DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to communication filed on 4 March 2025.
Claims 1 – 20 are presented for examination.
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 .
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 the judicial exception of abstract ideas without significantly more. The independent claims recite obtaining a phone number of a user, among a plurality of users, who wants to dispatch a predetermined vehicle included in a plurality of vehicles; transmitting the phone number; receiving the phone number; identifying a record of departure or arrival of the user generated through a dispatch prior to dispatching the predetermined vehicle based on the phone number; transmitting the record of departure or arrival of the user; receiving the record of departure or arrival of the user; providing one or more example stops to the user based on at least one of at least one history stop included in the record of departure or arrival of the user, at least one preset recommended stop not included in the at least one history stop, or any combination thereof; transmitting a signal for dispatching a vehicle to a departure location to transport the user from the departure location to a specified stop based on an input of the user specifying one of the one or more example stops; and dispatching a vehicle to the departure location to transport the user from the departure location to the specified stop. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance section 2106 of the MPEP (hereinafter, MPEP 2106).
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is noted that the device, the system, and the method are directed to an eligible categories of subject matter. Step 1 is satisfied.
With respect to Step 2A prong 1 of MPEP 2106, it is next noted that the claims recite an abstract idea by reciting concepts of managing interactions between people such as vehicle dispatch requests for a user, which falls into the “certain methods of organizing human activity” group within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas set forth in the MPEP 2106. The limitations reciting the abstract idea in independent claims are obtaining a phone number of a user, among a plurality of users, who wants to dispatch a predetermined vehicle included in a plurality of vehicles; transmitting the phone number; receiving the phone number; identifying a record of departure or arrival of the user generated through a dispatch prior to dispatching the predetermined vehicle based on the phone number; transmitting the record of departure or arrival of the user; receiving the record of departure or arrival of the user; providing one or more example stops to the user based on at least one of at least one history stop included in the record of departure or arrival of the user, at least one preset recommended stop not included in the at least one history stop, or any combination thereof; transmitting a signal for dispatching a vehicle to a departure location to transport the user from the departure location to a specified stop based on an input of the user specifying one of the one or more example stops; and dispatching a vehicle to the departure location to transport the user from the departure location to the specified stop.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the MPEP 2106, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements are directed to a memory, a processor, electronic device, and server to implement the abstract idea. However, these elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are directed to the use of generic computing elements to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application (as noted in the MPEP 2106) and is tantamount to simply saying “apply it” using a general purpose computer, which merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment by using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to particular application.
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry, it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional limitations are directed to: a memory, a processor, electronic device, and server. These elements have been considered, but merely serve to tie the invention to a particular operating environment, though at a very high level of generality and without imposing meaningful limitation on the scope of the claim. This does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, and it is not enough to transform an abstract idea into eligible subject matter. Such generic, high-level, and nominal involvement of a computer or computer-based elements for carrying out the invention merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which is not enough to render the claims patent-eligible, as noted at pg. 74624 of Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 241, citing Alice, which in turn cites Mayo.
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that the ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The dependent claims have been fully considered as well, however, similar to the finding for claims above, these claims are similarly directed to the abstract idea of concepts of further limiting the independent claim abstract ideas such as providing example stops, transmitting other information, and identifying records, without integrating it into a practical application and with, at most, a general purpose computer that serves to tie the idea to a particular technological environment, which does not add significantly more to the claims. The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4 – 6, 8 , 9, 12 – 14, 16 – 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. P.G. Pub. 2019/0383633 (hereinafter, Choi) in view of U.S. P.G. Pub. 2021/0004732 (hereinafter, Wang).
Regarding claim 1, Choi teaches an electronic device comprising: a memory; and a processor, wherein the processor is configured to (¶ 44, “Referring to FIG. 3, to perform the above-described transportation service providing method, the privacy server 10 may include a location managing unit 11, a route generating unit 12, and a database (DB) 13. To dispatch a vehicle or generate a driving route according to the above-described transportation service providing method, the plurality of vehicle managing servers 30a and 30b, respectively, may include vehicle managing units 31a and 31b, route directing units 32a and 32b, and high-definition (HD) map DBs 33a and 33b.”).
Choi teaches privacy of users, but does not teach to obtain a phone number of a user, among a plurality of users, who wants to dispatch a predetermined vehicle included in a plurality of vehicles among a plurality of users. However, in the analogous art of user transportation, this is taught by Wang (¶ 58,” service call request includes a user identification (e.g., a user name or a mobile phone number) of the user.”).
Choi further teaches:
obtain a record of departure or arrival of the user generated through a dispatch prior to dispatching the predetermined vehicle based on the phone number (¶ 74,” Vehicle dispatch histories according to the departure locations and destination locations received from user terminals 20 may be cumulatively stored per user terminal 20 in the database 13 of the privacy server 10.”),
provide one or more example stops to the user based on at least one of at least one history stop included in the record of departure or arrival of the user, at least one preset recommended stop not included in the at least one history stop, or any combination thereof (¶ 75,” the database 13 may previously store the number of times in which the vehicle managing server 30 of each company has dispatched vehicles as the vehicle dispatch history corresponding to a particular user terminal 20.”) (¶ 80,” Referring to FIG. 7B, the database 13 may previously store the numbers of times in which the user of a particular user terminal 20 has used the drivers managed by the vehicle managing server 30 of each company.”), and
dispatch a vehicle to a departure location to transport the user from the departure location to a specified stop based on an input of the user specifying one of the one or more example stops (¶ 77, “In the example shown in FIG. 7A, the location managing unit 11 may identify the vehicle managing server 30, which has dispatched vehicles in a minimum number of times based on the vehicle dispatch histories, as the vehicle managing server 30 of company B. Thus, the location managing unit 11 may request the vehicle managing server 30 of company B to dispatch a vehicle.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine phone number identification of vehicle trip request of Wang with the vehicle dispatch user privacy of Choi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these teachings for the benefit of increasing privacy with using phone numbers instead of other personal information to request a car, as that privacy concern is the intention in car dispatch in Choi.
Regarding claim 2, Choi and Wang teach the electronic device of claim 1. Choi teaches wherein the processor is configured to: provide the user with a guide indicating that a previously-dispatched vehicle is traveling to the departure location, if it is identified that there is a record of the user dispatching the previously-dispatched vehicle besides the predetermined vehicle based on the obtained phone number; and obtain a record of departure or arrival of the user based on the phone number if it is identified that there is no record of the user dispatching the previously-dispatched vehicle based on the obtained phone number (¶ 48, “To travel to the destination in a vehicle, the user may enter the departure location and the destination location via the user terminal 20, and the user terminal 20 may transmit the entered departure location and destination location to the privacy server 10.”) (¶ 35, “FIGS. 7A and 7B are tables illustrating vehicle dispatch histories corresponding to a user terminal according to an embodiment of the disclosure. FIGS. 8 and 9 are views illustrating driving routes for a plurality of virtual sections according to an embodiment of the disclosure.”).
Regarding claim 4, Choi and Wang teach the electronic device of claim 1. Choi teaches wherein the processor is configured to provide the user with one or more example stops sorted such that the at least one history stop precedes the at least one recommended stop (¶ 98, “the present invention may change the departure location and destination location received from the user and send a request for a driving route based on the changed locations”).
Regarding claim 5, Choi and Wang teach the electronic device of claim 1. Choi teaches wherein the processor is configured to: provide the user with the one or more example stops sorted based on an order in which the record of departure or arrival of the user has occurred, if it is determined based on the record of departure or arrival of the user that the at least one history stop exists; and provide the user with the one or more example stops sorted based on the recommended stop, if it is determined based on the record of departure or arrival of the user that the at least one history stop does not exist (¶ 59, “the nearby destination location 120′ may be a nearby location of the destination location 120. Specifically, the nearby destination location 120′ may fall within a preset radius (e.g., 500 m) of the destination location 120. The preset radius may be varied as necessary.”).
Regarding claim 6, Choi and Wang teach the electronic device of claim 1. Choi teaches wherein the processor is configured to provide the user with the one or more example stops sorted such that a history stop included in the record of arrival of the user among the at least one history stop precedes a history stop included in the record of departure of the user among the at least one history stop if the record of departure of the user and the record of arrival of the user has occurred due to a single trip (¶ 75, “the database 13 may previously store the number of times in which the vehicle managing server 30 of each company has dispatched vehicles as the vehicle dispatch history corresponding to a particular user terminal 20”).
Regarding claim 8, Choi and Wang teach the electronic device of claim 1. Choi teaches wherein the processor is configured to identify the one or more example stops such that the at least one recommended stop is included in the one or more example stops, wherein a number of the one or more example stops is less than a specified number (¶ 93, “request a particular vehicle managing server 30 to selectively dispatch a vehicle or to selectively dispatch a particular vehicle or a vehicle driven by a particular driver, thereby preventing the user's information from being cumulatively stored in any one vehicle managing server 30 or any one vehicle and preventing any one driver from repeatedly perceiving the user's information.”) (¶ 104, “the location managing unit 11 may individually send requests for driving routes for adjacent ones among the plurality of virtual sections to different vehicle managing servers 30.”).
Regarding claims 9 and 13, the claims recite substantially similar limitations to claim 1. Therefore, claims 9 and 13 are similarly rejected for the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claims 12 and 16, the claims recite substantially similar limitations to claim 4. Therefore, claims 12 and 16 are similarly rejected for the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 4.
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites substantially similar limitations to claim 2. Therefore, claim 14 is similarly rejected for the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 2.
Regarding claim 17, the claim recites substantially similar limitations to claim 5. Therefore, claim 17 is similarly rejected for the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 5.
Regarding claim 18, the claim recites substantially similar limitations to claim 6. Therefore, claim 18 is similarly rejected for the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 6.
Regarding claim 20, the claim recites substantially similar limitations to claim 8. Therefore, claim 20 is similarly rejected for the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 8.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMANDA GURSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-5961. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 7am to 5pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Epstein can be reached at 571-270-5389. 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.
/AMANDA GURSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights