality of invitations includes transmitting the at least one invitation in the single-invitation mode (para. [0205] system 100 will send out a driver request(s) individually or in batches. if the ride is within 8 hours, the system 100 will broadcast to all the options. if the ride is 4 days away or more, the system will send the ride request to a single driver. para. [0197] asap service requested. para. [0206]-[0207] asap rides, select the vehicle). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have implemented Medina's disclosure. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to have provided the capability to maintain preferences of drivers and select a preferred driver based on parameter(s) of a request.
Regarding claim 4, claims of Patent ‘264 do not teach the computing system of claim 3, wherein transmitting the plurality of invitations includes transmitting multiple invitations of the plurality of invitations, other than the at least one invitation, in the multi-invitation mode to the computing device of each service provider of the plurality of service providers other than the selected service provider of the at least one invitation. Medina teaches transmitting a plurality of invitations includes transmitting multiple invitations of the plurality of invitations, other than the at least one invitation, in the multi-invitation mode to the computing device of each service provider of the plurality of service providers other than the selected service provider of the at least one invitation (para. [0205] if the ride is within 8 hours, the system 100 will broadcast to all the options.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have implemented Medina's disclosure. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to have increased the likelihood that a provider will accept a request out of the plurality of providers.
Regarding claim 6, claims of Patent ‘264 do not teach the computing system of claim 3, wherein for each invitation of the plurality of invitations, determining the mode of operation is based at least in part on a type of service specified in the corresponding service request. Medina teaches for each invitation of the plurality of invitations, determining the mode of operation is based at least in part on a type of service specified in the corresponding service request (para. [0008] operating pre-arranged `car service,' para. [0197] pre-arranged, ASAP. para. [0202] variables. para. [0204] non-asap rides). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have implemented Medina's disclosure. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to have determined qualified drivers and increased the likelihood that a provider will accept a request out of the plurality of providers.
Regarding claim 7, claims of Patent ‘264 do not teach the computing system of claim 3, wherein for each invitation of the plurality of invitations, determining the mode of operation is based at least in part on contextual information relating to the service request. Medina teaches for each invitation of the plurality of invitations, determining the mode of operation is based at least in part on contextual information relating to the service request (para. [0205] if the ride is within 8 hours, the system 100 will broadcast to all the options. if the ride is 4 days away or more, the system will send the ride request to a single driver. para. [0197] asap service requested. para. [0206]-[0207] asap rides, select the vehicle). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have implemented Medina's disclosure. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to have provided the capability to maintain preferences of drivers and select a preferred driver based on parameter(s) of a request.
Claims 11-12, 14-15 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium and comprising subject matter similar to claims 3-4, 6-7. As such, claims 11-12, 14-15 are unpatentable under a similar rationale as claims 3-4, 6-7.
Claims 18-19 are directed to a computer-implemented method and comprising subject matter similar to claims 3-4. As such, claims 18-19 are unpatentable under a similar rationale as claims 3-4.
Claims 5, 13, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 8, 11, 15, and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,250,264 (“Patent ‘264”) in view of Frankert, Spa, Hill, Pinto, Medina, and Adams et al. US Patent Publication No. 2022/0335557 (“Adams”).
Regarding claim 5, claims of Patent ‘264 do not disclose the computing system of claim 3, wherein for each invitation of the plurality of invitations, determining the mode of operation is based at least in part on historical data associated with the geographic region that the one or more service locations of each service request is within. Adam discloses for each invitation of a plurality of invitations, determining a mode of operation based at least in part on historical data associated with a geographic region that the one or more service locations of each service request is within (para. [0031] member requesting the transportation services and the associated appointment location. para. [0039] trips may be dispatched to a single service provider based on the proximity of the provider… or the trips may be submitted to various providers for bidding if multiple providers are located within a desired area and the multiple providers are all capable of fulfilling the requirements of providing the services). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have implemented Adams's disclosure of determining a mode of operation based at least in part on a value of an invitation. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so for benefits of increasing the likelihood that the request will be serviced by a provider by providing the capability to select a single provider based on proximity or identifying multiple capable providers.
Claim 13 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium and comprising subject matter similar to claim 5. As such, claim 13 is unpatentable under a similar rationale as claim 5.
Claim 20 is directed to a method and comprising subject matter similar to claim 5. As such, claim 20 is unpatentable under a similar rationale as claim 5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 8-9, 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frankert US Patent Publication No. 2024/0054593, priority to Provisional application No. 62296520 2/17/2016 (“Frankert”) in view of Spat US Patent Publication No. 2012/0131170 (“Spat”), Hill US Patent Publication No. 2009/0216600 (“Hill”), Felt US Patent Publication No. 2011/0099040 (“Felt”), and Pinto US Patent Publication No. 2008/0255754 (“Pinto”).
Regarding claim 1, Frankert teaches a computing system for managing a network-based service, the computing system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more memory resources storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing system to perform operations comprising:
receiving, over one or more networks, a plurality of service requests from computing devices of requesting users, each service request including one or more service locations that are within a geographic region (para. [0031] following a request for service, the transportation server can interact with the user and the service provider (e.g., a driver) to arrange for transportation services. para. [0041] transportation server can receive from the user a service request including details about the service. para. [0095] receive service requests from users. para. [0168] area around a start or initial location associated with a service request);
for each service request of the plurality of service requests, determining a value for the service request based at least in part on the one or more service locations of the service request (para. [0041] transportation server can determine a price based on the locations, destinations… para. [0044] proposed fare is calculated. account location, destination…, supply, demand… that influence the fare. para. [0208] determining a proposed fare at the server based on the initial location and the final location);
generating a plurality of invitations for the plurality of service requests, each invitation of the plurality of invitations corresponding to one of the plurality of service requests (para. [0045] details about the service request. para. [0050] service requests and the proposed fare to the service provider devices);
associating each invitation of the plurality of invitations with the value determined for the corresponding service request (para. [0045] broadcast to service provider devices the proposed fare. details about the service request… can also be provided to the service provider. para. [0050] service requests and the proposed fare to the service provider devices);
simultaneously transmitting the plurality of invitations to a plurality of computing devices that are associated with a plurality of service providers within the geographic-region, each invitation of the plurality of invitations being transmitted with the associated value (para. [0066] set of service providers is selected by the transportation server. set of service providers can be selected based on proximity to the initial location. para. [0045] transportation server can broadcast to service provider devices the proposed fare. details about the service request… can also be provided to the service provider. para. [0050] service requests and the proposed fare to the service provider devices. para. [0069] selectively present to service providers transportation request… areas or regions. para. [0168] when identifying service providers, the system can identify an area around a start or initial location associated with a service request.); and
causing an invitation to be displayed on the computing device of each the plurality of service providers, the displayed invitation enabling each of the plurality of service providers to accept, via the respective computing device of the service provider, an invitation (para. [0046] service provider selects a fare. para. [0051] service provider device can display the proposed fare and service request along with the option to offer a different fare. server can receive an offered fare from the service provider device),
While Frankert teaches causing an invitation to be displayed on the computing device of each of one or more of the plurality of service providers, Frankert does not expressly teach causing a set of the plurality of invitations to be displayed on the computing device of each of one or more of the plurality of service providers, the displayed set enabling each of the plurality of service providers to accept, via the respective computing device of the service provider, an invitation of the plurality of invitations during a corresponding response interval.
Frankert does not teach:
receiving, over the one or more networks, an acceptance message corresponding to a first invitation of the displayed set of invitations from the computing device of each service provider of a set of multiple service providers of the plurality of service providers;
selecting, from among the set of multiple service providers, a first service provider to service the service request corresponding to the first invitation; and
transmitting, over the one or more networks, (i) a confirmation message to the computing device of the first service provider, and (ii) a message to the computing device of each service provider of the set of multiple service providers that is not selected, the message communicating that the service provider was not selected.
Spat teaches causing a set of a plurality of invitations to be displayed on a computing device of each of one or more of the plurality of service providers, the displayed set enabling each of the plurality of service providers to accept, via the respective computing device of the service provider, an invitation of the plurality of invitations (para. [0039] determining which service providers 400 are eligible to receive the request. para. [0042] provides the request to eligible service provider interface, list the information associated with the request. para. [0050] requests having similar locations and directions. are listed near each other. multiple request may be selected. para. [0047] FIG. 4d shows a screen which displays requests received from mobile devices 100). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Frankert with Spat's disclosure of providing and displaying a set of invitations on a computing device of each of one or more plurality of service providers. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so for benefits of enabling service providers to conveniently view and select a request from a plurality of pending requests.
Hill teaches a displayed set enabling each of a plurality of service providers to accept, via a respective computing device of a service provider, an invitation of a plurality of invitations during a corresponding response interval (para. [0069] transport transactions may be offered to one or more of the conforming drivers. para. [0070] message may comprise an acceptance window indicating that the driver must accept or decline (by default) the transaction within a specified time period. offers are transmitted simultaneously. para. [0073] driver offer message may be transmitted to the driver. para. [0074] determine whether any driver acceptances were received). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Frankert and Spat with Hill's disclosure of providing a response interval. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do because it would have enabled the providers to be aware of the amount of time to make informed decisions while placing a time limit to respond, which would have reduced delays in servicing requests.
Felt discloses receiving, over one or more networks, an acceptance message corresponding to a first invitation from computing device of each service provider of a set of multiple service providers of the plurality of service providers; selecting, from among the set of multiple service providers, a first service provider to service the service request corresponding to the first invitation; and transmitting, over the one or more networks, (i) a confirmation message to the computing device of the first service provider (para. [0038] receive a request for taxi. location of the user. para. [0046] receiving… information that one or more taxis that have accepted the request for a taxi. select, from the taxis that have accepted the request. taxi selection mechanism 335 may select… a single taxi based on one more criteria. para. [0068] may generate a confirmation which will be sent to both the customer and the selected taxi. para. [0081] particular taxi may be selected from the taxis that accepted the request. para. [0083] confirmation number may be provided to the customer and to the selected taxi). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Frankert with Felt's disclosure of selecting a transport provider from the subset to service the transport request and transmitting a confirmation message to a computing device of a selected service provider. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Felt would have provided the benefit of selecting a taxi, i.e. a service provider, most suitable for servicing a customer, which would provide better customer experience (para. [0081] select the taxi with the highest corresponding taxi score, may select the taxi that is closest to the customer). Furthermore, it would have been desirable for a selected provider to be notified of the selection in order to have provided service to the user.
Pinto discloses transmitting, over one or more networks, (ii) a message to a computing device of each service provider of a set of multiple service providers that is not selected, the message communicating that the service provider was not selected (para. [0042] taxi drivers who wish to accept the call will notify the system using their mobile devices. selection may be transmitted back to the server, which will transmit to the selected driver the exact location of the requesting user, and will notify all the other drivers who responded to the call that the ride is taken). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Frankert, Spat, and Felt with Pinto's disclosure. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it would have been similarly desirable to have notified providers, i.e., drivers, that the request has been fulfilled for reasons such as allowing the providers to stop waiting on the request and selecting another request.
Regarding claim 9, Frankert teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium that stores instructions which when executed by one or more processors of a computer system, cause the computer system to perform operations that include:
receiving, over one or more networks, a plurality of service requests from computing devices of requesting users, each service request including one or more service locations that are within a geographic region (para. [0031] following a request for service, the transportation server can interact with the user and the service provider (e.g., a driver) to arrange for transportation services. para. [0041] transportation server can receive from the user a service request including details about the service. para. [0095] receive service requests from users. para. [0168] area around a start or initial location associated with a service request);
for each service request of the plurality of service requests, determining a value for the service request based at least in part on the one or more service locations of the service request (para. [0041] transportation server can determine a price based on the locations, destinations… para. [0044] proposed fare is calculated. account location, destination…, supply, demand… that influence the fare. para. [0208] determining a proposed fare at the server based on the initial location and the final location);
generate a plurality of invitations for the plurality of service requests, each invitation of the plurality of invitations corresponding to one of the plurality of service requests (para. [0045] details about the service request. para. [0050] service requests and the proposed fare to the service provider devices);
associating each invitation of the plurality of invitations with the value determined for the corresponding service request (para. [0045] broadcast to service provider devices the proposed fare. details about the service request… can also be provided to the service provider. para. [0050] service requests and the proposed fare to the service provider devices);
simultaneously transmitting the plurality of invitations to a plurality of computing devices that are associated with a plurality of service providers within the geographic region, each invitation of the plurality of invitations being transmitted with the associated value (para. [0066] set of service providers is selected by the transportation server. set of service providers can be selected based on proximity to the initial location. para. [0045] transportation server can broadcast to service provider devices the proposed fare. details about the service request… can also be provided to the service provider. para. [0050] service requests and the proposed fare to the service provider devices. para. [0069] selectively present to service providers transportation request… areas or regions. para. [0168] when identifying service providers, the system can identify an area around a start or initial location associated with a service request.); and
causing an invitation to be displayed on the computing device of each of the plurality of service providers, the displayed invitation enabling each service provider of the plurality of service providers to accept, via the respective computing device of the service provider, an invitation (para. [0046] service provider selects a fare. para. [0051] service provider device can display the proposed fare and service request along with the option to offer a different fare. server can receive an offered fare from the service provider device).
While Frankert teaches causing an invitation to be displayed, Frankert does not expressly teach causing a set of the plurality of invitations to be displayed on the computing device of each of one or more of the plurality of service providers, the displayed set enabling each of the plurality of service providers to accept, via the respective computing device of the service provider, an invitation of the plurality of invitations during a corresponding response interval.
Frankert does not teach:
receiving, over the one or more networks, an acceptance message corresponding to a first invitation of the displayed set of invitations from the computing device of each service provider of a set of multiple service providers of the plurality of service providers;
selecting, from among the set of multiple service providers, a first service provider to service the service request corresponding to the first invitation; and
transmitting, over the one or more networks, (i) a confirmation message to the computing device of the first service provider, and (ii) a message to the computing device of each service provider of the set of multiple service providers that is not selected, the message communicating that the service provider was not selected.
Spat teaches causing a set of a plurality of invitations to be displayed on a computing device of each of one or more of the plurality of service providers, the displayed set enabling each of the plurality of service providers to accept, via the respective computing device of the service provider, an invitation of the plurality of invitations (para. [0039] determining which service providers 400 are eligible to receive the request. para. [0042] provides the request to eligible service provider interface, list the information associated with the request. para. [0050] requests having similar locations and directions. are listed near each other. multiple request may be selected. para. [0047] FIG. 4d shows a screen which displays requests received from mobile devices 100). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Frankert with Spat's disclosure of providing and displaying a set of invitations on a computing device of each of one or more plurality of service providers. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so for benefits of enabling service providers to conveniently view and select a request from a plurality of available requests.
Hill teaches a displayed set enabling each of a plurality of service providers to accept, via a respective computing device of the service provider, an invitation of the plurality of invitations during a corresponding response interval (para. [0069] transport transactions may be offered to one or more of the conforming drivers. para. [0070] message may comprise an acceptance window indicating that the driver must accept or decline (by default) the transaction within a specified time period. offers are transmitted simultaneously. para. [0073] driver offer message may be transmitted to the driver. para. [0074] determine whether any driver acceptances were received). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Frankert and Spat with Hill's disclosure of providing a response interval. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do because it would have enabled the providers to be aware of the amount of time to make informed decisions while placing a time limit to respond, which would have reduced delays in servicing requests.
Felt discloses receiving, over one or more networks, an acceptance message corresponding to a first invitation from computing device of each service provider of a set of multiple service providers of the plurality of service providers; selecting, from among the set of multiple service providers, a first service provider to service the service request corresponding to the first invitation; and transmitting, over the one or more networks, (i) a confirmation message to the computing device of the first service provider (para. [0038] receive a request for taxi. location of the user. para. [0046] receiving… information that one or more taxis that have accepted the request for a taxi. select, from the taxis that have accepted the request. taxi selection mechanism 335 may select… a single taxi based on one more criteria. para. [0068] may generate a confirmation which will be sent to both the customer and the selected taxi. para. [0081] particular taxi may be selected from the taxis that accepted the request. para. [0083] confirmation number may be provided to the customer and to the selected taxi). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Frankert with Felt's disclosure of selecting a transport provider from the subset to service the transport request and transmitting a confirmation message to a computing device of a selected service provider. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Felt would have provided the benefit of selecting a taxi, i.e. a service provider, most suitable for servicing a customer, which would provide better customer experience (para. [0081] select the taxi with the highest corresponding taxi score, may select the taxi that is closest to the customer). Furthermore, it would have been desirable for a selected provider to be notified of the selection in order to have provided service to the user.
Pinto discloses transmitting, over one or more networks, (ii) a message to the computing device of each service provider of the set of multiple service providers that is not selected, the message communicating that the service provider was not selected (para. [0042] Taxi drivers who wish to accept the call will notify the system using their mobile devices. selection may be transmitted back to the server, which will transmit to the selected driver the exact location of the requesting user, and will notify all the other drivers who responded to the call that the ride is taken). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Frankert, Spat, and Felt with Pinto's disclosure. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it would have been similarly desirable to have notified providers, i.e., drivers, who accepted the request, to be notified that the request has been fulfilled.
Regarding claim 17, Frankert teaches a computer-implemented method for managing a network-based service, the computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, over one or more networks, a plurality of service requests from computing devices of requesting users, each service request including one or more service locations that are within a geographic region (para. [0031] following a request for service, the transportation server can interact with the user and the service provider (e.g., a driver) to arrange for transportation services. para. [0041] transportation server can receive from the user a service request including details about the service. para. [0095] receive service requests from users. para. [0168] area around a start or initial location associated with a service request);
for each service request of the plurality of service requests, determining a value for the service request based at least in part on the one or more service locations of the service request (para. [0041] transportation server can determine a price based on the locations, destinations… para. [0044] proposed fare is calculated. account location, destination…, supply, demand… that influence the fare. para. [0208] determining a proposed fare at the server based on the initial location and the final location);
generating a plurality of invitations for the plurality of service requests, each invitation of the plurality of invitations corresponding to one of the plurality of service requests (para. [0045] details about the service request. para. [0050] service requests and the proposed fare to the service provider devices);
associating each invitation of the plurality of invitations with the value determined for the corresponding service request (para. [0045] broadcast to service provider devices the proposed fare. details about the service request… can also be provided to the service provider. para. [0050] service requests and the proposed fare to the service provider devices);
simultaneously transmitting the plurality of invitations to a plurality of computing devices that are associated with a plurality of service providers within the geographic region, each invitation of the plurality of invitations being transmitted with the associated value (para. [0066] set of service providers is selected by the transportation server. set of service providers can be selected based on proximity to the initial location. para. [0045] transportation server can broadcast to service provider devices the proposed fare. details about the service request… can also be provided to the service provider. para. [0050] service requests and the proposed fare to the service provider devices. para. [0069] selectively present to service providers transportation request… areas or regions. para. [0168] when identifying service providers, the system can identify an area around a start or initial location associated with a service request.); and
causing an invitation to be displayed on the computing device of each of one or more of the plurality of service providers, the displayed invitation enabling each of the plurality of service providers to accept, via the respective computing device of the service provider, an invitation (para. [0046] service provider selects a fare. para. [0051] service provider device can display the proposed fare and service request along with the option to offer a different fare. server can receive an offered fare from the service provider device).
While Frankert teaches causing an invitation to be displayed, Frankert does not expressly teach causing a set of the plurality of invitations to be displayed on the computing device of each of one or more of the plurality of service providers, the displayed set enabling each of the plurality of service providers to accept, via the respective computing device of the service provider, an invitation of the plurality of invitations during a corresponding response interval.
Frankert does not teach:
receiving, over the one or more networks, an acceptance message corresponding to a first invitation of the displayed set of invitations from the computing device of each service provider of a set of multiple service providers of the plurality of service providers;
selecting, from among the set of multiple service providers, a first service provider to service the service request corresponding to the first invitation; and
transmitting, over the one or more networks, (i) a confirmation message to the computing device of the first service provider, and (ii) a message to the computing device of each service provider of the set of multiple service providers that is not selected, the message communicating that the service provider was not selected.
Spat teaches causing a set of a plurality of invitations to be displayed on a computing device of each of one or more of the plurality of service providers, the displayed set enabling each of the plurality of service providers to accept, via the respective computing device of the service provider, an invitation of the plurality of invitations (para. [0039] determining which service providers 400 are eligible to receive the request. para. [0042] provides the request to eligible service provider interface, list the information associated with the request. para. [0050] requests having similar locations and directions. are listed near each other. multiple request may be selected. para. [0047] FIG. 4d shows a screen which displays requests received from mobile devices 100). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Frankert with Spat's disclosure of providing and displaying a set of invitations on a computing device of each of one or more plurality of service providers. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so for benefits of enabling service providers to conveniently view and select a request from a plurality of available requests.
Hill teaches displayed set enabling each of a plurality of service providers to accept, via a respective computing device of the service provider, an invitation of the plurality of invitations during a corresponding response interval (para. [0069] transport transactions may be offered to one or more of the conforming drivers. para. [0070] message may comprise an acceptance window indicating that the driver must accept or decline (by default) the transaction within a specified time period. offers are transmitted simultaneously. para. [0073] driver offer message may be transmitted to the driver. para. [0074] determine whether any driver acceptances were received). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Frankert and Spat with Hill's disclosure of providing a response interval. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do because it would have enabled the providers to be aware of the amount of time to make informed decisions while placing a time limit to respond, which would have reduced delays in servicing requests.
Felt discloses receiving, over one or more networks, an acceptance message corresponding to a first invitation from computing device of each service provider of a set of multiple service providers of the plurality of service providers; selecting, from among the set of multiple service providers, a first service provider to service the service request corresponding to the first invitation; and transmitting, over the one or more networks, (i) a confirmation message to the computing device of the first service provider (para. [0038] receive a request for taxi. location of the user. para. [0046] receiving… information that one or more taxis that have accepted the request for a taxi. select, from the taxis that have accepted the request. taxi selection mechanism 335 may select… a single taxi based on one more criteria. para. [0068] may generate a confirmation which will be sent to both the customer and the selected taxi. para. [0081] particular taxi may be selected from the taxis that accepted the request. para. [0083] confirmation number may be provided to the customer and to the selected taxi). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Frankert with Felt's disclosure of selecting a transport provider from the subset to service the transport request and transmitting a confirmation message to a computing device of a selected service provider. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Felt would have provided the benefit of selecting a taxi, i.e. a service provider, most suitable for servicing a customer, which would provide better customer experience (para. [0081] select the taxi with the highest corresponding taxi score, may select the taxi that is closest to the customer). Furthermore, it would have been desirable for a selected provider to be notified of the selection in order to have provided service to the user.
Pinto discloses transmitting, over one or more networks, (ii) a message to the computing device of each service provider of the set of multiple service providers that is not selected, the message communicating that the service provider was not selected (para. [0042] Taxi drivers who wish to accept the call will notify the system using their mobile devices. selection may be transmitted back to the server, which will transmit to the selected driver the exact location of the requesting user, and will notify all the other drivers who responded to the call that the ride is taken). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Frankert, Spat, and Felt with Pinto's disclosure. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it would have been similarly desirable to have notified providers, i.e., drivers, who accepted the request, to be notified that the request has been fulfilled.
Regarding claim 8, Frankert in view of Spat, Hill, Felt, and Pinto teach the computing system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of service requests include one or more delivery requests (Frankert: para. [0023] transportation service. Spat: para. [0023],[0037] delivery. Hill: para. [0034],[0035] delivery).
Regarding claim 16, Frankert in view of Spat, Hill, Felt, and Pinto teach the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 9, wherein the plurality of service requests include one or more delivery requests (Frankert: para. [0023] transportation service. Spat: para. [0023],[0037] delivery. Hill: para. [0034],[0035] delivery).
Claims 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frankert in view of Spat, Hill, and Heckman et al. US Patent Publication No. 2006/0136326 (“Heckman”).
Regarding claim 2, Frankert does not teach the computing system of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise: causing a countdown timer to be initiated on the computing device of each of the one or more service providers with the displayed set, the countdown timer reflecting a time remaining during the corresponding response interval.
Heckman discloses causing a countdown timer to be initiated on a computing device, the countdown timer reflecting a time remaining during the corresponding response interval (claim 5. invitation to execute expires within a predetermined time and includes an indication of said predetermined time, claim 10. said graphical user interface includes a dynamic display of said predetermined period of time and an elapsing of said predetermined period of time to indicate an amount of time left to accept said invitation before expiration of said invitation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Frankert with Heckman's disclosure of causing a countdown timer to be initiated on a computing device such a countdown timer is initiated on the computing device of each of the one or more service providers. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to have updated providers of remaining time to act on received invitations.
Regarding claim 10, Frankert does not teach the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 9, wherein the operations further comprise: causing a countdown timer to be initiated on the computing device of each of the one or more service providers with the displayed set, the countdown timer reflecting a time remaining during the corresponding response interval.
Heckman discloses causing a countdown timer to be initiated on a computing device, the countdown timer reflecting a time remaining during the corresponding response interval (claim 5. invitation to execute expires within a predetermined time and includes an indication of said predetermined time, claim 10. said graphical user interface includes a dynamic display of said predetermined period of time and an elapsing of said predetermined period of time to indicate an amount of time left to accept said invitation before expiration of said invitation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Frankert with Heckman's disclosure of causing a countdown timer to be initiated on a computing device such a countdown timer is initiated on the computing device of each of the one or more service providers. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to have updated providers of remaining time to act on received invitations.
Claims 3-4, 6-7, 11-12, 14-15, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frankert in view of Spat, Hill, Felt, Pinto, and Medina et al. US Patent Publication No. 2019/0266518 (“Medina”).
Regarding claim 3, Frankert does not teach the computing system of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise: determining, for each service request of the plurality of service requests, a mode of operation of multiple modes, including a single-invitation mode and a multi- invitation mode; for at least one invitation of the plurality of invitations, selecting a service provider of the plurality of service providers to receive the at least one invitation of the plurality of invitations in the single-invitation mode; and wherein transmitting the plurality of invitations includes transmitting the at least one invitation of the plurality of invitations in the single-invitation mode.
Medina teaches determining, for each service request of the plurality of service requests, a mode of operation of multiple modes, including a single-invitation mode and a multi- invitation mode; for at least one invitation of the plurality of invitations, selecting a service provider of the plurality of service providers to receive the at least one invitation of the plurality of invitations in the single-invitation mode; and wherein transmitting the plurality of invitations includes transmitting the at least one invitation of the plurality of invitations in the single-invitation mode (para. [0205] system 100 will send out a driver request(s) individually or in batches. if the ride is within 8 hours, the system 100 will broadcast to all the options. if the ride is 4 days away or more, the system will send the ride request to a single driver. para. [0197] asap service requested. para. [0206]- [0207] asap rides, select the vehicle). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Frankert with Medina's disclosure of determining a mode of operation. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to have provided the capability to maintain preferences of drivers and select a preferred driver based on parameter(s) of a request.
Regarding claim 4, Frankert in view of Spat and Hill teach the computing system of claim 3, wherein transmitting the plurality of invitations includes transmitting multiple invitations of the plurality of invitations, other than the at least one invitation of the plurality of invitations but not in the multi-invitation mode to the computing device of each service provider of the plurality of service providers other than the at least one service provider of the at least one invitation of the plurality of invitations.
Medina teaches transmitting a plurality of invitations includes transmitting multiple invitations of the plurality of invitations, other than the first invitation, in the multi-invitation mode to the computing device of each of the one or more service providers other than the selected service provider of the first invitation (para. [0205] if the ride is within 8 hours, the system 100 will broadcast to all the options.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Frankert with Medina's disclosure of transmitting multiple invitations of the plurality of invitations, other than the first invitation, in the multi-invitation mode. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to have increased the likelihood that a provider will accept a request out of the plurality of providers.
Regarding claim 6, Frankert does not teach the computing system of claim 3, wherein for each invitation of the plurality of invitations, determining the mode of operation is based at least in part on a type of service specified in the corresponding service request.
Medina teaches for each invitation of the plurality of invitations, determining the mode of operation is based at least in part on a type of service specified in the corresponding service request (para. [0008] operating pre-arranged `car service,' para. [0197] pre-arranged, ASAP. para. [0202] variables. para. [0204] non-asap rides). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Frankert with Medina's disclosure. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to have determined qualified drivers and increased the likelihood that a provider will accept a request out of the plurality of providers.
Regarding claim 7, Frankert does not teach the computing system of claim 3, wherein for each invitation of the plurality of invitations, determining the mode of operation is based at least in part on contextual information relating to the service request.
Medina teaches for each invitation of the plurality of invitations, determining the mode of operation is based at least in part on contextual information relating to the service request (para. [0205] if the ride is within 8 hours, the system 100 will broadcast to all the options. if the ride is 4 days away or more, the system will send the ride request to a single driver. para. [0197] asap service requested. para. [0206]- [0207] asap rides, select the vehicle). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Frankert with Medina's disclosure. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to have provided the capability to maintain preferences of drivers and select a preferred driver based on parameter(s) of a request.
Regarding claim 11, Frankert does not teach the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 9, wherein the operations further comprise: determining, for each service request of the plurality of service requests, a mode of operation of multiple modes, including a single-invitation mode and a multi- invitation mode; for at least a first invitation of the plurality of invitations, select a service provider of the plurality of service providers to receive the first invitation in the single- invitation mode; and wherein transmitting the plurality of invitations includes transmitting the first invitation in the single-invitation mode.
Medina teaches determining, for each service request of a plurality of service requests, a mode of operation of multiple modes, including a single-invitation mode and a multi- invitation mode; for at least a first invitation of the plurality of invitations, select a service provider of the plurality of service providers to receive the first invitation in the single-invitation mode; and wherein transmitting the plurality of invitations includes transmitting the first invitation in the single-invitation mode (para. [0205] the system 100 will send out a driver request(s) individually or in batches. if the ride is within 8 hours, the system 100 will broadcast to all the options. if the ride is 4 days away or more, the system will send the ride request to a single driver. para. [0197] asap service requested. para. [0206]- [0207] asap rides, select the vehicle). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Frankert with Medina's disclosure. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to have provided the capability to maintain preferences of drivers and select a preferred driver based on parameter(s) of a request.
Regarding claim 12, Frankert in view of Spat and Hill teach the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 11, wherein transmitting the plurality of invitations includes transmitting multiple invitations of the plurality of invitations, other than the first invitation, but not expressly in the multi-invitation mode to the computing device of each of the one or more service providers other than the selected service provider of the first invitation.
Medina teaches transmitting a plurality of invitations includes transmitting multiple invitations of the plurality of invitations, other than the first invitation, in the multi-invitation mode to the computing device of each of the one or more service providers other than the selected service provider of the first invitation (para. [0205] if the ride is within 8 hours, the system 100 will broadcast to all the options.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Frankert with Medina's disclosure. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to have increased the likelihood that a provider will accept a request out of the plurality of providers.
Regarding claim 14, Frankert does not teach the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 11, wherein for each invitation of the plurality of invitations, determining the mode of operation is based at least in part on a type of service specified in the corresponding service request.
Medina teaches for each invitation of the plurality of invitations, determining the mode of operation is based at least in part on a type of service specified in the corresponding service request (para. [0008] operating pre-arranged `car service,' para. [0197] pre-arranged, ASAP. para. [0202] variables. para. [0204] non-asap rides). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Frankert with Medina's disclosure. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to have determined qualified drivers and increased the likelihood that a provider will accept a request out of the plurality of providers.
Regarding claim 15, Frankert does not teach the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 11, wherein for each invitation of the plurality of invitations, determining the mode of operation is based at least in part on contextual information relating to the service request.
Medina teaches for each invitation of the plurality of invitations, determining the mode of operation is based at least in part on contextual information relating to the service request (para. [0205] if the ride is within 8 hours, the system 100 will broadcast to all the options. if the ride is 4 days away or more, the system will send the ride request to a single driver. para. [0197] asap service requested. para. [0206]- [0207] asap rides, select the vehicle). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Frankert with Medina's disclosure. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to have provided the capability to maintain preferences of drivers and select a preferred driver based on parameter(s) of a request.
Regarding claim 18, Frankert does not teach the computer-implemented method of claim 17, wherein the method further comprises: determining, for each service request of the plurality of service requests, a mode of operation of multiple modes, including a single-invitation mode and a multi-invitation mode; for at least one invitation of the plurality of invitations, selecting a service provider of the plurality of service providers to receive the at least one invitation of the plurality of invitations in the single-invitation mode; and wherein transmitting the plurality of invitations includes transmitting the at least one invitation of the plurality of invitations in the single-invitation mode.
Medina teaches determining, for each service request of the plurality of service requests, a mode of operation of multiple modes, including a single-invitation mode and a multi- invitation mode; for at least one invitation of the plurality of invitations, selecting a service provider of the plurality of service providers to receive the at least one invitation of the plurality of invitations in the single-invitation mode; and wherein transmitting the plurality of invitations includes transmitting the at least one invitation of the plurality of invitations in the single-invitation mode (para. [0205] system 100 will send out a driver request(s) individually or in batches. if the ride is within 8 hours, the system 100 will broadcast to all the options. if the ride is 4 days away or more, the system will send the ride request to a single driver. para. [0197] asap service requested. para. [0206]- [0207] asap rides, select the vehicle). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Frankert with Medina's disclosure of determining a mode of operation. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to have provided the capability to maintain preferences of drivers and select a preferred driver based on parameter(s) of a request.
Regarding claim 19, in view of Spat and Hill teach the computer-implemented method of claim 18, wherein transmitting the plurality of invitations includes transmitting multiple invitations of the plurality of invitations, other than the at least one invitation of the plurality of invitations but not in the multi-invitation mode to the computing device of each service provider of the plurality of service providers other than the selected service provider of the at least one invitation of the plurality of invitations.
Medina teaches transmitting a plurality of invitations includes transmitting multiple invitations of the plurality of invitations, other than the first invitation, in the multi-invitation mode to the computing device of each of the one or more service providers other than the selected service provider of the first invitation (para. [0205] if the ride is within 8 hours, the system 100 will broadcast to all the options.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Frankert with Medina's disclosure of transmitting multiple invitations of the plurality of invitations, other than the first invitation, in the multi-invitation mode. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to have increased the likelihood that a provider will accept a request out of the plurality of providers.
Claims 5, 13, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frankert in view of Spat, Hill, Medina, Felt, Pinto, and Adams et al. US Patent Publication No. 2022/0335557 (“Adams”).
Regarding claim 5, Frankert does not teach the computing system of claim 3, wherein for each invitation of the plurality of invitations, determining the mode of operation is based at least in part on historical data associated with the geographic region that the one or more service locations of each service request is within.
Adam discloses for each invitation of a plurality of invitations, determining a mode of operation based at least in part on historical data associated with a geographic region that the one or more service locations of each service request is within (para. [0031] member requesting the transportation services and the associated appointment location. para. [0039] trips may be dispatched to a single service provider based on the proximity of the provider… or the trips may be submitted to various providers for bidding if multiple providers are located within a desired area and the multiple providers are all capable of fulfilling the requirements of providing the services). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Frankert and Spat with Adams's disclosure. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so for similar benefits of increasing the likelihood that the request will be serviced by a provider by providing the capability to select a single provider based on proximity or identifying multiple capable providers.
Regarding claim 13, Frankert does not teach the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 11, wherein for each invitation of the plurality of invitations, determining the mode of operation is based at least in part on historical data associated with the geographic region that the one or more service locations of each service request is within.
Adam discloses for each invitation of a plurality of invitations, determining a mode of operation based at least in part on historical data associated with a geographic region that the one or more service locations of each service request is within (para. [0031] member requesting the transportation services and the associated appointment location. para. [0039] trips may be dispatched to a single service provider based on the proximity of the provider… or the trips may be submitted to various providers for bidding if multiple providers are located within a desired area and the multiple providers are all capable of fulfilling the requirements of providing the services). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Frankert and Spat with Adams's disclosure of determining a mode of operation is based at least in part on a value of an invitation. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so for similar benefits of increasing the likelihood that the request will be serviced by a provider by providing the capability to select a single provider based on proximity or identifying multiple capable providers.
Regarding claim 20, Frankert does not teach the computer-implemented method of claim 18, wherein for each invitation of the plurality of invitations, determining the mode of operation is based at least in part on historical data associated with the geographic region that the one or more service locations of each service request is within.
Adam discloses for each invitation of a plurality of invitations, determining a mode of operation based at least in part on historical data associated with a geographic region that the one or more service locations of each service request is within (para. [0031] member requesting the transportation services and the associated appointment location. para. [0039] trips may be dispatched to a single service provider based on the proximity of the provider… or the trips may be submitted to various providers for bidding if multiple providers are located within a desired area and the multiple providers are all capable of fulfilling the requirements of providing the services). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Frankert and Spat with Adams's disclosure of determining a mode of operation is based at least in part on a value of an invitation. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so for similar benefits of increasing the likelihood that the request will be serviced by a provider by providing the capability to select a single provider based on proximity or identifying multiple capable providers.
Examiner’s Note
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Faga et al. US Patent Publication No. 2022/0374908 (para. [0028] roadside assistance system may then notify the selected service provider and/or the one or more service providers that the service request has been accepted by the selected service provider)
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 Joshua Joo whose telephone number is 571 272-3966. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7am-3pm EST.
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, Oscar Louie can be reached on 571 270-1684. 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.
/JOSHUA JOO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445
Prosecution Insights