Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This Office Action is an answer to a pending application received on 08/08/2025. Claims 1-3, 5-23 are pending.
Interpretation
3.Examiner notes that the fundamentals of the rejection are based on the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claim language. Applicant is kindly invited to consider the reference as a whole. References are to be interpreted as by one of ordinary skill in the art rather than as by a novice. See MPEP 2141. Therefore, the relevant inquiry when interpreting a reference is not what the reference expressly discloses on its face but what the reference would teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Priority
4. Applicant claims a provisional priority of 5/16/2024; this date is considered.
Double Patenting
5. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
6. Claims 1-3, and 5-23 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,523479 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the pending claims of SN 19/294,996 were already suggested in US Pat. 12,523,479.
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.
7. Claim 8 is 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.
In independent claim 8, a limitation about “a penalty” is unclear – what kind of a penalty? How to represent “a penalty” as claimed? How to do a real calculation for “computing, for each itinerary of the plurality of itineraries, an objective value such that a
plurality of objective values is obtained”.”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 ULS.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 USC. 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 in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
8. Claims 8-14, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Liu et al (US Pub 20220194415 A1 – hereafter Liu’415) in view of Liu et al. (US Pub. 20160321566 A1 hereafter Liu’566)
A. Per independent claim 8: Liu’415 suggests executable instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, perform a method for search space optimization in vehicle itinerary generation for a vehicular ride sharing service, comprising:
receiving a ride request comprising at least one ride request parameter (e.g., a destination);
determining a ride constraint based on the ride request parameter (e.g., a trip distance)
and at least one of:
at least one vehicle tag associated with a vehicle of a plurality of vehicles, or
at least one ride tag associated with a ride (see Liu‘566 claim 3 “a confirmation identifier”);
generating, for each vehicle of the plurality of vehicles, a plurality of itineraries based on
the ride request (using GPS to map a rout from a starting point to a destination point);
computing, for each itinerary of the plurality of itineraries, an objective value such that a
plurality of objective values is obtained (e.g., a trip distance/an associated cost);
determining, for each itinerary of the plurality of itineraries, whether a ride constraint of
the one or more ride constraints is violated (e.g., a ride distance of Yellow cab in Manhattan NYC) ;
applying, for each itinerary in which the ride constraint is violated (e.g., a ride distance, (“...the operations computing system 320 can determine that a vehicle is (or is not) available to provide a vehicle service... ” see Liu’415 para. [0214]) note that applying “a penalty” is a certain intent of use not a limitation to a respective objective value (e.g., see Gkiotsalitis et al US Pub 20220172175 A1, para. [0038],[0040]); and
assigning the ride request to the vehicle associated with an itinerary of the plurality of
itineraries having an optimal objective value (see Liu’415 para. [0105]).
It 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 to implement Liu’415 with Liu’566 to include a ride constraint for a trip which improving clarity and convenient to a user whenever that user making a request service which have been expected to be well-known with ordinary skill in the art.
B. Per dependent claim 9: Applicant claims a ride tag that is based on a pick-up location of the ride request (e.g., creating a new service where a pick-up location is recorded for further uses, see Liu‘566 claim 3 “a confirmation identifier” – this limitation has been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art.
C. Per dependent claim 10: Applicant claims a vehicle tag that is associated with a geographical area in which the vehicle operates (e.g., Yellow Cab Taxi in Manhattan NYC is operated within a certain travel distances, see Liu’415 para.[0025] “(e.g., a speed limit threshold) can identify regions of a city, state, or other suitable mapped region that may be reachable and/or unreachable by a vehicle (e.g., an autonomous vehicle) capable of navigating according to the conditions of the query.”) – this limitation has been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art.
D. Per dependent claim 11: The examiner submits that a limitation of determining whether the ride constraint is violated based on comparing a ride request parameter with at least one of(on a confirmation identifier 610, see Liu’566 claim 20) is suggested by Liu’415 para. [0108] (e.g., comparing a threshold distance/pick-up/drop-off – a ride constraint -to a requested zone/distance) – this limitation has been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art.
E. Per dependent claim 12: Applicant uses a certain computer architecture to process data. The examiner submits that using an available distributed computer architecture has been well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art.
PNG
media_image1.png
375
541
media_image1.png
Greyscale
F. Per dependent claim 13: This claim’s limitation is about a value of the penalty is based on the ride constraint (e.g., Yellow Cab Taxi in Manhattan NYC c is operated within a certain travel distances – this “constraint” is violated if riding for a longer distance/time see Liu’415 para[0085]) – this limitation has been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art.
G. Per dependent claim 14: Applicant requires a limitation of filtering out unrelated data while searching (e.g., selecting a provider having bigger vans or traveling a proper distance) responsive to avoid a violation of constraint to optimize a trip.
The examiner submits that based on applicant’s requirement, only vehicles handling long-distance travels are selected for that constraint – it is reasonable to filter out unrelated data (such as short-travel itineraries) for faster calculations and saving data spaces, see Liu’415 para. [0077] – this limitation has been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art.
H. Per dependent claim 23: Besides claiming a judicial exception issue (i.e., a mathematical relationship of parameter in computing a value), applicant also comparing/weighting at least one parameter the objective value is based on (e.g., to see any constraint in a travel distance /vehicle-size request, see Liu’415 para.[0020], [0085]) – this limitation has been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
9. Claims 1-3, and 5-23 are rejected.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Cuong H Nguyen whose telephone number is (571)272-6759 (email address is cuong.nguyen@uspto.gov). The examiner can normally be reached on M - F: 9:30AM- 5:30PM. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, 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, Bendidi Rachid can be reached on (571) 272-4896. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PATER. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only, For more information about the PAIR system, see https//ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll- free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or S71-272- 1000.
/CUONG H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights