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 .
Contents of this Office Action:
35 U.S.C. 101 rejections for claims directed to an abstract idea
35 U.S.C. 101 rejections for claims directed to signals per se
35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections
Prior art rejections
Relevant Prior art not cited
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 non-statutory subject matter. Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claims as a whole, claims 1-20 are held to claim an unpatentable abstract idea, and are therefore rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
The limitations of the independent claims of detecting a location of a device of a service requester; determining a level of accuracy associated with the detected location; based on the detected location and the level of accuracy, determining one or more potential pickup points by: determining a singular potential pickup point based on the level of accuracy exceeding a threshold; or determining a plurality of potential pickup points based on the level of accuracy not exceeding the threshold; and causing presentation of a pickup point user interface that presents the one or more potential pickup points covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting the application of the steps by a generic processor nothing is being recited that could not be performed mentally. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the ‘Mental Processes’ grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the elements of a processor to perform the listed steps. The processor is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim 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 element of using a processor to perform the listed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Turning to the dependent claims 2-6 and 12 merely specify the accuracy level and thresholds, claim 7 recites displaying information, claim 8 recites receiving steps and establishing a transportation service, which broadly is simply sending data, claim 9 recites receiving and displaying data, claim 10 discloses displaying data, claim 13 discloses selecting data. Claim 11 is also not compliant with 35 U.S.C. 101 because although it recites a GPS, it only states that the level of accuracy is “based on” a GPS, and even this is not required because it is an “or” limitation with one of the options being simply a confidence score. All other claims are mirror claims.
SECOND 35 U.S.C. 101 Rejection: claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to signals per se. The claim recites a machine storage medium which can be transitory or propagating signals. The Specification, P23, in fact includes transitory signals. The claim should be amended to recite a non-transitory machine storage medium.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
The following claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention:
Claim 2 recites that a level of accuracy comprises a very high level of accuracy, but very high is a term of degree. The Examiner will interpret this as simply being above a threshold, as described in claim 1.
Claims 3 and 6 recite that a level of accuracy comprises a high level of accuracy, but high is a term of degree. The Examiner will interpret this as simply being above a threshold, as described in claim 1.
Claims 4 and 5 recite that a level of accuracy comprises a medium level of accuracy, but medium is a term of degree. The Examiner will interpret this as simply below a threshold, as described in claim 1 since the rest of the claim recites a plurality of potential pickup points, which only happens when the accuracy is below a threshold.
These rejections apply to mirror claims depending on claim 14.
All dependent claims from these claims are rejected as well.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-8, 11-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hwang US10264389.
Regarding claims 1, 14, and 20, Hwang discloses a method, system, and medium comprising:
detecting, by one or more hardware processors, a location of a device of a service requester (Col. 7, lines 10-25 disclose in some embodiments, the transportation matching system 102 receives a partial or incomplete transportation request from the requestor computing device 106 a that does not include a pickup location. In response to receiving a session indicator, the transportation matching system 102 can further receive a device-based location associated with the requestor computing device 106 a);
determining a level of accuracy associated with the detected location (Col. 7, lines 15-20 disclose the transportation matching system 102 then analyzes historical information associated with the session indicator and attributes of the device-based location to generate a confidence score representing a level of confidence that the device-based location is an appropriate pickup location. Col. 9, lines 1-20 disclose the confidence score is based on an accuracy of the device-based location. For example, in one or more embodiments, the transportation matching system can analyze various factors associated with device-based location data. In one or more embodiments, the transportation matching system generates an accuracy score based on one or more device-based location data. For instance, each of the factors can be represented by a value or a weighted value to determine an overall accuracy level. Alternatively, any one of the factors, if at a predetermined value, can indicate an accuracy level. For example, if the number of GPS signals is above a predefined number, then the transportation matching system determines the device-based location is accurate. Accordingly, in some examples the accuracy score can be represented as a value (e.g., from 0-100, with 100 being the most accurate);
based on the detected location and the level of accuracy, determining one or more potential pickup points by:
determining a singular potential pickup point based on the level of accuracy exceeding a threshold (Col. 4, lines 20-25 disclose determining the generated confidence score of a particular potential pickup location meets or exceeds a predetermined threshold, the transportation matching system identifies the particular potential pickup location as a confirmed pickup location); or
determining a plurality of potential pickup points based on the level of accuracy not exceeding the threshold (This is an alternative limitation, the Examiner has addressed the above limitation); and
causing presentation, on the device of the service requester, of a pickup point user interface that presents the one or more potential pickup points (Col. 4, lines 35-45 disclose in response to identifying at least one pickup location based one or more of the above-described principles, the transportation matching system can provide one or more display components to the requestor computing device that enable quick and easy selection of the pickup location. For example, as will be illustrated in greater detail below, the transportation matching system can provide display components to one or more graphical user interfaces that enable the requestor to confirm the pickup location associated with the transportation request with a single user interaction (e.g., a single tap on a GUI button)).
Regarding claims 2, 3, 6, 15, and 16, in accordance with the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections above, the level of accuracy exceeds a threshold and a singular potential pickup point is displayed (Col. 4, lines 20-25 disclose determining the generated confidence score of a particular potential pickup location meets or exceeds a predetermined threshold, the transportation matching system identifies the particular potential pickup location as a confirmed pickup location).
Regarding claims 4, 5, and 17, these claims all relate to the accuracy not meeting a threshold, which as discussed in the rejection to claims 1 and 14, is the alternative limitation. The Examiner has addressed the limitation of when the accuracy exceeds a threshold.
Regarding claims 7 and 18, Hwang discloses wherein the pickup point user interface displays the one or more potential pickup points without displaying a map (Col. 19, lines 60-67 and Col. 20, lines 1-20 disclose rather than enabling a touch gesture to indicate a device-based location via an interactive map, the transportation matching system 102 can enable the manual input of a device-based location with an address. For example, as shown in FIG. 6A, the transportation matching system 102 can provide a pickup location input GUI 428. In at least one embodiment, the pickup location input GUI 428 includes a text box 430, a previous pickup locations list 432, and a touch screen display keyboard 434. Utilizing the touch screen display keyboard 434, a user of the requestor computing device 106 a can input an address into the text box 430. Alternatively, the user can select an entry in the previous pickup locations list 43).
Regarding claim 8, Hwang discloses receiving, via the pickup point user interface, a confirmation of a pickup point from the one or more potential pickup points ((Col. 4, lines 35-45 disclose in response to identifying at least one pickup location based one or more of the above-described principles, the transportation matching system can provide one or more display components to the requestor computing device that enable quick and easy selection of the pickup location. For example, as will be illustrated in greater detail below, the transportation matching system can provide display components to one or more graphical user interfaces that enable the requestor to confirm the pickup location associated with the transportation request with a single user interaction (e.g., a single tap on a GUI button)); receiving an indication of a destination and establishing a transportation service based on the confirmed pickup point and the destination (Col. 5, lines 1-20 disclose a transportation request includes a pickup location, a destination location, and a transportation matching system user account identifier associated with the requestor computing device).
Regarding claim 11, Hwang discloses wherein the level of accuracy is based on a confidence score for the detected location (As in claim 1, accuracy is based on confidence scores).
Regarding claim 12, Hwang discloses wherein the level of accuracy is determined from a plurality of levels of accuracy (As in claim 1, accuracy is a score between 1 and 100, each being a different level).
Regarding claim 13, as with claims 4 and 5, claim 1 only requires that either the accuracy meets or does not meet a threshold. Claim 1 explains that the singular pickup point is provided based on meeting a threshold.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 9 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang US10263289, hereinafter Hwang in view of Salimi US20160364819A1, hereinafter Salimi.
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Hwang does not disclose:
detecting that a location sensor is turned off at the device of the service requestor; and
causing presentation of a further user interface that includes an option to turn on a service corresponding to the location sensor.
However, Salimi does disclose these limitations:
P31 discloses if Bluetooth, or other way to sense the beacon 150(1-n), is available on the mobile device 104(1-n), the tracker application 108 determines if Bluetooth, or the other way, is turned on (408). If Bluetooth, or the other way to sense the beacon 150(1-n), is turned off, the tracker application 108 sends a message to the mobile device 104(1-n) to turn on the Bluetooth or other way (410).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Hwang to include the ability to turn on location sensor so that the entire invention can be used. It allows for an easy reminder and intuitive way for a user to enable location tracking.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang US10263289, hereinafter Hwang.
Regarding claim 10, Hwang discloses, as discussed in previous claims, causing presentation on an interface that includes a map, and the below section discusses generally a time of arrival. This can be reasonably inferred to be a progress bar.
Col. 17, lines 50-65 discloses determining that the device-based location does meet or exceed the predetermined threshold, the transportation matching system 102 provides the pickup location indicator 408 associated with the device-based location indicator 406 including pre-fill information such as the pickup location description 410 and the pickup time indicator 412. In one or more embodiments, the pickup location description 410 includes a standard address, a business name, or landmark description that helps a user easily find the pickup location.
However, for the purposes of expediting compact prosecution, since none of the Figures appear to disclose the exact specific information recited in claim 10, the Examiner will use a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection.
Specifically, because Hwang already discloses presenting information on an interface, and that the specific information is arrival time, it would have been obvious to substitute the way this information is presented with any other data or way of presentation not claimed. That is, the specific information that is displayed on the GUI does not change any of the method steps of any of the functional steps. It is merely an obvious substitution and a design choice. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to present the data of Hwang in a variety of way to effectuate a design choice.
Relevant Prior Art
US20010056363A1 which is directed to an on-line ride sharing system employs a dynamic database of geographical information in map form together with information that is input into the system by individual users and potential users of the system. An analysis program is integrated with the database to evaluate applications filed by users, and to present a user with a map display of origin and destination locations of potential ride sharing partners. A communication route is provided by the system between the user and potential partners to allow the parties to maintain anonymity and privacy so long as is desired
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARYAN E WEISENFELD whose telephone number is (571)272-6602. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached at 5712721206. 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.
ARYAN E. WEISENFELD
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3689
/ARYAN E WEISENFELD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights