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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the claims and remarks filed on 1 April 2026.
Claims 1, 8-11, and 18-20 were amended.
Claims 3 and 13 were cancelled.
Claims 1-2, 4-12, and 14-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Objections
Claims 11-12 and 14-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11, line 4 recites “a vehicle including the electronic device”. This appears to be a typographical error of “a vehicle, including the electronic device,”.
Claim 11, line 8 recites “caller when”. This appears to be a typographical error of “caller, when”.
Claim(s) 12-20 inherit the deficiencies of claims 11, respectively. Therefore, claim(s) 12-20 are objected to.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-2, 4-12, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-2 and 4-10 is/are drawn to a system (i.e., a machine), claims 11-12 and 14-20 is/are drawn to a method (i.e., a process). As such, claims 1-2, 4-12, and 14-20 is/are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A - Prong One: In prong one of step 2A, the claim(s) is/are analyzed to evaluate whether it/they recite(s) a judicial exception.
Representative Claim 1:
obtain at least one of information about a caller calling a vehicle to a departure point, information about the departure point provided by the caller, or any combination thereof; and
register card information of a card corresponding to the information about the caller, when the card information is not registered corresponding to the information about the caller, the card information being obtained based on a first card of the caller who boards the vehicle at the departure point;
determine whether the card information obtained based on a card matches the registered card information, when the card information is registered corresponding to the information about the caller; and
pay for a vehicle boarding of the caller based on the third card when the card information obtained based on the third card matches the registered card information,
wherein the card information includes: a portion of all of an identification number of the caller, and
wherein the card information includes:
a portion or all of an identification number of the card.
As noted by the claim limitations above, the independent claimed invention discusses paying a fair for boarding a called vehicle. This is considered to be an abstract idea because it is a business activity of paying for a service, which falls under “certain methods of organizing human activity.”
See MPEP 2106.
As such, the Examiner concludes that claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong One: YES).
Step 2A - Prong Two: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 includes the following additional element(s): the electronic device; a memory configured to store at least one instruction; and a processor configured to execute the at least one instruction, wherein the processor is configured to execute the at least one instruction. This/these additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the exception into a practical application because they merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Furthermore, claim 1 recites the additional element of a first card tagging and a third card tagging. This physical act of tapping a card does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., particular way to collect data) (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), which does not integrate the claim(s) into a practical application. Accordingly, these additional element(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong two: NO).
Step 2B: Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a memory configured to store at least one instruction; and a processor configured to execute the at least one instruction, wherein the processor is configured to execute the at least one instruction individually or in combination do not merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Furthermore, claim 1 recites the additional element of a first card tagging and a third card tagging. This physical act of tapping a card does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., particular way to collect data) (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Therefore these additional elements individually nor in combination do not render a claim as being significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 1 is ineligible.
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claim(s) amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO).
Therefore, claim 1 is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Dependent claim(s) 2 and 5-6 further include(s) the additional element(s): a second card tagging (claim 2 and 5-6), an application for the driver (claim 5) . This/these additional element(s) alone or in ordered combination do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., machine learning) (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), which does not integrate the claim(s) into a practical application nor does it render a claim as being significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claim(s) 2 and 5-6 is/are ineligible.
Dependent claim(s) 4 and 8-10 merely further limit the abstract idea and do not recite any additional elements beyond those already recited in claim 1. Therefor claim(s) 4 and 8-10 are ineligible.
Dependent claim(s) 7 further include(s) the additional element(s): a communication circuit, receiving information from a card tagging device through the communication circuit. This/these additional element(s) alone or in ordered combination does no more than merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), which does not integrate the claim(s) into a practical application nor does it render a claim as being significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claim(s) 7 is/are ineligible.
Claim 11 is parallel in nature to claim 1. Claim 11 recites an abstract idea similar in nature to claim 1. Furthermore, claim 11 recites the following additional elements: the electronic device This additional element does not more than merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Claim 11 further recites the additional element of a first and third card tagging. This additional elements does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., particular way to collect data) (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). These additional elements alone or in combination do not integrate the claim into a practical application nor do they render a claim as being significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim(s) 12 and 15-16 further include(s) the additional element(s): a second card tagging (claim 12 and 15-16), an application for the driver (claim 15) . This/these additional element(s) alone or in ordered combination do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., machine learning) (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), which does not integrate the claim(s) into a practical application nor does it render a claim as being significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claim(s) 12 and 15-16 is/are ineligible.
Dependent claim(s) 14 and 18-20 merely further limit the abstract idea and do not recite any additional elements beyond those already recited in claim 11. Therefor claim(s) 14 and 18-20 are ineligible.
Dependent claim(s) 17 further include(s) the additional element(s): a communication circuit, receiving information from a card tagging device through the communication circuit. This/these additional element(s) alone or in ordered combination does no more than merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), which does not integrate the claim(s) into a practical application nor does it render a claim as being significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claim(s) 17 is/are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 7-8, 11-12, and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ellis (US 10853791 B1) in view of Kelly (US 20150310510 A1) in further view of Garg (US 20160110836 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ellis teaches an electronic device comprising:
a memory configured to store at least one instruction; and a processor configured to execute the at least one instruction,
wherein the processor is configured to execute the at least one instruction to:
obtain at least one of information about a caller calling a vehicle, information about the departure point provided by the caller, or any combination thereof; (Col. 40 ll. 17-45 “the user may be brought to a further interface enabling the user to take advantage of a subset of functionalities accessible to the user via a separate third party client application 116 without ever leaving the mobile wallet client application. […] the user may cause the user mobile device 110 to communicate a ride request to the third party computing system 160 associated with the driving service (e.g., to be picked up at the user's current location”)
register card information of a card corresponding to the information about the caller, when the card information is not registered corresponding to the information about the caller, the card information being obtained based on a first card tagging of the caller who boards the vehicle at the departure point; (Col. 24, ll. 61- Col. 25 ll. 21 “For example, the mobile wallet client application 112 may present the user with displays enabling the user to input information pertaining to various payment vehicles. The screens may enable the user to manually input information (e.g., a PAN) pertaining to a payment vehicle, or enable the user to take a picture of a payment vehicle.”; Col. 31, ll. 4-16 “At process 302, a user request to register for a mobile wallet is received.”; Col. 31, ll. 17-45 “registration interfaces may prompt the user to input information pertaining to payment vehicles (e.g., accounts, gift cards, credit cards, and the like) that the user wishes to provision to the mobile wallet.”; Fig. 3; Examiner notes when the user makes a new mobile wallet account, the registration interface prompts for payment vehicle information.)
(Col. 31, ll. 17-45 “registration interfaces may prompt the user to input information pertaining to payment vehicles (e.g., accounts, gift cards, credit cards, and the like) that the user wishes to provision to the mobile wallet.”; Fig. 3; Examiner notes when the user makes a new mobile wallet account, the registration interface prompts for payment vehicle information.) and
(Col. 31, ll. 17-45 “registration interfaces may prompt the user to input information pertaining to payment vehicles (e.g., accounts, gift cards, credit cards, and the like) that the user wishes to provision to the mobile wallet.”; Fig. 3; Examiner notes when the user makes a new mobile wallet account, the registration interface prompts for payment vehicle information.)
wherein the information about the caller includes:
a portion or all of an identification number of the caller, (Col. 24, ll. 36-53 “a unique user ID (UID) is assigned to the mobile wallet client application 112”; Col. 37, ll. 3-37 “the user may also have to input identification information (e.g., a social security number) into the application. Any information input by the user may be transmitted to the identity verification circuit 139 and/or custom credit approval circuit 138 to be used to verify the user”)and
wherein the card information includes:
a portion or all of an identification number of the card. (Col. 24, ll. 36-53 “applications (e.g., third party client applications 116) including the same UID may share information stored in relation to the mobile wallet client application 112.”; Col. 33, ll. 15-36 “based on a payment vehicle PAN [personal account number] entered by the user in the registration interfaces presented to the user at 304, the mobile wallet circuit 154 may identify a payment vehicle type (e.g., a credit card, debit card, gift card, checking account, or the like),”)
Ellis does not teach:
a vehicle including the electronic device.
However, Kelly teaches:
a vehicle including the electronic device. (Paragraph [0176] “The taximeter 301 is configured for installation in the taxi” of Kelly)
This operation of Kelly is applicable to the system of Ellis as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to managing payment for a service (i.e. rideshare). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Ellis to incorporate the vehicle including the electronic device as taught by Kelly. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Ellis in order to execute a payment application to facilitate electronic payment of the fare due (see Abstract of Kelly).
Ellis in view of Kelly does not teach:
determine whether the card information obtained based on a third card tagging matches the registered card information, when the card information is registered corresponding to the information about the caller; and
pay for a vehicle boarding of the caller based on the third card tagging when the card information obtained based on the third card tagging matches the registered card information,
However, Garg teaches:
determine whether the card information obtained matches the registered card information, when the card information is registered corresponding to the information about the caller; (Paragraph [0027] the request manage 112 can identify the payment profile ID from the transport request 183 and determine if the payment profile ID matches a stored payment profile ID associated with a business account 151; [0072] “The system 100 can receive a transport request for a transport service from a user's client device (410). […] the transport request can include […] a payment profile ID.”; Paragraph [0075] “if the system 100 receives an input corresponding to the selection of the payment profile ID associated with the business, the system 100 can process the transport request to arrange the transport service using the payment profile ID associated with the business (470).” Of Garg) and
pay for a vehicle boarding of the caller based on the third card, when the card information obtained based on the third card matches the registered card information. (Paragraph [0027] if the request manage 112 determines that the payment profile ID matches one associated with the user's account 155, the request manage 112 can cause the dispatch 110 to process the transport request 183 normally; [0075] “if the system 100 receives an input corresponding to the selection of the payment profile ID associated with the business, the system 100 can process the transport request to arrange the transport service using the payment profile ID associated with the business (470).” Of Garg).
This operation of Garg is applicable to the system of Ellis as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to managing a payment of a user of a transportation service. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Ellis to incorporate the payment verification of Garg. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Ellis in order to charge the user for a transportation service based on the payment profile (see paragraph [0010] of Garg).
Regarding claim 2, Ellis in view of Kelly in further view of Garg teaches the electronic device of claim 1. Ellis further teaches:
wherein the processor is configured to execute the at least one instruction to pay for a vehicle boarding of the caller based on a second card tagging of the caller after registering the obtained card information corresponding to the information about the caller. (Col. 40, ll. 17-45 “By selecting a payment vehicle in the first field 502 and interacting with the second payment service depiction 520, the user may cause the user mobile device 110 to communicate a ride request to the third party computing system 160 associated with the driving service (e.g., to be picked up at the user's current location and pay using the selected payment vehicle).”; Col. 36, ll. 26-58 “The account-entering window 412 enables the user to input accounts other than those listed in the account identifier window 410.”; Fig. 4B)
Regarding claim 7, Ellis in view of Kelly in further view of Garg teaches the electronic device of claim 1. Ellis further teaches:
a communication circuit, (Col. 27, ll. 30-63 “telecommunication circuits”)
wherein the processor is configured to execute the at least one instruction to obtain the card information by receiving the card information obtained based on the first card tagging from a card tagging device through the communication circuit. (Col. 24, ll. 61- Col. 25 ll. 21 “For example, the mobile wallet client application 112 may present the user with displays enabling the user to input information pertaining to various payment vehicles. The screens may enable the user to manually input information (e.g., a PAN) pertaining to a payment vehicle, or enable the user to take a picture of a payment vehicle.”)
Regarding claim 8, Ellis in view of Kelly in further view of Garg teaches the electronic device of claim 1. Ellis further teaches:
wherein the processor is configured to execute the at least one instruction to:
identify the card information based on an identification number of the card; (Col. 24, ll. 36-53 “applications (e.g., third party client applications 116) including the same UID may share information stored in relation to the mobile wallet client application 112.”; Col. 33, ll. 15-36 “based on a payment vehicle PAN [personal account number] entered by the user in the registration interfaces presented to the user at 304, the mobile wallet circuit 154 may identify a payment vehicle type (e.g., a credit card, debit card, gift card, checking account, or the like),”) and
identify the information about the caller based on the identification number of the caller. (Col. 24, ll. 36-53 “a unique user ID (UID) is assigned to the mobile wallet client application 112”; Col. 37, ll. 3-37 “the user may also have to input identification information (e.g., a social security number) into the application. Any information input by the user may be transmitted to the identity verification circuit 139 and/or custom credit approval circuit 138 to be used to verify the user”)
Claims 11-12 and 17-18:
Claim(s) 11-12 and 17-18 is/are directed to a method. Claim(s) 11-12 and 17-18 recite limitations parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim(s) 1-2 and 7-8, which are directed towards an electronic device (i.e., a machine). Claim(s) 11-12 and 17-18 is/are therefore rejected for the same reasons as set above for claim(s) 1-2 and 7-8, respectively.
Additionally, in regard to claim 11, the Examiner further notes the recited “when” on line 7, 11, and 13 does not move to distinguish the claimed invention from the cited art. This phrase is a conditional/contingent limitation with the noted “registering…”, “determining…”, and “paying…” step(s) not necessarily performed. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. [See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system claims.; MPEP §2111.04 II].
Claim(s) 4 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ellis (US 10853791 B1) in view of Kelly (US 20150310510 A1), in further view of Garg (US 20160110836 A1), in further view of Tessatuna (see attached NPL)
Regarding claim 4, Ellis in view of Kelly in further view of Garg teaches the electronic device of claim 1. Ellis in view of Kelly in further view of Garg does not teach:
wherein the processor is configured to execute the at least one instruction to provide guidance to the caller on how to call one of a plurality of vehicles including the vehicle, by identifying that the caller gets off the vehicle.
However, Tessatuna teaches:
wherein the processor is configured to execute the at least one instruction to provide guidance to the caller on how to call one of a plurality of vehicles including the vehicle, by identifying that the caller gets off the vehicle. (Tessatuna shows an allegiant post flight email. The email give the user instructions on how to book their next flight.)
This operation of Tessatuna is applicable to the system of Ellis as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to transporting a user. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Ellis to incorporate providing guidance to a caller on how to call a vehicle by identifying that the caller gets off the vehicle as taught by Tessatuna. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Ellis in order to provide an incentive to encourage the user to ride again (see Tessatuna).
Claim 14:
Claim(s) 14 is/are directed to a method. Claim(s) 14 recite limitations parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim(s) 4, which are directed towards an electronic device (i.e., a machine). Claim(s) 14 is/are therefore rejected for the same reasons as set above for claim(s) 4, respectively.
Claim(s) 5 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ellis (US 10853791 B1) in view of Kelly (US 20150310510 A1) in further view of Garg (US 20160110836 A1) in further view of Thacker (see attached NPL).
Regarding claim 5, Ellis teaches the electronic device of claim 2. Ellis further teaches:
wherein the processor is configured to execute the at least one instruction to:
provide a driver of the vehicle with at least one of the information about the caller, the information about the departure point, or any combination thereof, through an application for the driver of the vehicle; (Col. 40 ll. 17-45 “the driving service (e.g., Uber® or Lyft®). […] the user may cause the user mobile device 110 to communicate a ride request to the third party computing system 160 associated with the driving service (e.g., to be picked up at the user's current location”)
(Col. 40, ll. 17-45 “By selecting a payment vehicle in the first field 502 and interacting with the second payment service depiction 520, the user may cause the user mobile device 110 to communicate a ride request to the third party computing system 160 associated with the driving service (e.g., […] pay using the selected payment vehicle).”
(Col. 33, ll. 66 – Col. 34, ll. 24 “At process 316, the user's mobile wallet interfaces are configured. […] In some arrangements, the mobile wallet circuit 154 determines the [payment] vehicles to include based on information received from the user (e.g., via the registration interfaces presented at 304)”) and
provide (Col. 36, ll. 26-58 “The account-entering window 412 enables the user to input accounts other than those listed in the account identifier window 410.”; Fig. 4B)
Ellis in view of Kelly in further view of Garg does not teach:
provide the driver with guidance for performing the first card tagging;
provide the driver with guidance for determining whether to register the obtained card information corresponding to the information of the caller; and
provide the driver with guidance for performing the second card tagging.
However, Thacker teaches the known technique of providing the merchant with guidance for card tagging and registering card information corresponding to the information of the caller. (Page 1 “in
order to make sure you’re providing top-notch customer service, your employees will need to be thoroughly trained on your grocery cashier software. Keep reading for essential skills that all your cashiers should be proficient in while using your grocery store cashier software.”; Page 2 “cashiers must process the payment. […] cashiers may have to apply discounts or coupons, process multiple forms of payments, […] make sure your employees are well versed on how to use their cashier software to process payments. […] includes steps like obtaining new customer information, creating a loyalty account”)
This operation of Thacker is applicable to the system of Ellis as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to processing a transaction with a customer. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Ellis to incorporate providing guidelines for the merchant as taught by Thacker. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Ellis in order to ensure top notch customer service (see page 1 of Thacker).
Claim 15:
Claim(s) 15 is/are directed to a method. Claim(s) 15 recite limitations parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim(s) 5, which are directed towards an electronic device (i.e., a machine). Claim(s) 15 is/are therefore rejected for the same reasons as set above for claim(s) 5, respectively.
Claim(s) 6 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ellis (US 10853791 B1) in view of Kelly (US 20150310510 A1) in further view of Garg (US 20160110836 A1), in further view of Pan (US 20120214548 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Ellis in view of Kelly in further view of Garg teaches the electronic device of claim 2. Ellis in view of Kelly in further view of Garg does not teach:
wherein the processor is configured to execute the at least one instruction to determine whether the caller is on board based on the second card tagging.
However, Pan teaches:
wherein the processor is configured to execute the at least one instruction to determine whether the caller is on board based on the second card tagging. (Paragraph [0097] “a Smart Card swiping record pair {S.sub.i1, S.sub.i2} indicates that the subscriber of the Smart Card gets on the No. 375 bus route at the Xizhimen stop at 9:00 am, gets off at the Wudaokou stop at 9:45 am, and between 9:00 am-9:45 am” of Pan)
This operation of Pan is applicable to the system of Ellis as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to managing a card account of a user of a transportation service. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Ellis to incorporate determining whether a caller is on board based on a card tagging as taught by Pan. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Ellis in order to track the status of the card user (see paragraph [0006] of Pan).
Claim 16:
Claim(s) 16 is/are directed to a method. Claim(s) 16 recite limitations parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim(s) 6, which are directed towards an electronic device (i.e., a machine). Claim(s) 16 is/are therefore rejected for the same reasons as set above for claim(s) 6, respectively.
Claim(s) 9-10 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ellis (US 10853791 B1) in view of Kelly (US 20150310510 A1) in further view of Garg (US 20160110836 A1), in further view of Mudaliar (US 20170249638 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Ellis in view of Kelly in further view of Garg teaches the electronic device of claim 1. Ellis in view of Kelly in further view of Garg does not teach:
wherein the processor is configured to execute the at least one instruction to provide a driver of the vehicle with information about a caller whose card information is not registered among information about each of a plurality of callers, when the plurality of callers exists.
However, Mudaliar teaches the known technique of providing a merchant with information about a buyer whose card information is not registered among information about each of a plurality of callers, when the plurality of callers exists. (Paragraph [0029] “the customer swipes a credit card in a case where the customer is attempting to make a payment with the credit card or desires to make a payment using the payment service provider, at the merchant terminal (302). Once the credit card is determined to not be acceptable for use with the merchant, the merchant terminal transmits the personally identifiable information embedded on the credit card to the server (303). Note that […] the customer may be asked whether the customer wishes to create a new account (assuming the customer does not already have an account) to enable payment while still at the merchant terminal. For example, the store clerk may ask the customer, and if the customer agrees, the clerk may enter an acceptance through the merchant terminal.”; Examiner notes the unregistered customer gives information to the clerk about wanting to register.)
This technique of Mudaliar is applicable to the system of Ellis as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to processing payment information. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Ellis to incorporate the known technique of providing a merchant with information about a buyer as taught by Mudaliar. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Ellis in order to improve the merchants' revenue and the customer's shopping experience (see Abstract of Mudaliar).
Regarding claim 10, Ellis in view of Kelly in further view of Garg teaches the electronic device of claim 9.
wherein the processor is configured to execute the at least one instruction to pr(Col. 33, ll. 66 – Col. 34, ll. 24 “At process 316, the user's mobile wallet interfaces are configured. […] In some arrangements, the mobile wallet circuit 154 determines the [payment] vehicles to include based on information received from the user (e.g., via the registration interfaces presented at 304)”)
Ellis in view of Kelly in further view of Garg does not teach:
wherein the processor is configured to execute the at least one instruction to provide the driver with guidance for designating information about a caller to be registered corresponding to the card information obtained based on the first card tagging among the information about each of the plurality of callers when the plurality of callers exists according to information about a caller who is not registered corresponding to the card information.
However, Mudaliar teaches the known technique of providing the merchant with guidance for designating information about a buyer to be registered corresponding to the card information, obtained based on the first card tagging among the information about each of the plurality of buyers when the plurality of buyers exists according to information about a buyer who is not registered corresponding to the card information. (Paragraph [0029] “the customer swipes a credit card in a case where the customer is attempting to make a payment with the credit card or desires to make a payment using the payment service provider, at the merchant terminal (302). Once the credit card is determined to not be acceptable for use with the merchant, the merchant terminal transmits the personally identifiable information embedded on the credit card to the server (303). Note that […] the customer may be asked whether the customer wishes to create a new account (assuming the customer does not already have an account) to enable payment while still at the merchant terminal. For example, the store clerk may ask the customer, and if the customer agrees, the clerk may enter an acceptance through the merchant terminal.”; Examiner notes the merchant terminal prompts the clerk to designate information.)
The motivation for making this modification to the teachings of Ellis is the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 9.
Claims 19 and 20:
Claim(s) 19 and 20 is/are directed to a method. Claim(s) 19 and 20 recite limitations parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim(s) 9 and 10, which are directed towards an electronic device (i.e., a machine). Claim(s) 19-20 is/are therefore rejected for the same reasons as set above for claim(s) 9 and 10, respectively.
Additionally, in regard to claim 19, the Examiner further notes the recited “when” on line 4 does not move to distinguish the claimed invention from the cited art. This phrase is a conditional/contingent limitation with the noted “providing…” step(s) not necessarily performed. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. [See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system claims.; MPEP §2111.04 II].
Additionally, in regard to claim 20, the Examiner further notes the recited “when” on line 6 does not move to distinguish the claimed invention from the cited art. This phrase is a conditional/contingent limitation with the noted “providing…” step(s) not necessarily performed. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. [See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system claims.; MPEP §2111.04 II].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Page(s) 8, filed 1 April 2026, with respect to the claim objections of claim(s) 1-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the amendments to the claims overcomes the objections. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. While the amendments overcame the objections of claims 1-10, claim 11 was not amended. Therefore, the Examiner is still objecting to claims 11-20.
Applicant's arguments, see Page(s) 8-10, filed 1 April 2026, with respect to the 35 USC § 101 rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues 1) the claims are integrated into a practical application and 2) the claims provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding argument 1, the Applicant argues the claims are integrated into a practical application because the claims recite a technical improvement. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) states:
The phrase "methods of organizing human activity" is used to describe concepts relating to:
fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk);
commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations); and
managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
USPTO guidance uses the term ‘‘additional elements’’ to refer to claim features, limitations, and/or steps that are recited in the claim beyond the identified judicial exception. The improvements that the Applicant recites on Page 9 of the Remarks are all part of the abstract idea. For example, caller convenience, accessibility of vehicle calling, reduction of the maintenance cost, and service accessibility for the transportation disadvantaged are all improvements to the abstract idea of vehicle ridesharing, not the technology of the system. Since the improvements do not go beyond the identified judicial exception, the improvement is not considered to be technical in nature. Therefore the invention is an improvement to the abstract idea and not to a specific technical problem. An improvement to the abstract idea does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Regarding argument 2, the Applicant argues the additional elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitations recited on page 9 of the remarks are largely abstract. USPTO guidance uses the term ‘‘additional elements’’ to refer to claim features, limitations, and/or steps that are recited in the claim beyond the identified judicial exception. The only additional elements recited on claim 9 of the remarks is “the electronic device” and a first and third card tagging. Paragraph [0014] of the instant specification recites “an electronic device includes a memory that stores at least one instruction and includes a processor that executes the at least
one instruction.” A device with a processor and memory is considered a generic computing device. Therefore, the electronic device individually or in combination does not integrate the exception into a practical application because it merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Furthermore, the additional element of a first card tagging and a third card tagging is interpreted under BRI as the physical act of giving information about a card. This does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., particular way to collect data) (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), which does not integrate the claim(s) into a practical application. Accordingly, these additional element(s) do not provide significantly more than the judicial exception because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The Examiner maintains claims 1-20 recites a judicial exception without significantly more.
Applicant's arguments, see Page(s) 10-13, filed 1 April 2026, with respect to the 35 USC § 103 rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the cited prior art does not teach the amendments to claims 1 and 11 that were incorporated from claims 3 and 13 of the claims filed 4 March 2025. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The Examiner is relying on primary art Ellis to teach card information obtained from a third card tagging. Based on the instant specification, the BRI of the tagging of a card is inputting card information to a device. Ellis Col. 31, ll. 17-45 recites:
At process 304, the user is presented with one or more registration interfaces. In various arrangements, the mobile wallet circuit 154 transmits registration interfaces to the computing device that the registration preference was received from (e.g., the user mobile device 110 or the financial institution computing system 130) over the network 170. The registration interfaces may request various forms of information from the user. For example, one registration interface may prompt the user to establish login credentials (e.g., a username and password) for the mobile wallet. Another registration interface may prompt the user to input information that can be used to authenticate the user. For example, a registration interface may ask the user to input information pertaining to a payment vehicle that the user wishes to provision to the mobile wallet and authentication credentials (e.g., an address or PIN) that can be used to authenticate the user. Other registration interfaces may prompt the user to input information pertaining to payment vehicles (e.g., accounts, gift cards, credit cards, and the like) that the user wishes to provision to the mobile wallet. Another registration interface may prompt a new mobile wallet user to indicate a preference to activate a new payment account (e.g., a credit card) with the financial institution. In some arrangements, responsive to the new mobile wallet user indicating such a preference, another registration interface may prompt the user to take capture images of identification and/or other documentation required to establish a payment account at the financial institution.
Ellis recites the ability for a device to receive information about a user’s credit card via an interface of a device. However, Ellis is silent to determining whether the card information obtained matches the registered card information, when the card information is registered corresponding to the information about the caller; and paying for a vehicle boarding of the caller based on the third card, when the card information obtained based on the third card matches the registered card information. However, Garg Paragraph [0027] recites:
Referring back to the example, in one variation, the request manage 112 can identify the payment profile ID from the transport request 183 and determine if the payment profile ID matches a stored payment profile ID associated with a business account 151. For example, the request manage 112 can perform a search operation of the business database 150a using the payment profile ID from the transport request 183. If the request manage 112 determines that the payment profile ID does not match a payment profile ID associated with a business account 151 and/or if the request manage 112 determines that the payment profile ID matches one associated with the user's account 155, the request manage 112 can cause the dispatch 110 to process the transport request 183 normally, e.g., the driver select 116 can select a driver for the user based on the pickup location, the destination location, and/or driver information from the driver database 150d (e.g., such as the drivers' current locations and statuses). For example, the driver track 160 can periodically and/or intermittently receive driver information 161 from driver devices 190, via the driver device interface 130, including the location of the driver devices and/or the state of the driver (e.g., active, available to provide transport services, unavailable, off-duty, etc.), and update the driver database 150d with real-time or close to real-time information about drivers. The location of a driver device can be determined by the GPS resource of the driver device, which the driver application 191 can retrieve and transmit to the system 100.
Paragraph [0075] of Garg recites:
However, if the transport request satisfies one or more rules associated with the business account, the system 100 can transmit a message to the user's client device asking the user if a payment profile associated with the business should be used to in order to pay for the transport service and/or asking the user to confirm the current payment profile (450). In other words, because the user's transport request satisfies one or more rules of a business that the user is associated with, the system 100 can provide the user with an opportunity to change or select the appropriate payment profile for the user's transport service. In one example, the system 100 can determine if it has received an input corresponding to a selection of the payment profile ID associated with the business (460). If no such input is received (e.g., after a predetermined amount of time, such as ten seconds) or if the user confirms that the current payment profile ID is to be used for the transport service, the system 100 can process the transport request to arrange the transport service using the current payment profile ID from the transport request (465). On the other hand, if the system 100 receives an input corresponding to the selection of the payment profile ID associated with the business, the system 100 can process the transport request to arrange the transport service using the payment profile ID associated with the business (470). In such case, if the user has forgotten to select or change the payment profile ID to one that corresponds to a business before making the transport request, the user can provide an input to specify that the user wants the transport service to be paid by the payment profile ID associated with the business.
Therefore, Paragraphs [0027] and [0075] of Garg show how the system determines card information (i.e., payment profile ID) matches the card information registered in association with a profile of the user (i.e., associated with the user profile). Once it is confirmed the profile ID matches a registered profile ID, Paragraph [0075] of Garg shows that the transport request to arrange the service is processed and paid for.
This operation of Garg is applicable to the system of Ellis as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to managing a payment of a user of a transportation service. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Ellis to incorporate the payment verification of Garg. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Ellis in order to charge the user for a transportation service based on the payment profile (see paragraph [0010] of Garg). The Examiner maintains that the combination of Ellis in view of Kelly in further view of Gard teaches the claims as amended.
With regards to claims 2-10 and 12-20 the applicant argues these claims are allowable due to their dependence on claims 1 and 11. As stated in the arguments above, the Examiner is maintaining the rejections for claims 1 and 11. Therefore, claims 2, 4-10, 12, and 14-20 remain rejected. Claims 3 and 13 have been cancelled.
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 DANIELLE ELIZABETH ZEVITZ whose telephone number is (703)756-1070. The examiner can normally be reached Mo-Th 10am-6pm.
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, Lynda Jasmin can be reached at (571) 272-6782. 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.
/DANIELLE ELIZABETH ZEVITZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3628 /GEORGE CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights