DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is in response to applicant amendment/remarks filed 06/16/2026. Claims 1-12, and 14-19 have been amended. No claims have been cancelled and no claims have been newly added. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see pages 9-11 filed 06/16/2026, with regards to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant discloses that claim 1 recites additional elements that provide an improvement to the technology or technical field and integrates the alleged abstract idea into a practical application where a transport vehicle is selected for a transport request based on a vehicle route of the transport vehicle and the operational state of the vehicle. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The process of gathering multiple vehicle positions, route information, and operational state information to make a selection and transmitting the data associated with the transport service request does not turn the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims uses generic computing components that perform their standard functions. The additional elements merely implement the abstract matching idea on a computer/network and doesn’t improve the computer or network functionality itself.
Furthermore, the applicant discloses that the claims do not recite a mental process when they do not contain limitations that can be practically be performed in the mind and when viewing the claims as a whole, they cannot practically be performed in the human mind. The examiner respectfully disagrees. As a whole, the claims are geared towards matching a transport requester with the best suited service provider, which is a mental process. This can be done by a human dispatcher that receives live position updates, routes, and vehicle condition reports to pick the best match. The additional elements merely uses computers to do this process that can be done in the mind. Making a determination and selecting based on the result of the determination is a process that can practically be performed in the human mind. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection remains.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 11-12 filed 06/16/2026, with regards to the 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant discloses that the primary reference Alonso-Mora et al. US20180224866A1 discloses characterizing vehicles by position, time, and passenger occupancy, but does not disclose or suggest determining an operational state of a transport vehicle. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner points to Fig. 5 and Para. 0041 of the specifications (filed 01/07/2025) of the present invention which discloses “FIG. 5 illustrates a table 500 that provides example operational states of a transportation vehicle 130”. Table 500 of Fig. 5 includes “Passengers present”, which is a passenger occupancy and therefore included in the “operational state” of the vehicle, and wherein Para. 0089 and 0091 of Alonso-Mora includes occupancy data transmitted from the transport vehicle.. Therefore, the claims continue to be rejected via the primary reference Alonso-Mora. See the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection below.
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 the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claims 1-20 are directed to a method (i.e. a process).
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong 1 of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Claims 1-20 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below in bold) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
Claim 1:
A network computer system comprising: one or more processors; a memory to store instructions; wherein the one or more processors execute the instructions to perform operations comprising: communicating, over one or more networks, with multiple computing devices to determine a current position of each computing device, each of the multiple computing devices being associated with a transport vehicle;
receiving, over the one or more networks, a transport service request from a requester device, the transport service request specifying a pickup location and a destination location
for each computing device of the multiple computing devices, determining (i) a vehicle route from the current position of the computing device to the pickup location, and (ii) an operational state of the transport vehicle associated with the computing device, the operational state being based on vehicle data transmitted from the transport vehicle;
selecting the transport vehicle associated with one of the multiple computing devices for the transport service request, based at least in part on the vehicle route and the operational state of the transport vehicle associated with the computing device;
and transmitting, over the one or more networks, data associated with the transport service request to the computing device of the selected transport vehicle.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” because user its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, the limitation “for each computing device of the multiple computing devices, determining (i) a vehicle route from the current position of the computing device to the pickup location, and (ii) an operational state of the transport vehicle associated with the computing device, the operational state being based on vehicle data transmitted from the transport vehicle” in the context of the claim encompasses the user looking at the received data to determine a vehicle route from the current position to the pickup location, and an operational state of the vehicle which can be done by a user drawing on a route on a map from the current location data to the pickup location data and using vehicle data to determine the operational state of the vehicle. Since these limitations can be done mentally (i.e. making determinations based on received data), then these limitations recite an abstract idea. Furthermore, a user making a selection based on determined data comprises a step that can be done mentally, which recites an abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea. The same rational applies to independent claims 7 and 14.
Claim 2:
wherein the operations further comprise: for each of the multiple computing devices, determining (i) an efficiency score for the transport vehicle associated with the computing device, the efficiency score being based at least in part on the vehicle route and the vehicle data transmitted from the transport vehicle, and (ii) an adjustment to the efficiency score based on the vehicle route determined for the transport vehicle associated with the computing device, wherein selecting the transport vehicle is based at least in part on the adjustment to the efficiency score.
Regarding claim 2, the bolded limitation in the context of the claim encompasses the user making an adjustment to the efficiency scored based on the vehicle route and vehicle data, which can be done by a user adjusting a number, which is a process that can be done on a piece of paper (i.e. a mental process). Furthermore, selecting the service provider based on the adjustment to the efficiency score in the context of the claim encompasses the user making a selection (i.e. a mental process), based on the adjusted score. Since these limitations can be done mentally, then these limitations recite a mental process i.e. an abstract idea. The same rational applies to claims 8 and 15.
Claim 3:
wherein for one or more of the computing devices, determining the adjustment to the efficiency score is based at least in part on an elevation of the transport vehicle associated with the computing device relative to the pickup location. Claim 4:
wherein for one or more of the computing devices, determining the adjustment to the efficiency score is based at least in part on a traffic condition of the vehicle route determined for the computing device.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, the bolded limitation in the context of the claim encompasses the user making an adjustment to the efficiency score based in part on the elevation/traffic route relative to the pickup location, which is a process that can be done by writing down another score based on how elevated the provided vehicle is relative to the pickup location. The same rational applies with adjusting the efficiency score based on a traffic condition of the vehicle route. Since this limitation can be done on a piece of paper then this limitation recites a mental process i.e. an abstract idea. The same rational applies to claims 9-10 and 16-17.
Claim 5:
wherein the operations further comprise: for each computing device of the multiple computing devices, determining a transaction cost for the transport vehicle to provide a transport service for the transport service request, based at least in part on the efficiency score determined for the transport vehicle associated with the computing device of the multiple computing devices.
Claim 6:
wherein the operations further comprise: adjusting the transaction cost for the transport service based on the efficiency score
Regarding claims 5 and 6, the bolded limitation in the context of the claim encompasses the user determining a transaction cost based on the efficiency score, which is a process that can be done in the mind (i.e. determining a cost based on data). The same rational applies to claim 6 for adjusting the transaction cost based on the efficiency score. Since this limitation recites a mental process, then this limitation recites an abstract idea. The same rational applies to claims 11-12 and 18-19.
Claim 13,
wherein the transport vehicle associated with one or more of the multiple computing devices includes an autonomous vehicle.
Regarding claim 13, the transport vehicle being an autonomous vehicle does not limit the limitations from being an abstract idea. The same rational applies to claim 20.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
Claim 1:
A network computer system comprising: one or more processors; a memory to store instructions; wherein the one or more processors execute the instructions to perform operations comprising: communicating, over one or more networks, with multiple computing devices to determine a current position of each computing device, each of the multiple computing devices being associated with a transport vehicle;
receiving, over the one or more networks, a transport service request from a requester device, the transport service request specifying a pickup location and a destination location
for each computing device of the multiple computing devices, determining (i) a vehicle route from the current position of the computing device to the pickup location, and (ii) an operational state of the transport vehicle associated with the computing device, the operational state being based on vehicle data transmitted from the transport vehicle;
selecting the transport vehicle associated with one of the multiple computing devices for the transport service request, based at least in part on the vehicle route and the operational state of the transport vehicle associated with the computing device;
and transmitting, over the one or more networks, data associated with the transport service request to the computing device of the selected transport vehicle.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “receiving”, and “transmitting”, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (i.e. processors) to perform the process. In particular, obtaining step by the processors are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data and transmitting data), and amounts to mere data gathering and data transmission, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, the “one or more processors” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose vehicle environment. The same rational applies to independent claims 7 and 14.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claims 1,8, and 15 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the determining and comparing amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, with regards to the additional limitations of “receiving…” and “transmitting…” data, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “receiving…” and “transmitting…” data are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the specification does not provide any indication that the processor is anything other than a conventional processor. The step of “receiving” data is taught in the primary reference Alonso-Mora et al. US20180224866A1, see Para. 0184. Accordingly, the step of collecting data is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. Further, the step of transmitting data is taught in the primary reference Alonso-Mora et al. US20180224866A1, see at least Fig. 7, Para. 0177, and network 706. The step of transmitting data is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept and the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 7-8, 13-15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Alonso-Mora et al. US20180224866A1 (henceforth Alonso-Mora)
Regarding claim 1,
Alonso-Mora discloses:
A network computer system (See Fig. 7, “fleet controller 702”)comprising: one or more processors (See Fig. 7, Para. 0178, “assignment processor 714”); a memory to store instructions (See Fig. 7, Para. 0178, “memories 710, 712 are coupled to an assignment processor 714”.)
wherein the one or more processors execute the instructions to perform operations comprising: communicating, over one or more networks,(Fig. 7, network 706) with multiple computing devices to determine a current position of each computing device, each of the multiple computing devices being associated with a transport vehicle; (See at least Fig. 7, and Para. 0177, wherein fleet controller 702 communicates with vehicles 704a-704k over network 706. See Para. 0178, “Other information may also be part of the travel request such as the number of persons in the party requesting travel. Vehicle 705 provides vehicle status information which is stored in memory 712” and further see Para. 0183, “Considered herein is a fleet V of m vehicles of capacity v, the maximum number of passengers each vehicle can have at any given time. A set of vehicles V is denoted as V={υ.sub.1, . . . , υ.sub.m}. The current state of a vehicle υ is given by a tuple {q.sub.υ, t.sub.υ, P.sub.υ} indicating its current position q.sub.υ, the current time t.sub.υ and its passengers P.sub.υ={p.sub.1, . . . , p.sub.n.sub.υ.sub.pass}.” A current position of multiple computing devices that are associated with a transport vehicle is determined.)
receiving, over the one or more networks, a transport service request from a requester device, the transport service request specifying a pickup location and a destination location; (See at least Para. 0177-0178, wherein the travel request includes a pickup location and a drop-off location (i.e. a destination location).)
for each computing device of the multiple computing devices, determining (i) a vehicle route from the current position of the computing device to the pickup location, (See at least Para. 0107, “For a vehicle v, with passengers P.sub.v, this function returns a travel route (and ideally an optimal or near-optimal travel route) σ.sub.v to satisfy requests R.sub.v.“ Since this is done across a fleet (see at least Para. 0115), this includes determining a vehicle route from the current position to the pickup location for each computing device of the multiple computing devices.)
and (ii) an operational state of the transport vehicle associated with the computing device, the operational state being based on vehicle data transmitted from the transport vehicle; (See at least Para. 0109, “Significantly the RV-graph described herein also includes the vehicles at their current state. One vehicle stat is “V.sub.idle” which is defined as: vehicle is empty and unassigned to any request (it might be in movement if it was rebalancing in the previous step). Other vehicle states include, but are not limited to, empty en route to pick some passenger; rebalancing; with # passengers, where # can be 1, 2, 3, . . . v (max vehicle capacity).” The operational state associated with the computing device includes the number of passengers present. Further see at least Para. 0089, and 0091, wherein the operational state is transmitted from the transport vehicle.)
Examiner Note: As recited in the specifications filed 01/07/2025, Para. 0041 discloses “FIG. 5 illustrates a table 500 that provides example operational
states of a transportation vehicle 130”, and wherein Table 500 includes “Passengers present”. The examiner is using this specific operational state for the claim limitation.
selecting the transport vehicle associated with one of the multiple computing devices for the transport service request, based at least in part on the vehicle route and the operational state of the transport vehicle associated with the computing device; (See at least Para. 0179, “In response to the travel request information and vehicle status information provided thereto, the assignment processor assigns travel requests to vehicles” and Para. 0119-0128, wherein the transport vehicle is selected based in part on the vehicle route and the number of passengers present (i.e. the operation state of the transport vehicle).)
and transmitting, over the one or more networks, data associated with the transport service request to the computing device of the selected transport vehicle. (See at least Para. 0142, “After expiration of the time window, at least some (and preferably all) of the collected requests are assigned in batch to the different vehicles.” The data associated with the transport request service is transmitted to the different vehicles.)
Regarding claim 2,
Alonso-Mora discloses:
wherein the operations further comprise: for each of the multiple computing devices, determining (i) an efficiency score for the transport vehicle associated with the computing device, the efficiency score being based at least in part on the vehicle route and the vehicle data transmitted from the transport vehicle, (See at least Para. 0187, “With respect to problem formulation a first problem (referred to herein as problem 1 or the problem of informed batch assignment) may be formulated as follows by considering a set of requests R, a set of vehicles V at their current state including passengers, and a function to compute travel times on the road network. Compute an optimal assignment Σ of requests to vehicles may be computed that satisfies a set of constraints Z, including a maximum capacity v of passengers per vehicle, and that minimizes a cost function C=C.sub.now + C.sub.future, where C.sub.now could be the sum of travel delays for the current passengers and requests”. The efficiency score is determined based at least in part on the vehicle route (i.e. travel times on the road network) and vehicle data from the vehicle (i.e. vehicles V at their current state including passengers).)
and (ii) an adjustment to the efficiency score based on the vehicle route determined for the transport vehicle associated with the computing device, wherein selecting the transport vehicle is based at least in part on the adjustment to the efficiency score. (See at least Para. 0142, “After expiration of the time window, at least some (and preferably all) of the collected requests are assigned in batch to the different vehicles. If a request is matched to a vehicle at any given iteration, its latest pickup time is reduced to the expected pickup time by that vehicle and the cost X.sub.ko of ignoring it is increased for subsequent iterations. A request might be re-matched to a different vehicle in subsequent iterations so long as its waiting time does not increase and until it is picked up by some vehicle. Once a request is picked up (i.e., the request becomes a passenger), it remains in that vehicle and cannot be re-matched. The vehicle may, however, still pick additional passengers. In each iteration, the new assignment of requests to vehicles guarantees that the current passengers (occupants of the vehicle) are dropped off to a desired destination within the maximum delay constraint.” An adjustment to the efficiency score is determined and wherein selecting the transport vehicle is based in part on the adjustment to the efficiency score. Additionally see Para. 0131)
Regarding claim 7,
Alonso-Mora discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 1 above, and is therefore rejected under the same rational.
Regarding claim 8,
Alonso-Mora discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 2 above, and is therefore rejected under the same rational.
Regarding claim 13,
Alonso-Mora discloses:
wherein the transport vehicle associated with one or more of the multiple computing devices includes an autonomous vehicle.
(See at least Para. 0177, “a ride sharing system for assigning travel requests for vehicles and finding optimal routes for one or more vehicles within a fleet of vehicles in response to one or more ride requests includes a MoD fleet controller 702 in communication with one or more vehicles 704a-704k, generally denoted 704, and one or more persons wishing to ride share 705a-705N ang generally denoted 705, through a network 706. Network 706 may, for example, be an internet or any other type of network capable of supporting communication between MoD fleet controller 702 and vehicles and ride sharing persons 704, 705.” And Para. 0018, “the method further is applied to a fleet of autonomous vehicles.” The transport vehicle includes an autonomous vehicle.)
Regarding claim 14,
Alonso-Mora discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 1 above, and is therefore rejected under the same rational.
Regarding claim 15,
Alonso-Mora discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 2 above, and is therefore rejected under the same rational.
Regarding claim 20,
Alonso-Mora discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 13 above, and is therefore rejected under the same rational.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 3, 9, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alonso-Mora in view of Pao et al. US20180288568A1 (henceforth Pao)
Regarding claim 3,
Alonso-Mora discloses the limitations as recited in claims 1-2 above, including wherein for one or more of the computing devices, determining the adjustment to the efficiency score (see Para. 0142).
Alonso-Mora does not specifically state wherein the efficiency score is based at least in part on an elevation of the transport vehicle associated with the computing device relative to the pickup location.
However, Pao teaches:
wherein the efficiency score is based at least in part on an elevation of the transport vehicle associated with the computing device relative to the pickup location. (See at least Para. 0021, “Additionally, one or more embodiments may use road segment data, such as may be stored by a data structure related to road segment system nodes associated with length. Direction, elevation, etc., and further associated with pickup/drop-off locations and distance traveled along respective nodes to get there…If a road segment within a threshold distance of a predicted pickup location has road segment data that is more efficient (e.g., is in a direction headed towards the destination, etc.), then the predicted pickup location may be adjusted”. The efficiency score it is based on an elevation of the service provider vehicle relative to the pickup location.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Alonso-Mora to incorporate the teachings of Pao to include the limitation “wherein the efficiency score is based at least in part on an elevation of the transport vehicle associated with the computing device relative to the pickup location” since “In some cases, the requestor and provider may not be able to locate each other, which can lead to a service request being cancelled and re-placed in the system with a new provider, despite an available provider being in the area This leads to inefficient resource allocation as cancelled and duplicated requests increase bandwidth and processing needs, as well as disrupting efficient allocation of resources in a geographic area” (Para. 0002, Pao). This would create a more robust ride sharing system by incorporating the elevation for picking up a service requestor. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Alonso-Mora, and Pao. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 9,
Alonso-Mora, and Pao discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 3 above, and is therefore rejected under the same rejection and obviousness rational.
Regarding claim 16,
Alonso-Mora, and Pao discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 3 above, and is therefore rejected under the same rejection and obviousness rational.
Claims 4, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alonso-Mora in view of Rakah et al. US20180211186A1 (henceforth Rakah).
Regarding claim 4,
Alonso-Mora does not specifically state wherein for one or more of the computing devices, determining the adjustment to the efficiency score is based at least in part on a traffic condition of the vehicle route determined for the computing device. However, Rakah teaches:
for one or more of the computing devices, determining the adjustment to the efficiency score is based at least in part on a traffic condition of the vehicle route determined for the computing device. (See at least Para. 0199, “Additionally or alternatively, assignment module 920 may re-assign the second rideshare vehicle in order to minimize a total travel time of the plurality of users…The predicted total travel time may depend on routes between pick-up locations of the users and drop-off locations of the users as well as predicted arrival times for the first rideshare vehicle and/or the second rideshare vehicle at the drop-off locations and may change in real time due to wrong turns and/or changes in traffic condition.” The service provider is selected based on the adjustment of the efficiency score, in order to minimize the total travel time of the users. The score (i.e. by minimizing the total travel time) is based on the traffic conditions vehicle route, since it comprises changes in real time due to traffic conditions on the vehicle route.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Alonso-Mora to incorporate the teachings of Rakah to include the limitation “wherein for one or more of the computing devices, determining the adjustment to the efficiency score is based at least in part on a traffic condition of the vehicle route determined for the computing device” in order to “save ride costs, increase vehicle utilization, and reduce air pollution (Para. 0003, Rakah), which would create a more robust ridesharing system between multiple service providers, and specifically when traffic congestion is present on the route. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Alonso-Mora and Rakah. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 10,
Alonso-Mora and Rakah discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 4 above, and is therefore rejected under the same rejection and obviousness rational.
Regarding claim 17,
Alonso-Mora and Rakah discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 4 above, and is therefore rejected under the same rejection and obviousness rational.
Claims 5, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alonso-Mora in view of Camp et al. US20110313804A1 (henceforth Camp)
Regarding claim 5,
Alonso-Mora discloses the limitations as recited in claims 1-2 above. Alonso-Mora does not specifically state wherein the operations further comprise: for each computing device of the multiple computing devices, determining a transaction cost for the transport vehicle to provide a transport service for the transport service request, based at least in part on the efficiency score determined for the transport vehicle associated with the computing device of the multiple computing devices.
However, Camp teaches:
wherein the operations further comprise: for each computing device of the multiple computing devices, determining a transaction cost for the transport vehicle to provide a transport service for the transport service request, based at least in part on the efficiency score determined for the transport vehicle associated with the computing device of the multiple computing devices. (See at least Para. 0091, “ As another variation, some embodiments may base the fair value on transport evaluation parameters. The transport service may evaluate the quality and kind of the transport that the customer received from the driver. The evaluation may be based on criteria such as (i) the response time of the driver to arrive at the pickup location, (ii) the transport time, (iii) whether the driver elected the fastest or best route to the drop-off location”. A transaction cost (i.e. a fare) is determined for a transport service provided by the selected service provider based at least in part on the efficiency determined for the vehicle of the selected service provider.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Alonso-Mora to incorporate the teachings of Camp to include the limitation above since “Current fleet management systems employed for taxi and limousine fleet typically utilize onboard metering devices, radios, and cell phones to dispatch drivers and monitor fares. Such systems typically are not communicative to customers that are waiting for pickup. Furthermore, little information is tracked about individual fares. Moreover, conventional approaches rely on the customer making payment directly to the driver, by credit card or cash” (Para. 0003, Camp). This would further create a more robust ridesharing system, by allowing fares to be calculated for the selected service provider. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Alonso-Mora and Camp. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 11,
Alonso-Mora and Camp discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 5 above, and is therefore rejected under the same rational.
Regarding claim 18,
Alonso-Mora and Camp discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 5 above, and is therefore rejected under the same rational.
Claims 6, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alonso-Mora and Camp further in view of Gopalakrishnan et al. US20180165731A1 (henceforth Gopalakrishnan)
Regarding claim 6,
Alonso-Mora and Camp discloses the limitations as recited in claims 1 and 5 above. Camp does not specifically state adjusting the transaction cost for the transport service based on the efficiency score.
However, Gopalakrishnan teaches:
adjusting the transaction cost for the transport service based on the efficiency score. (See at least Para. 0006, “The one or more processors are further configured to determine an adaptive detour discount factor associated with the identified ridesharing vehicle based on the maximized key performance parameter” and Para. 0038, “In an embodiment, the service provider may specify another key performance parameter that may correspond to a number of driver-miles for serving the first plurality of ridesharing requests of the first plurality of commuters 104. In this scenario, the application server 108 may be configured to minimize the other key performance parameter.” The transaction cost is adjusted based on the efficiency score (i.e. minimizing distance).)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Alonso-Mora and Camp to incorporate the teachings of Gopalakrishnan to include the limitation above since it “ensures that the number of driver-miles for serving a plurality of commuters is reduced by matching the ridesharing requests based on commuter constraints and vehicle constraints” (Para. 0144, Gopalakrishnan) and for “increasing the likelihood of commuters to opt for the ridesharing vehicle but also optimizes the profit earned by the service provider of the ridesharing vehicle” (Para. 0003, Gopalakrishnan). This would further create a more robust ride-sharing system by adjusting the transaction cost based on an efficiency. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Alonso-Mora, Camp, and Gopalakrishnan. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 12,
Alonso-Mora, Camp and Gopalakrishnan discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 6 above, and is therefore rejected under the same rational.
Regarding claim 19,
Alonso-Mora, Camp and Gopalakrishnan discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 6 above, and is therefore rejected under the same rational.
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 GABRIEL J LAMBERT whose telephone number is (571)272-4334. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 am- 6:00 pm MDT.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at (571) 270-7429. 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.
/G.J.L./
Examiner
Art Unit 3669
/Ramon A. Mercado/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights