DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 Application
Claims 1-18 have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits.
Priority
This application is a continuation of United States Patent Application No. 18/102,135, filed on January 27, 2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed 4/22/2025 has been considered.
Allowable Subject Matter – Claim Objections
Claims 2, 8, and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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, 3-7, 9-13, and 15-18 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 1-6 recite “A method…” (i.e. ***a machine, process, article of manufacture***); claims 7-12 recite “A system…” (i.e. a machine); and claims 13-18 recite “A computer-program product comprising programming instructions stored in non-transitory memory…” (i.e. an article of manufacture). These claims fall under one of the four categories of statutory subject matter and as a result, pass Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility test. However, “Determining that a claim falls within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) in Step 1 does not end the eligibility analysis, because claims directed to nothing more than abstract ideas (such as a mathematical formula or equation), natural phenomena, and laws of nature are not eligible for patent protection.” See MPEP 2106.04. Accordingly, the examiner continues the subject matter eligibility analysis below.
Step 2A Prong One:
Independent claim 1 (and similar claim 7 and 13) recite limitations for:
receiving…from a user…(i) a request to add a rider profile associated with a rider other than the user to the user account and (ii) rider information associated with the rider;
receiving…an indication that the rider profile is a temporary rider profile;
generating…based on the rider information, the temporary rider profile associated with the rider;
providing…to the user…options for one or more types of identification to use to identify the rider and/or unlock the autonomous vehicle when picking-up the rider,
receiving…from the user…a selection by the user of the type of identification to use to identify the rider and/or unlock the autonomous vehicle when picking-up the rider;
receiving…from the user…a pick-up request associated with (i) the user account and (ii) the temporary rider profile associated with the rider;
assigning…based on the pick-up request, an autonomous vehicle to pick-up the rider;
providing…an indication of the type of identification to use to identify the rider and/or unlock the autonomous vehicle when picking-up the rider;
receiving…confirmation that the rider has been picked up; and
deleting…the temporary rider profile after receiving the confirmation that the rider has been picked up
The limitations of independent claims 1, 7 and 13 above are determined to recite an abstract idea (i.e. adding a temporary rider profile for a rider to a user account, selecting an identification method for identifying the rider, arranging a pick-up request for the rider, and deleting the rider account after confirming pickup) for the reasons discussed in the following continued Step 2A Prong One analysis. Note that “An abstract idea can generally be described at different levels of abstraction.” Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1240-41 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
As per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II), claim limitations which recite commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations) or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) fall into the “certain methods of organizing human activity” category of judicial exceptions. Therefore, since the processes described by the limitations above amount to a commercial interaction and managing interactions between people (i.e. adding a temporary rider profile for a rider to a user account, selecting an identification method for identifying the rider, arranging a pick-up request for the rider, and deleting the rider account after confirming pickup), the claims fall into the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
As described in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), “[T]he "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions.” and “If a claim recites a limitation that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, the limitation falls within the mental processes grouping, and the claim recites an abstract idea.” The limitations recited by the representative independent claims 1, 7 and 13 above, under the broadest reasonable interpretation and but for the use of generic computer components, cover concepts (e.g. observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion) that can reasonably be performed in the human mind or by the human mind with the aid of simple tools such as pen and paper. For example, the various “receiving” steps above describe observations, while the “generating,” “providing,” “assigning,” “providing,” and “deleting” steps would be considered evaluations, judgments, and opinions – with the “providing” steps being analogous to providing written (e.g. pen and paper) or verbal information via the human mind. Therefore, as the processes above described by the representative independent claims 1, 7 and 13 can be characterized as mental processes (i.e. observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion), but for the recitation of generic computer components in the claims, the claims fall under the “mental processes” category of judicial exceptions (i.e. abstract ideas).
As claims 1, 7 and 13 are identified by the examiner as reciting concepts that fall under more than one abstract idea grouping (i.e. “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes”), the examiner considers the limitations together as a single abstract idea for the purposes of the Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B analysis, in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(II)(B).
Step 2A Prong Two:
Claims 1, 7 and 13 recite the following additional elements:
“at least one processor” of claim 1
“A system, comprising: a memory; and at least one processor coupled to the memory and configured to…” of claim 7
“A computer program product comprising programming instructions stored in non-transitory memory that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to…” of claim 13
“a user device associated with a user account of a user” of claims 1, 7 and 13
“for an autonomous vehicle service” of claims 1, 7 and 13
“wherein the one or more types of identification comprise remote authorization by the user via the user device, automatic entry via a passcode provided to the rider by the user, or combinations thereof” of claims 1, 7 and 13
The judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) recited in claims 1, 7 and 13 is not integrated into a practical application because the claims recite mere instructions to apply the abstract idea (i.e. adding a temporary rider profile for a rider to a user account, selecting an identification method for identifying the rider, arranging a pick-up request for the rider, and deleting the rider account after confirming pickup) using generic computers/computer components (i.e. “at least one processor” of claim 1; “A system, comprising: a memory; and at least one processor coupled to the memory and configured to…” of claim 7; “A computer program product comprising programming instructions stored in non-transitory memory that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to…” of claim 13; and “a user device associated with a user account of a user” of claims 1, 7 and 13). See MPEP 2106.05(f), showing “[C]laims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp.” The use of the at least one processor and the user device to receive and transmit information in the claims at best amount to the use of generic computers in their ordinary capacity (e.g. receiving and transmitting data). The use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application, but instead provides mere instructions apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or computer components. Additionally, that the claimed functions are performed “for an autonomous vehicle service” and “the one or more types of identification comprise remote authorization by the user via the user device, automatic entry via a passcode provided to the rider by the user, or combinations thereof” generally links the performance of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g. autonomous vehicle ride hailing and identification using different means of authorization), but does not provide an inventive concept that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, because the claims, considered as a whole, do not recite anything that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Claims 1, 7 and 13 do not include additional elements, whether considered alone or as an ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) because as mentioned above, the claims recite mere instructions to apply the abstract idea (i.e. adding a temporary rider profile for a rider to a user account, selecting an identification method for identifying the rider, arranging a pick-up request for the rider, and deleting the rider account after confirming pickup) using generic computers/computer components (i.e. “at least one processor” of claim 1; “A system, comprising: a memory; and at least one processor coupled to the memory and configured to…” of claim 7; “A computer program product comprising programming instructions stored in non-transitory memory that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to…” of claim 13; and “a user device associated with a user account of a user” of claims 1, 7 and 13). See MPEP 2106.05(f), showing “[C]laims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp.” The use of the at least one processor and the user device to receive and transmit information in the claims at best amount to the use of generic computers in their ordinary capacity (e.g. receiving and transmitting data). The use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not provide significantly more. Additionally, that the claimed functions are performed “for an autonomous vehicle service” and “the one or more types of identification comprise remote authorization by the user via the user device, automatic entry via a passcode provided to the rider by the user, or combinations thereof” generally links the performance of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g. autonomous vehicle ride hailing and identification using different means of authorization), but does not provide an inventive concept that adds significantly more.
Considering the additional elements as an ordered combination does not add anything that amounts to significantly more. Therefore, claims 1, 7, and 13 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Dependent Claims 3-6, 9-12, and 15-18:
Dependent claims 3-6, 9-12, and 15-18 are directed to the same abstract idea as independent claims 1, 7 and 13 above as they do not recite anything that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application or amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 3, 9 and 15 recite mere instructions to further apply the abstract idea (“receive…a selection by the user of automatic entry via a passcode provided to the rider by the user as the type of identification to use to identify the rider; provide the passcode to (i) the user…associated with the user account…receive…confirmation that the passcode was used to access the autonomous vehicle”) using generic computer components (i.e. “the at least one processor,” and receiving/transmitting data by the at least one processor, the user device, and the autonomous vehicle assigned to pick-up the rider of claims 3, 9 and 15). The selected identification being a passcode only generally links the performance of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Claims 4, 10, and 16 recite mere instructions to further apply the abstract idea (“providing…a notification…when the rider has been identified and/or the autonomous vehicle has been unlocked”) using generic computer components (i.e. “the at least one processor” and “to the user device associated with the user account” of claims 4, 10, and 16).
Claims 5, 11, and 17 recite further steps involving the use of the at least one processor as an additional element operating in its ordinary capacity to transmit information (“sending an image including the rider and/or an audio recording of the rider’s voice to confirm that the rider has been picked-up by the autonomous vehicle” of claim 5 and the similar limitations of claims 11 and 17). Thus, the claims use generic computer implementation to perform steps to confirm that the rider has been picked up and provide image or audio data as confirmation of the pick-up.
Claims 6, 12, and 18 recite further instructions to apply an abstract idea (“automatically deleting…the image including the rider and/or the audio recording of the rider’s voice after providing the notification…”) using generic computers (i.e. “the at least one processor” and “to the user device associated with the user account” of claims 6, 12, and 18).
Therefore, claims 1, 3-7, 9-13, and 15-18 are ineligible under § 101.
Note: Claims 2, 8, and 14 (using claim 2 as representative) are not rejected under § 101 as they recite “receiving, with the at least one processor, from the user device associated with the user account, a selection of remote authorization by the user via the user device as the type of identification to use to identify the rider; receiving, with the at least one processor, from the autonomous vehicle assigned to pick-up the rider, at least one of an image of the rider, an audio recording of the rider’s voice, or any combination thereof; providing, with the at least one processor, to the user device associated with the user account, the at least one of an image of the rider, the audio recording of the rider’s voice, or any combination thereof; receiving, with the at least one processor, from the user device associated with the user account, a confirmation to unlock the autonomous vehicle for the rider; and providing, with the at least one processor, to the autonomous vehicle assigned to pick-up the rider, based on the confirmation, an unlock command to unlock a door of the autonomous vehicle” – considered together as an ordered combination, these limitations add significantly more than the abstract idea, as the claims recite specific steps to perform identification and remote authorization and provide an unlock command to unlock a door of the autonomous vehicle that is tied to these identification/remote authorization steps.
Novelty/Non-Obviousness
Claims 1-18 are novel and nonobvious over the prior art for the following reasons. The most relevant prior art to the instant application is cited below:
US 20200342562 A1 to Lerner et al. (Lerner) teaches a method (Lerner: ¶ 0004, ¶ 0007, ¶ 0027) for receiving, by a processor (Lerner: ¶ 0006, ¶ 0009, ¶ 0083-0089) a ride hailing request from a first user device on behalf of a second user (rider) and including user information of the second user (rider) that is to be picked up by an autonomous/semi-autonomous vehicle (Lerner: ¶ 0040-0041, ¶ 0046-0047, ¶ 0038), wherein there a rider profile associated with the second user (Lerner: ¶ 0041-0041, ¶ 0046-0048 profile of user 108); generating a rider profile associated with the rider (Lerner: ¶ 0040-0041; ¶ 0048 and Fig. 1C); assigning an autonomous vehicle to pickup the rider (Lerner: ¶ 0040); providing identification information associated with the rider from the rider profile that is to be used to identify the rider or unlock the autonomous vehicle when picking up the rider (Lerner: ¶ 0041); and wherein the autonomous vehicle assigned to pick up the rider uses audio or camera sensors for monitoring the vehicle surrounding (Lerner: ¶ 0040-0043, ¶ 0053, ¶ 0038).
US 20150203125 A1 Penilla et al. (Penilla) teaches that a first user with a user account can create sub-profiles/logins for additional users such as children, spouse, valet, etc. for accessing a vehicle (Penilla: ¶ 0085, ¶ 0087, ¶ 0096-0097, ¶ 0104-0105).
US 20190318159 A1 to Blanc-Paques et al. (Blanc-Paques) teaches a first user entering a ride request on behalf of a second user, wherein when the second user approached the autonomous vehicle, the vehicle detects the second user approaching, captures an image of the second user via a camera or optical sensor, transmits a message with the image of the second user to the first user’s mobile device with a prompt to confirm the second user’s access to the autonomous vehicle, and unlocks the door for the second user to initiate the ride/pickup (Blanc-Paques: ¶ 0085 generally).
US 20210026345 A1 to Ito et al. (Ito) teaches an autonomous ride hailing system where a parent may order a vehicle to pick up another user, and enter an authentication code during the booking process which is transmitted to a portable terminal of the other user (e.g. a parent orders a vehicle for a child that is picked up from a nursery to bring home) (Ito: ¶ 0032, ¶ 0079-0080, ¶ 0092, ¶ 010, ¶ 0109, 0112).
US 20210245708 A1 to Eathakota teaches providing temporary access to a user to a vehicle for a test drive wherein the vehicle is an autonomous vehicle, and the vehicle picks up the user for the test drive (Eathakota: ¶ 0036-0040, Fig. 3).
US 20220258773 A1 to Narayanan et al. (Narayanan) teaches receiving a ride hailing request including biometric information associated with another used, sending a pickup communication to an autonomous vehicle including the biometric information and rider identification information, receiving an identity verification from the rider matching the receiving biometric information , and causing the autonomous vehicle to transport the rider (Narayanan: Fig. 5 and ¶ 0081-0085).
US 20200007338 A1 to Oh teaches at least generating encryption keys for biometric information for riders to access a vehicle (Oh: ¶ 0071-0072, ¶ 0075-0076) associated with a rider profile (Oh: ¶ 014-0143, 0132-0135, ¶ 0072-0073); where the encrypted biometric information is automatically deleted upon cancellation of a shared vehicle reservation (Oh: ¶ 0162-0163, ¶ 0034).
NPL Reference U (“Vaidya,” see current PTO-892) generally teaches security protocols for peer-to-peer car sharing between an owner and a rider/user mainly focusing on addressing various threats and vulnerability in such systems through token based authentication means (Vaidya: Pg. 24-33).
However, the prior art fails to teach claims 1, 7 and 13 as a whole. Specifically, while the prior art teaches a first user device creating a profile and requesting ridesharing services on behalf of a second user in order to pick-up the second user, it does not teach, in combination with all of the other limitations of claims 1, 7 , and 13, the specific combination of limitations where the created profile is indicated as a temporary profile, wherein the first user selects an option for a type of identification/authorization which the second user uses, and wherein the temporary rider profile is automatically deleted after receiving a confirmation that the rider has been picked. To the extent that the prior art teaches some of these concepts individually, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have found any combination of the prior art to teach all of the limitations of claim 1 without requiring an excessive number of prior art references that would not have been obvious to combine with predictable results to arrive at the claimed invention.
Therefore, claims 1-18 are not taught by the prior art. The examiner also notes that the claims recite novel/nonobvious subject matter over the claims in the allowed parent application when considered as a whole.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hunter Molnar whose telephone number is (571)272-8271. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30 - 4:00 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, Jeffrey Zimmerman can be reached at (571)272-4602. 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.
/HUNTER MOLNAR/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights