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 Application
Claim(s) 1-20 were previously pending and were rejected in the previous office action. Claim(s) 1, 8, and 15 were amended. Claim(s) 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 were left as previously/originally presented. Claim(s) 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Double Patenting
Applicant’s filing of a terminal disclaimer on July 15, 2026, with respect to Claim(s) 1-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Examiner, further, notes that the double patenting rejection is overcome based on applicant’s filing of the Terminal Disclaimer on July 15, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s arguments, see page(s) 13-16 of Applicant’s Response, filed July 15, 2026, with respect to 35 USC § 101 rejection of Claim(s) 1-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, Applicant argues, on page 13-14, that the amended Independent Claim(s) 1, 8, and 15, do not fall within the revised Step 2A prong one framework under certain methods of organizing human activity concepts. Examiner, respectively, disagrees with applicant’s arguments.
As an initial matter, courts have provided various sub-groupings within organizing
human activity grouping encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a
person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. It is also noted that the number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping. Instead, the determination should be based on whether the activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Examiner, respectfully, notes that the specific limitation(s) that fall within the subject matter groupings of the abstract idea are recited as “detect one or more session events,” “based on detecting the one or more session events without receiving a transportation request of the first requestor, trigger a ghost-match determination for the first requestor,” “detecting a pickup location and a drop-off location associated with the first requestor,” “detecting an active transportation by a transportation vehicle associated with a second requestor,” “ghost-matching the first requestor with the active transportation by the transportation vehicle associated with the second requestor based on the pickup location, the drop-off location, and a determination of a threshold selection time sufficient for the first requestor to consider a match with the active transportation,” “based on ghost-matching the first requestor with the active transportation, surface, of the first requestor, an ephemeral-transportation option for the first requestor to share the active transportation by the transportation vehicle with the second requestor by overlaying the ephemeral-transportation option of the first requestor,” and “based on receiving, of the first requestor, an indication of a user interaction with the ephemeral-transportation option, provide, navigation instructions to divert the transportation vehicle to the pickup location,” step(s)/function(s) are merely certain methods of organizing human activity: commercial or legal interactions (e.g., business relations) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., following rules or instructions).
Similar to, Credit Acceptance Corp v, Westlake Services, where the court found that processing a credit application between a customer and dealer, where the business relation is the relationship between the customer and the dealer during the vehicle purchase was merely a commercial transaction, which, is a form of certain methods of organizing human activity. In this case, the claim(s) are similar to a business relationship between an entity and a customer, which, the entity determines a ride- share location for a requester, which the entity can match the transportation request to another user. The entity will then provide the requester with a pop-up message. The requestor can then provide an indication for the rideshare, which, pickup directions will then be provided to a transportation driver. Thus, the limitations represent a business relationship between a customer and an entity for booking a rideshare. Therefore, applicant’s claims fall within at least the enumerated grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity.
Second, Applicant, further, argues on page(s) 13-14 of applicants’ arguments, that the claims recite eligible subject matter in view of Enfish thus are not directed to the above abstract ideas and are integrated into a practical application. Examiner, respectfully, disagrees with applicants’ arguments.
Unlike, Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., where the court found that the applicants specification’s discussion of the prior art and how the invention improved the way a computer stores and retrieves data from memory, See, MPEP 2106.05(a)(I).
But, similar to, TLI Communications, the court determined that gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result was not sufficient to show an improvement to technology, see MPEP (2106.05)(a)(II)(iii). Here, applicant states detecting one or more session events (e.g., gathering). The system can detect pickup location and drop-off locations along with an active transportation vehicle that includes a second requestor (e.g., gathering). The system can then perform ghost-matching a first requestor with the active transportation of the transportation vehicle (e.g., analyzing). The system will then provide an ephemeral-transportation request to a user (e.g., displaying), thus merely gathering session events and analyzing those session events to determine ghost matches for the first requestor. Then displaying options to the first requestor to share a transportation vehicle with a second requestor are not sufficient to show an improvement in computers or technology of determining a transportation request options. Thus, at best the limitations are merely receiving session event information, analyzing that information, and then displaying that information doesn’t amount to an improvement in technology.
Furthermore, unlike in Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corp, the court found features were not conventional and thus were considered to reflect an improvement to existing technology such that the claimed table to achieve benefits over conventional databases, such as increased flexibility, faster search times, and smaller memory requirements. While, applicant argues that the claimed technology improves efficiency and speed like the architecture of Enfish. The Specification further explains that "[b]y utilizing this ghost-matching approach, the transportation sharing system introduces a dynamic computational model that allows for instantaneous matching of shared transportation requests and real-time surfacing of shared transportation options." The claimed technology "avoids the problems common to the slow and rigid computational model utilized by conventional systems that match a received shared transportation request to an upcoming transportation,” see applicant’s arguments on page(s) 14-15 and applicant’s specification paragraph(s) 0030-0031.
But, similar to, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, the court provided that merely “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer,” does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. In this case, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application when the system to efficiently provide transportation matches, see applicant’s specification paragraph(s) 0030-0031, since the appending generic computer functionality merely lends to speed or efficiency to the performance of an abstract concept doesn’t meaningfully limit the claim(s) thus as a whole applicant’s limitations merely describe how to generally “apply,” the concept(s) of an existing process of determining and outputting transportation matches thus at best are mere instructions to apply the exception.
The court in Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corp., further stated that the claims in Enfish “focused on an improvement to computer functionality itself, not on economic or other tasks for which a computer is used in its ordinary capacity”. In this case, applicant doesn’t provide an advance in hardware or software that, for example, causes a computer to operate faster or more efficiently, or improves the computer or memory itself does not parallel the improvement in Enfish.
As an initial matter, it should be noted that applicant’s claim limitation(s) are not as narrowly claimed as Enfish. While, the alleged improvement of reducing the consumption of resources than necessary. However, applicant hasn’t provided that the claims are directed to an improvement in database functionality and/or how the memory usage is being reduced, or similar improvement(s) to the computer functionality. Merely providing a more efficient way to determine and provide transportation matches is at best an improvement to the abstract idea. It should be noted that merely reciting a result- oriented solution that lacks any details as to how the computer performed the modifications is the equivalent of the words “apply it.” See, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1341–42 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cautioning against claims “so result-focused, so functional, as to effectively cover any solution to an identified problem”). Thus, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Third, Applicant argues, on page 14-15, that the amended Independent Claim(s) 1, 8, and 15, that the application is now integrated into a practical application thus sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Examiner, respectfully disagrees.
As an initial matter, it is important to note that first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. The claim itself does not need to explicitly recite the improvement described in the specification (e.g., "thereby increasing the bandwidth of the channel"), see MPEP 2106.04(d)(1). An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d at 1102-03; DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1259, 113 USPQ2d at 1107. In this respect, the improvement consideration overlaps with other considerations, specifically the particular machine consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)), and the mere instructions to apply an exception consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Thus, evaluation of those other considerations may assist examiners in making a determination of whether a claim satisfies the improvement consideration.
Here, in this case the specification discloses a solution to conventional ride sharing systems that often rely on a static computational model that rigidly applies a matching algorithm. For example, such a static computational model may apply a matching algorithm that identifies shared vehicles and/or transportations only after receiving a shared transportation request. Such a static computational model may further require a rigid timing window within which a vehicle must coordinate pick up of multiple requestors for shared transportation, see applicant’s arguments on page(s) 14-15 and applicant’s specification paragraph(s) 0028-0030. This is at best an improvement to the abstract idea itself rather than a technological improvement.
First, the step(s) of accomplishing this desired improvement in the specification is made in blanket conclusory manner by merely improving the efficiency, flexibility, and accuracy with which a ride sharing system provides transportation options. Rather than the rigid computational models of conventional systems that delay matching until after a shared transportation request is received, for example, the transportation sharing system efficiently matches a likely transportation request to an active transportation of an existing requestor based on a detected pickup or drop-off location and/or a route of the active transportation, see applicant’s specification paragraph 0031, thus when the specification states the improvement in a conclusory manner the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology.
Also, while the specification discloses a static computational model on backend servers for matching shared transportation, conventional ride sharing systems often use rigid client device models for presenting shared transportation options in graphical user interfaces. The transportation sharing system improves the efficiency, flexibility, and accuracy with which a ride sharing system provides shared transportation options rather than the rigid computational models, see applicant’s specification Paragraph(s) 0005 and 0028-0030. This is at best an improvement to the abstract idea itself (e.g., determining matched ride shares and providing those ride shares to a user) rather than a technological improvement.
Furthermore, similar to, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, the court provided that merely “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer,” does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. In this case, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application when improving the efficiency, flexibility, and accuracy with which a ride sharing system provides transportation options. Rather than the rigid computational models of conventional systems that delay matching until after a shared transportation request is received, for example, the transportation sharing system efficiently matches a likely transportation request to an active transportation of an existing requestor based on a detected pickup or drop-off location and/or a route of the active transportation, see applicant’s specification paragraph 0031, since the appending generic computer (e.g., requestor client device) functionality merely lends to speed or efficiency to the performance of an abstract concept doesn’t meaningfully limit the claim(s) thus as a whole applicant’s limitations merely describe how to generally “apply,” the concept(s) of an existing process of determining and presenting ride share options thus at best are mere instructions to apply the exception.
Also, it is important to note that another important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d at 1102-03; DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1259, 113 USPQ2d at 1107. In this respect, the improvement consideration overlaps with other considerations, specifically the particular machine consideration (see MPEP §2106.05(b)), and the mere instructions to apply an exception consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Thus, evaluation of those other considerations may assist examiners in making a determination of whether a claim satisfies the improvement consideration.
Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv., the court has held that 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 (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Here, in this case applicant’s limitations merely detecting, detecting, triggering, detecting, detecting, matching, surfacing, receiving, and providing, ride-share information using computer components that operate in their ordinary capacity (e.g., a processor, a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, a client-device, a requestor client device, a transportation application, a user interface, a computing device, and a provider client device), which are no more than “applying,” the judicial exception. Also, see Int’l Bus. Machines Corp. v. Zillow Grp., Inc., 50 F.4th 1371, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (“the . . . patent is directed to the abstract idea of 8 Appeal 2024-000829 Application 15/833,681 organizing and displaying visual information”). Examiner, respectfully, suggest providing how the application can match and detect without the application being opened. And positively reciting how the options are presented based on the application not being active/running, see applicant’s specification paragraph 0123 (e.g., other paragraphs maybe helpful).
Also, similar to, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, the courts stated merely claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Here, applicant provides that the claims describe a ride sharing system that improves efficiency in matching shared transportation request for an existing requestor, see applicant’s specification paragraph 0030-0031, however, the mere increase in efficiency of providing ride-share options doesn’t demonstrate an improvement to the computer or any technological field but rather instructions to implement the claimed business process on a generic computer thus using the computer as a tool to merely perform the abstract idea.
Also, similar to, Credit Acceptance Corp v. Westlake Services, the court provided that mere automation of manual processes is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality. In this case, applicant provides automating a previously manual process of manual interaction with transportation systems, see applicant’s specification paragraph 0050, however, mere automation of a process that was once manual is not enough for showing an improvement in computer-functionality. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements’ (IDS) submitted on April 30, 2026, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) are being considered by the examiner.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 07/15/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of Patent 12,361,336 B2 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A Prong 1: Independent Claim(s) 1, 8, and 15 recites an entity that is able to receive a transportation request, which the entity will determine a location for pickup and drop-off. The entity can then match a requestor with a driver and then provide an ride option to a rider. The entity can then provide instructions to the driver to move to the pickup location of the rider. Independent Claim(s) 1, 8, and 15, as a whole recites limitation(s) that are directed to the abstract idea(s) of certain methods of organizing human activity: commercial or legal interactions (e.g., business relations) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., following rules or instructions) and/or mental processes (e.g., observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion).
Independent Claim(s) 1, 8, and 15, recites “detect one or more session events,” “based on detecting the one or more session events without receiving a transportation request of the first requestor, trigger a ghost-match determination for the first requestor,” “detecting a pickup location and a drop-off location associated with the first requestor,” “detecting an active transportation by a transportation vehicle associated with a second requestor,” “ghost-matching the first requestor with the active transportation by the transportation vehicle associated with the second requestor based on the pickup location, the drop-off location, and a determination of a threshold selection time sufficient for the first requestor to consider a match with the active transportation,” “based on ghost-matching the first requestor with the active transportation, surface, of the first requestor, an ephemeral-transportation option for the first requestor to share the active transportation by the transportation vehicle with the second requestor by overlaying the ephemeral-transportation option of the first requestor,” and “based on receiving, of the first requestor, an indication of a user interaction with the ephemeral-transportation option, provide, navigation instructions to divert the transportation vehicle to the pickup location,” step(s)/function(s) are merely certain methods of organizing human activity: commercial or legal interactions (e.g., business relations) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., following rules or instructions) and/or mental processes (e.g., observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion). Furthermore, as, explained in the MPEP and the October 2019 update, where a series of step(s) recite judicial exceptions, examiners should combine all recited judicial exceptions and treat the claim as containing a single judicial exception for purposes of further eligibility analysis. (See, MPEP 2106.04, 2016.05(II) and October 2019 Update at Section I. B.). For instance, in this case, Independent Claim(s) 1, 8, and 15, are similar to an entity receiving a ride request, which the entity will match the rider with a driver. The entity can then provide instructions to the driver for picking up the rider at the pickup location. The mere recitation of generic computer components (Claim 1: a processor, a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, a system, a transportation application, a requestor client device, and a provider client device; Claim 8: a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, a processor, a computing device, a transportation application, a requestor client device, and a provider client device; and Claim 15: a transportation application, a requestor client device, and provider client device) do not take the claims out of the enumerated grouping certain methods of organizing human activity and/or mental processes. Therefore, Independent Claim(s) 1, 8, and 15, recites the above abstract idea(s).
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims as a whole describes how to generally “apply,” the concept(s) of “detecting,” “detecting,” “detecting,” “matching,” “providing,” and “providing,” respectively, information in a computer environment. The limitations that amount to “apply it,” are as follows (Claim 1: a processor, a user interface, a client-device, a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, a system, a transportation application, a requestor client device, and a provider client device; Claim 8: a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, a client-device, a user interface, a processor, a computing device, a transportation application, a requestor client device, and a provider client device; and Claim 15: a transportation application, a client-device, a user interface, a requestor client device, and provider client device). Examiner, notes that the processor, non-transitory computer readable storage medium, system, transportation application, requestor client device, provider client device, and computing device, respectively, are recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer.
Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv., the court has held that 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 (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Here, in this case applicant’s limitations merely detecting, detecting, detecting, matching, providing, and providing, information using computer components that operate in their ordinary capacity (e.g., processor, non-transitory computer readable storage medium, system, client-device, user interface, transportation application, requestor client device, provider client device, and computing device), which are no more than using instructions to implement the abstract idea using generic computer components wherein the focus of the claim as a whole is directed to a result or effect that itself is the abstract idea thus merely amounting to “applying,” the judicial exception.
Also, see the recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In this case, applicant hasn’t provided that the claims are directed to an improvement in database functionality and/or how the memory usage is being reduced, or similar improvement(s) to the computer functionality.
Also, similar to, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, the courts stated merely claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Here, applicant provides that the claims describe a ride sharing system that improves efficiency in matching shared transportation request for an existing requestor, see applicant’s specification paragraph 0030-0031, however, the mere increase in efficiency of providing ride-share options doesn’t demonstrate an improvement to the computer or any technological field but rather instructions to implement the claimed business process on a generic computer thus using the computer as a tool to merely perform the abstract idea.
Also, similar to, Credit Acceptance Corp v. Westlake Services, the court provided that mere automation of manual processes is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality. In this case, applicant provides automating a previously manual process of manual interaction with transportation systems, see applicant’s specification paragraph 0050, however, mere automation of a process that was once manual is not enough for showing an improvement in computer-functionality.
Also, see gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747- 48; and arranging transactional information on a graphical user interface in a manner that assists traders in processing information more quickly, Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Each of the above limitations simply implement an abstract idea that is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, which, is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Therefore, when viewed in combination these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claims are directed to the above abstract idea(s).
Step 2B: The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as noted previously, the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply,” the abstract idea in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are ineligible.
Claim(s) 2-4, 6-7, 9-11, 13-14, 16-18, and 20: The various metrics of Dependent Claim(s) 2-4, 6-7, 9-11, 13-14, 16-18, and 20, merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations. For the reasons described above with respect to Independent Claim(s) 1, 8, and 15, these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim(s) 5, 12, and 19: The requestor client device, mobile telephone, smartphone, personal digital assistant, watch, and wearable device are recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv, the court has held that task to receive, store, or transmit data are additional elements that amount to no more than “applying,” the judicial exception. (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, for the reasons described above with respect to Claim(s) 5, 12, and 19 the judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
The dependent claim(s) 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20, above do 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(s) in the dependent claim(s) above are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component(s), which, does not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, Claim(s) 1-20 are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
“A Matching Algorithm for Dynamic Ridesharing,” by Maximilian Schreieck, Hazem Safetli, Sajjad Ali Siddiqui, Christoph Pfugler, Manuael Wiesche, and Helmut Krcmar, Transportation Research Procedia, Volume 19, 2016, Pages 272-285, (hereinafter Matching). Matching teaches riders and drivers prior to an agreement with the driver and rider. However, Matching, doesn’t explicitly teach that the system will match the first rider with the already active transportation vehicle associated with the second rider based on the pickup location, drop off location, and a determination of a threshold selection time sufficient for the first rider to consider and accept a match with the active transportation and then based on the matching and acceptance providing the provider device instructions to divert the vehicle to the pickup location. The system will provide an ephemeral-transportation option overlaying on the requestor device screen.
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 BRIAN A HEFLIN whose telephone number is (571)272-3524. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 - 5:00 M-F.
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.
/B.A.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/MICHAEL P HARRINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights