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 the Claims
Claims 1, 3, 5-6 are pending. Claims 1, 3, 5, and 6 are amended. Claims 2 and 4 are cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 12/16/2025, with respect to the 112f claim interpretation has been considered and is persuasive. Applicant has amended the claims to remove the limitations being interpreted under 112f.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 12/16/2025, with respect to the 101 rejection has been considered but is not persuasive.
Applicant argues, on pages 11-12, that claim 1 does not fall into the abstract idea groupings and that even if the claims fall within the categories, the additional elements integrate the judicial exception into practical application.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim limitations as drafted, recite a concept, that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, is a certain method of organizing human activity. The limitations are analogous to managing personal behavior or interactions between people (interactions between people), or a commercial or legal interaction (sales activity) such as assigning drivers based on skill for passenger who have motion sickness (See Specification, Par. 0007). The generic computer implementations do not change the character of the limitations. The additional elements (computer elements, sensors, input device, etc) are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, the additional elements, when viewed individually and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h))
Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Applicant also argues on pages 11-12 that the claims recite specific sensors. Applicant also argues that the features of the claim are directed to specific computing operations for providing a more tailored vehicle assignment, as opposed to a simple distance-based assignment, an improvement to a respective technological field would be reasonably apparent to an ordinary artisan.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As mentioned above, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology. Here, an alleged improvement to vehicle assignment is an improvement to the business practice/abstract idea and not a technology or technical field.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 12/16/2025, with respect to the art rejection has been considered and is persuasive. Examiner has included the closest prior art of record 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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1, 3 and 5 is directed to a system with multiple components, and therefore is a machine.
Claim 6 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable media and therefore are an article of manufacture.
Independent Claims
Step 2A Prong One
The limitation of Claim 1 recites:
obtain first evaluation values pertaining to the driver of the vehicle which is present within a predetermined distance from a riding point where the user gets on the vehicle, the first evaluation values measuring driving skill in terms of a respective plurality of driving items capable of inducing motion sickness, the first evaluation values measuring driving skills quantify at least one of an acceleration and deceleration during straight driving of the vehicle, acceleration and deceleration of the vehicle during curving, starting and stopping of the vehicle, and braking causing the vehicle to be shaken in a pitch direction at an acceleration of not less than a given threshold when the vehicle stops;
obtain second evaluation values measuring how easily the user gets motion sickness due to the respective plurality of driving items;
obtain, on a basis of the first evaluation values and the second evaluation values, third evaluation values measuring how easily the user gets motion sickness due to driver's driving;
determine, on a basis of the third evaluation values, the driver to be assigned to the user,
to obtain, …, information pertaining to a feature of the vehicle,
…, … obtains a riding point of the user …,
… obtains each of the third evaluation values for the respective plurality of driving items on a basis of a product of a corresponding one of the first evaluation values and a corresponding one of the second evaluation values, and
wherein at least the processor obtains each of the third evaluation values by correcting the product of the corresponding one of the first evaluation values and the corresponding one of the second evaluation values on a basis of the information pertaining to the feature of the vehicle.
The limitation of Claim 6 recites:
obtain first evaluation values pertaining to a driver of a vehicle which is present within a predetermined distance from a riding point where a user gets on the vehicle, the first evaluation values measuring driving skill in terms of a respective plurality of driving items capable of inducing motion sickness, the first evaluation values measuring driving skills quantify at least one of an acceleration and deceleration during straight driving of the vehicle, acceleration and deceleration of the vehicle during curving, starting and stopping of the vehicle, and braking causing the vehicle to be shaken in a pitch direction at an acceleration of not less than a given threshold when the vehicle stops;
obtain second evaluation values measuring how easily the user gets motion sickness due to the respective plurality of driving items;
obtain, on a basis of the first evaluation values and the second evaluation values, third evaluation values measuring how easily the user gets motion sickness due to driver's driving;
determine, on a basis of the third evaluation values, the driver to be assigned to the user,
to obtain…, information pertaining to a feature of the vehicle, and
to communicate … and to obtain a riding point of the user by communicating …,
…, wherein each of the third evaluation values for the respective plurality of driving items is obtained on a basis of a product of a corresponding one of the first evaluation values and a corresponding one of the second evaluation values, and
wherein each of the third evaluation values is obtained by correcting the product of the corresponding one of the first evaluation values and the corresponding one of the second evaluation values on a basis of the information pertaining to the feature of the vehicle.
The claim limitations as drafted, recite a concept, that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, is a certain method of organizing human activity. The limitations are analogous to managing personal behavior or interactions between people (interactions between people), or a commercial or legal interaction (sales activity) such as assigning drivers based on skill for passenger who have motion sickness. The generic computer implementations (see below) do not change the character of the limitations. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements:
Claim 1:
A vehicle dispatch device which provides a vehicle dispatch service for assigning, to a user, a driver who drives a vehicle, the vehicle dispatch device comprising:
at least a processor configured to:
plurality of sensors
wherein the plurality of sensors includes a temperature sensor, an odor sensor, an acceleration sensor and a sound collecting sensor
an input device that communicates with at least the processor
Claim 6:
A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium in which a program for causing a computer to function as a vehicle dispatch device is stored, the program causing the computer to perform:
plurality of sensors
wherein the plurality of sensors includes a temperature sensor, an odor sensor, an acceleration sensor and a sound collecting sensor
input device
These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, the additional elements, when viewed individually and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h))
Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements, amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The same analysis applies here in 2B. The additional elements, when considered separately and in combination, do not add significantly more to the exception. They are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claims are ineligible.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 3 and 5 further narrow the same abstract ideas recited in Claims 1. Therefore, claims 3 and 5 are directed to an abstract idea for the reasons given above.
Step 2A Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the dependent claims recite the following additional elements:
Claim 3:
Processor
Claim 5:
processor
These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, the additional elements, when viewed individually and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h))
Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements, amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The same analysis applies here in 2B. The additional elements, when considered separately and in combination, do not add significantly more to the exception. They are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claims are ineligible.
Novelty/Non-Obviousness
The closest prior art of record is:
Yamala (US20230154323A1)
Bielby (US20210347367)
Hodge (US20200349666A1)
Yamala teaches the systems described herein generate a score card for the operator of the vehicle. In some embodiments, the system is configured to qualify or disqualify a driver for a particular ride if the system identifies that the profiled driver cannot adhere to derived/recommended speeds, or would otherwise likely exceed a potential passenger's parameters for a satisfactory transport experience, at least partially based on the established operator's and passenger's profiles. (i.e. driving skill). Yamala teaches the historical records 176 of the passengers are used to establish historical patterns of the passengers with respect to the type of trips taken, particular preferences for drivers (aggressive versus non-aggressive drivers, preferred speed limits, air conditioning settings), particular requirements of the passengers (e.g., without limitation, aid required for onboarding/entry to the vehicle and for exiting the vehicle, presence of small children, pregnant passengers, susceptible to motion sickness/nausea), and any other data that facilitates better matching of certain operators with certain passengers to provide a more satisfying experience for both. (i.e. capable of inducing motion sickness). Yamala, in Par. 0025, teaches the assigned colors are thereby presented to the passengers, the occupants (drivers and passengers) of nearby vehicles, and pedestrians to inform them of the real time disposition of the operator of the vehicle to facilitate and to take the appropriate level of caution in the vicinity thereof. (i.e. predetermined distance) Yamala teaches an operator of a vehicle that rarely deviates from the predetermined route and drives defensively will obtain a different color coding from an operator of a vehicle that tends to violate posted speed limits and takes route deviations that are at least discomforting to the passengers. One color coding scheme that is used in some embodiments includes “red” to identify the operator as potentially unsafe for the given traffic, weather, and road conditions, therefore some additional distance should be granted between the commercial transport vehicle 360 and adjacent vehicles, and potential passengers may be dissuaded from using that particular driver, especially if such potential passengers have indicated that they prefer less risky travel experiences. The same color coding scheme will also include “yellow” or “amber” to indicate that the operator, for the given conditions, is less risky and that caution should be taken. In addition, the color coding scheme includes “green” to indicate that the operator will most likely meet or exceed the potential passengers' expectations and that proximate drivers should extend the typical level of caution toward the commercial transport vehicle 360. Additional color codes may be used for vehicles in distress, e.g., purple. Yamala teaches the operators will have numerical rankings assigned through a predetermined ranking process, and each individual potential passenger 338 has an option to designate passenger-defined thresholds for particular aspects of the operators' performance. Accordingly, the system 300 is configured to qualify particular operators for particular potential passengers 338 and to disqualify other operators for the same routes and current weather/traffic/road conditions. (i.e. determining driver).
However, Yamala does not explicitly teach the specific sensors as well as the explicit evaluation values for acceleration and deceleration. Yamala also does not teach the input device to obtain a riding point. Finally, Yamala does not teach evaluation values measuring driving skill specifically, evaluation values for the respective plurality of driving items on a basis of a product of a corresponding one of the first evaluation values and a corresponding one of the second evaluation values, and wherein at least the processor obtains each of the third evaluation values by correcting the product of the corresponding one of the first evaluation values and the corresponding one of the second evaluation values on a basis of the information pertaining to the feature of the vehicle.
Bielby teaches A set of mechanical components for controlling the driving of the vehicle 102 can include: (1) a brake mechanism on wheels of the vehicle (for stopping the spinning of the wheels), (2) a throttle mechanism on an engine or motor of the vehicle (for regulation of how much gas goes into the engine, or how much electrical current goes into the motor), which determines how fast a driving shaft can spin and thus how fast the vehicle can run, and (3) a steering mechanism for the direction of front wheels of the vehicle (for example, so the vehicle goes in the direction of where the wheels are pointing to). These mechanisms can control the braking (or deacceleration), acceleration (or throttling), and steering of the vehicle 102. The driver can indirectly control these mechanisms by UI elements (e.g., see other components 216 of vehicle 202 shown in FIG. 3) that can be operated upon by the user, which are typically the brake pedal, the acceleration pedal, and the steering wheel. The pedals and the steering wheel are not necessarily mechanically connected to the driving mechanisms for braking, acceleration and steering. Such parts can have or be proximate to sensors that measure how much the driver has pressed on the pedals and/or turned the steering wheel. Bielby also taches various sensors including sound and temperature. However, Bielby does not teach all the remaining limitations as described above.
Hodge teaches a passenger may request to give a video review of a ride using the vehicle-mounted client device. In such instance, a review mode may be initiated which allows for the video and audio recording of a passenger's review of a driver. The recorded review is then stored and may be made available to future users. Further, according to another aspect of this embodiment, ratings between passengers and drivers may each be linked to video evidence during a ride to confirm the particular rating, especially useful when either the driver or the passenger is given a poor rating. For example, if the passenger is intoxicated and gets sick (i.e., throws up) in the vehicle, the driver can give the passenger a poor rating and the rideshare company can charge the passenger a “clean-up” fee to cover the cost of cleaning up the mess. If the passenger disputes the charge, the driver and the passenger will have immediate access to the video footage recorded by the present device during the ride, showing, in this example, the passenger throwing up in the back seat. Hodge teaches typical rideshare service allows a user needing a ride to request a rideshare pickup at their present location. They use a mobile application on their mobile device to request the ride. The application “knows” (through GPS of the mobile device) the user's current location, and the locations of nearby registered drivers. The user inputs the desired destination and the program calculates a total price for the trip. The request details automatically appear on the mobile devices or client devices of nearby drivers. Once a driver accepts the request, the user requesting the ride gets confirmation on their mobile device, including a picture of the driver and a stock photo of the driver's car, an estimated time of arrival and a map showing the relative location of the approaching rideshare vehicle. When the driver arrives at the pickup location, the user waiting for the ride receives notification on their mobile device and begins to look for the approaching rideshare vehicle. However Hodge does not teach the limitations as described above.
In conclusion, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the above references to teach all the limitations of the claims.
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 ISMAIL A MANEJWALA whose telephone number is (571)272-8904. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Nathan Uber can be reached at 571-270-3923. 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.
/ISMAIL A MANEJWALA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights