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 08/28/2025. Claims 1-20 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 3/15/2021; this date is considered.
INFORMATION DISCLOSURE STATEMENT (IDS)
5. Applicant files an IDS on 5/12/2026; it is considered.
Double Patenting
6. 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).
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,423,626 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the pending claims of SN 19/313044 has similar claimed limitations.
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.
7. Claims 1-4, 6-11, and 13-18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Yamashita (US Pub. 20180088749 A1 – hereafter “Yamashita’749”) in view of Yamashita (US 11601511 B2 hereafter Yamashita’511).
A. Per independent claims 1, 8, and 15: Yamashita’749 teaches a network system, method, and non-transitory computer-readable medium for managing a network-based service (see Yamashita’749 FIG. 1, Network 100), comprising:
- one or more processors (see Yamashita’749, FIG. 1, in Network 100); and
- one memory resource storing instructions (see Yamashita’749, FIG. 1, in Network 160); that, when executed by the processor(s) of the network system 160, cause the network system to:
- receive, over a network from a first user device of a first requesting user, a first request for a transport service (see Yamashita’749, FIG. 1, from a Requesting User 174);
- receive, over the network from a second user device of a second requesting user, a second request for the transport service (see Yamashita’749, FIG. 1, from another Requesting User 174);
for the first request, identify, by accessing a database, a first set of service provider from service providers 184 (see Yamashita’749, FIG. 1, identifying a Service Provider 184 after a Service Provider’s Acceptance 181);
for the second request, identify, by accessing the database, a second set of service providers from service providers 184 (see Yamashita’749, FIG. 1, from a Requesting User 174);
based on a first set of parameters for the first set of service providers, implement a multi-invite mode for fulfilling the first request by transmitting a first invitation data set to service the first request to provider devices of the first set of service providers (see Yamashita’749, FIG. 1 transmitting a first invitation signal to Provider Devices 180); and based on a second set of parameters for the second set of service providers, see Yamashita’749, FIG. 1 transmitting invitation signals to Provider Devices 180),.by transmitting a second invitation data set to a provider device of a selected service provider of the second set of service providers (see Yamashita’749, FIG. 1 transmitting a second invitation signal to Provider Devices 180).
Yamashita’749 does not expressly disclose about “implementing a multi-invite mode for fulfilling the first request” or “implement an exclusive-invite mode for fulfilling the second request“; however, these actions are the purpose of Yamashita’749 when sending different requests from Requesting Users 174 to different providers 184 (see Yamashita’749, FIG. 1 transmitting a second invitation signal to Provider Devices 180) and see Yamashita’511 col. 2 lines 55-60 discloses “provide data corresponding to a plurality of service options for the on-demand service.”),
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 Yamashita’749 with Yamashita’511 to use different invite modes (e.g., a multi-invite mode, and an exclusive-invite mode) to increase users’ requesting services which are reliable and convenient to a user whenever that user making a request service which have been expected to success by one of skill in the art.
B. Per dependent claims 2, and 16: Yamashita’749 also suggests: transmitting the invitation data (from User Dev8ces 170) to the corresponding set of multiple service provider devices (Service Providers 184) includes causing the respective multi-invite invitation to be presented on a job board graphic user interface provided on each service provider device (Provider Devices 180) of the corresponding set (see Yamashita’749 FIG. 1).
C. Per dependent claims 3, 10, and 17: Yamashita’749 already suggests: receiving multiple acceptances (e.g., Acceptance 181) communicated from at least some of the service provider devices (e.g., Provider Devices 180) of the corresponding set (see Yamashita’749, FIG.1); and associating the request with one of the service provider devices that communicated one of the multiple acceptances (see Yamashita’749, para. [0035], [0053]).
In addition, Yamashita’511 also suggests that the selected service provider will accept the second invitation data set because Yamashita’511 would require a “flexible” provider for a request’s requirement (see Yamashita’511 col. 8 lines 52-67 ).
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 a combination of Yamashita’749 and Yamashita’511 because more providers would be able to fulfill a service request based on each individual request for a flexible transport service.
D. Per dependent claims 4, 11, and 18: Yamashita’749 also suggests that for each request of the plurality of requests, the determination is based at least in part on a time when the request is received (see Yamashita’749 claim 22).
E. Per dependent claims 6 and 13: Yamashita’511 FIG.3A also indicates on Home Screen 300 that for each service provider of the multiple service providers (e.g., Proximate Available Drivers 307), the set of predictive parameters are based on a distance or time of travel for the service provider to arrive at a service location of the service request (e.g., Rider Location 305).
F. Per dependent claims 7, 14, and 20: Yamashita’511 FIG.1 also indicates a plurality of requests 171 including requests for delivery services (e.g., a transportation service).
G. Per dependent claim 9: Yamashita’511 FIG.1 also indicates for each request of the plurality of requests 171 for which the determination is to implement the multi- invite mode, transmitting the invitation data to the corresponding set of multiple service provider devices 180 includes causing the respective multi- invite invitation to be presented on a graphic user interface provided on each service provider device of the corresponding set (using Servjce Provider App 185).
8. Claims 5, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Yamashita’749 in view of Yamashita’511, and in view of Goldman’928 (US Pat. 11868928)).
The rationales and reference for a rejection of claim 1 are incorporated.
Yamashita’749 and Yamashita’511 do not disclose that for each request of the plurality of requests, the determination is based at least in part on a set of predictive parameters that are determined for each of multiple service providers of the plurality of service providers, wherein for each service provider of the multiple service providers, the predictive parameters are indicative of a probability; however, Goldman’928 suggests about arriving a probability using predictive parameters (see Goldman’928 col. 12 line 62 to col.. 13 line 16).
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 a combination of Yamashita’749 and Yamashita’511, with Goldman’926 arriving a probability using predictive parameters because Goldman’926 is in the same field of endeavor using a predictive engine 240 – see Goldman’926, FIG.2 ref. AV Control System 220).
Conclusion
9. Claims 1-20 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