DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The action is in reply to the Application 19/327,854 filed on 09/12/2025.
Claims 1-26 are currently pending and have been examined.
The action is made NON-FINAL.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 25 is objected to because of the following informalities: there is a typo – “a user interface” which should recite as “the user interface”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-26 are directed to one of the four statutory categories (process, machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter) since the claimed invention falls into “a process” (a method for assessing value of a transportation service) and “an article of manufacture” (a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for assessing value of a transportation service) categories.
Regarding Claims 1-26, the claim invention is directed to a judicial exception to patentability, an abstract idea.
Claim 1 recites the following limitations:
A method to assess a value of a transportation service, the method comprising:
determining a first provider transportation assessment of a first provider, including:
receiving first trip information corresponding with a specified travel period associated with the first provider, the first trip information including a first set of parameters corresponding with a plurality of rides, the first set of parameters including mileage, travel duration, and location data of an individual ride of the plurality of rides;
establishing a compound rate structure, the compound rate structure including:
a minimum, baseline compensation value;
a qualified transportation compensation value, established based on applying a qualified rate to values of the first set of parameters included in the first trip information; and
at least one cost-adjustment factor, adjustable at least based on a specified rider classification or a specified trip classification;
determining a monetary value of the specified travel period, based on the first trip information and the compound rate structure, for the first provider; and
displaying, via …, the first provider transportation assessment for determining a cost associated with the first provider.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The limitations for Claim 1 described above fall within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” for commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities. Accordingly, this claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites one additional element – “a user interface”. The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the abstract idea by using generic computer components. The claimed computer components are recited at high level of generality and merely invoked as a tool to perform a process for assessing value of transportation service (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer component is not a practical application. Accordingly, alone and in combination, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. This claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim 1 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 elements of using a computer system to perform a process for assessing value of transportation service amount to no more than how to generally “apply” the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. As a result, this claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-5 and 11-12 are directed to substantially the same abstract idea as Claim 1 and are rejected for substantially the same reasons. The additional recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the additional recited limitations of the claims further narrow the abstract idea. These dependent claims further narrow the abstract idea of Claim 1 such as by defining “accessing a plurality of simulated prospective trips, an individual prospective trip corresponding with the first trip information; comparing the monetary value of the specified travel period, corresponding with the first trip information of the first provider, with an estimated cost of a second provider; and … assigning the specified prospective trip of the plurality of simulated, prospective trips between either the first provider or a second provider based on the comparison” in Claim 2, by defining “receiving, on a periodic basis from a plurality of vehicles in a fleet of vehicles, respective telemetry data received from …, corresponding with respective specified travel periods; wherein the first provider is associated with at least one vehicle of the fleet of vehicles” in Claim 3, by defining “… and recurringly generating invoices for a plurality of providers based on the respective telemetry data, an invoice for the first provider based on the determined monetary value of the specified period” in Claim 4, by defining “wherein the trip information includes raw trip data received from … and corresponding with the specified travel period, wherein the first set of parameters included in the first trip information are recorded values included in the raw trip data” in Claim 5, by defining “… generating a statement of fees due to the first provider for the specified travel period; and triggering … delivering of the statement to at least one of the first provider or to a recipient of services on behalf of the first provider” in Claim 11, and by defining “determining a second provider transportation assessment of a second provider, including: receiving second trip information corresponding with a second specified travel period associated with the second provider, the second trip information including a second set of parameters corresponding with a second plurality of rides, the second set of parameters including mileage, travel duration, and location data of an individual ride of the plurality of rides; establishing a second compound rate structure, the second compound rate structure including: a second minimum, baseline compensation value; a second qualified transportation compensation value, established based on applying a second qualified rate to values of the second set of parameters included in the second trip information; and at least one second cost-adjustment factor, adjustable at least based on a second specified traveler classification or a second specified trip classification; determining a second monetary value of the second specified travel period, based on the second trip information and the second compound rate structure, for the second provider; and displaying, via …, the second provider transportation assessment for determining a second cost associated with the second provider” in Claim 12.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Claims 2-5 and 11-12 do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application. Claims 2 and 4 recite an additional element – “automatically”, Claim 3 recites an additional element – “trip telemetry software”, Claim 5 recites an additional element – “trip routing or tracking software”, Claim 11 recites additional elements – “automatically” and “electronic”, and Claim 12 recites an additional element – “the user interface”. These additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The limitations of these dependent claims do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application because individually or in combination, this additional element does not impose any meaningful limits on a practicing the abstract idea and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B: Claims 2-5 and 11-12 do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 2-5 and 11-12 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 elements of using a computer system to perform a process for assessing value of transportation service amount to no more than how to generally “apply” the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, these claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 6-10 and 13 are directed to substantially the same abstract idea as Claim 1 and are rejected for substantially the same reasons. The additional recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the additional recited limitations of the claims further narrow the abstract idea. These dependent claims further narrow the abstract idea of Claim 1 such as by defining “receiving rider data corresponding with the specified travel period, the rider data including the specified rider classification corresponding with a rider qualifier, the rider qualifier indicating whether an individual traveler qualifies for nonstandard travel pricing” in Claim 6, by defining “wherein the rider qualifier is a financial code indicative of rider information, the financial code indicating whether the rider is classified by a governing entity as at least one of general education, special education, homeless, or eligible for a section 504 route” in Claim 7, by defining “wherein the rider qualifier is an indication of a need for a ride accommodation including at least one of a need for a car seat, an aide, a safety vest, a lift vehicle for a wheelchair, solo transport, a barrier vehicle, or a seat belt locking cover” in Claim 8, by defining “determining, based on the raw trip data, an amount of deadhead time and an amount of intertrip time corresponding with an individual ride of the plurality of rides; wherein the at least one cost-adjustment factor includes cost adjustment based on the determined amount of deadhead time” in Claim 9, by defining “determining an amount of deadhead mileage or distance corresponding with the deadhead time” in Claim 10, and by defining “comparing the first provider transportation assessment with the second provider transportation assessment to determine a difference in value between the first and second provider, wherein the first trip information and the second trip information correspond to a same trip” in Claim 13.
Step 2A, Prong 2: These dependent claims do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because they do not recite additional elements.
Step 2B: These dependent claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because they do not recite additional elements. Therefore, these claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 14 recites the following limitations:
… to:
determine a first provider transportation assessment of a first provider, including:
receive first trip information corresponding with a specified travel period associated with the first provider, the first trip information including parameters corresponding with a plurality of rides, the parameters including mileage, travel duration, and location data of an individual ride of the plurality of rides;
establish a first rate configuration including a compound rate structure, the compound rate structure including:
a minimum, baseline compensation value;
a qualified transportation compensation value, established based on applying a qualified rate to values of parameters included in the first trip information; and
at least one cost-adjustment factor, adjustable at least based on a specified traveler classification or a specified trip classification;
determine a monetary value of the specified travel period, based on the first trip information and the compound rate structure of the first rate configuration, for the first provider; and
display, via …, the first provider transportation assessment for determining a cost associated with the first provider.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The limitations for Claim 14 described above fall within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” for commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities. Accordingly, this claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 14 recites additional elements – “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, the computer-readable storage medium including instructions that when executed by a computer, cause the computer” and “a user interface”. The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the abstract idea by using generic computer components. The claimed computer components are recited at high level of generality and merely invoked as a tool to perform a process for assessing value of transportation service (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer component is not a practical application. Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. This claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim 14 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 elements of using a computer system to perform a process for assessing value of transportation service amount to no more than how to generally “apply” the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. As a result, this claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 15-18 and 24-25 are directed to substantially the same abstract idea as Claim 14 and are rejected for substantially the same reasons. The additional recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the additional recited limitations of the claims further narrow the abstract idea. These dependent claims further narrow the abstract idea of Claim 14 such as by defining “access a plurality of simulated prospective trips, an individual prospective trip corresponding with the first trip information; compare the monetary value of the specified travel period, corresponding with the first trip information of the first provider, with an estimated cost of a second provider; and … assign the specified prospective trip of the plurality of simulated, prospective trips between either the first provider or a second provider based on the comparison” in Claim 15, by defining “receive, on a periodic basis from a plurality of vehicles in a fleet of vehicles, respective telemetry data received from …, corresponding with respective specified travel periods; wherein the first provider is associated with at least one vehicle of the fleet of vehicles” in Claim 16, by defining “… and recurringly generate an invoice for a plurality of providers based on the respective telemetry data, the invoice for the first provider based on the determined monetary value of the specified period” in Claim 17, by defining “wherein the trip information includes raw trip data received from … and corresponding with the specified travel period, wherein the first set of parameters included in the first trip information are recorded values included in the raw trip data” in Claim 18, by defining “… generate a statement of fees due to the first provider for the specified travel period; and trigger … delivering of the statement to at least one of the first provider or to a recipient of services on behalf of the first provider” in Claim 24, and by defining “determine a second provider transportation assessment of a second provider, including: receive second trip information corresponding with a second specified travel period associated with the second provider, the second trip information including a second set of parameters corresponding with a second plurality of rides, the second set of parameters including mileage, travel duration, and location data of an individual ride of the plurality of rides; establish a second compound rate structure, the second compound rate structure including: a second minimum, baseline compensation value; a second qualified transportation compensation value, established based on applying a second qualified rate to values of the second set of parameters included in the second trip information; and at least one second cost-adjustment factor, adjustable at least based on a second specified traveler classification or a second specified trip classification; determine a second monetary value of the second specified travel period, based on the second trip information and the second compound rate structure, for the second provider; and display, via …, the second provider transportation assessment for determining a second cost associated with the second provider” in Claim 25.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Claims 15-18 and 24-25 do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application. Claims 15 and 17 recite an additional element – “automatically”, Claim 16 recites an additional element – “trip telemetry software”, Claim 18 recites an additional element – “trip routing or tracking software”, Claim 24 recites additional elements – “automatically” and “electronic”, and Claim 25 recites an additional element – “the user interface”. These additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The limitations of these dependent claims do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application because individually or in combination, this additional element does not impose any meaningful limits on a practicing the abstract idea and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B: Claims 15-18 and 24-25 do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 15-18 and 24-25 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 elements of using a computer system to perform a process for assessing value of transportation service amount to no more than how to generally “apply” the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, these claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 19-23 and 26 are directed to substantially the same abstract idea as Claim 14 and are rejected for substantially the same reasons. The additional recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the additional recited limitations of the claims further narrow the abstract idea. These dependent claims further narrow the abstract idea of Claim 14 such as by defining “receive traveler data corresponding with the specified travel period, the traveler data including the specified traveler classification corresponding with a rider qualifier, the rider qualifier indicating whether an individual traveler qualifies for nonstandard travel pricing” in Claim 19, by defining “wherein the rider qualifier is a financial code indicative of rider information, the financial code indicating whether the rider is classified by a governing entity as at least one of general education, special education, homeless, or eligible for a section 504 route” in Claim 20, by defining “wherein the rider qualifier is an indication of a need for a ride accommodation including at least one of a need for a car seat, an aide, a safety vest, a lift vehicle for a wheelchair, solo transport, a barrier vehicle, or a seat belt locking cover” in Claim 21, by defining “determine, based on the raw trip data, an amount of deadhead time and an amount of intertrip time corresponding with an individual ride of the plurality of rides; wherein the at least one cost-adjustment factor includes cost adjustment based on the determined amount of deadhead time” in Claim 22, by defining “determine an amount of deadhead mileage or distance corresponding with the deadhead time” in Claim 23, and by defining “compare the first provider transportation assessment with the second provider transportation assessment to determine a difference in value between the first and second provider, wherein the first trip information and the second trip information correspond to a same trip” in Claim 26.
Step 2A, Prong 2: These dependent claims do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because they do not recite additional elements.
Step 2B: These dependent claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because they do not recite additional elements. Therefore, these claims are not patent eligible.
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 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.
Claims 1-6, 11-20, and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Wurster; Charles (US PG Pub. No. US 2008/0189145 A1; hereinafter "Wurster").
Regarding Claim 1, Wurster teaches a method to assess a value of a transportation service, the method comprising: determining a first provider transportation assessment of a first provider, including: receiving first trip information corresponding with a specified travel period associated with the first provider, the first trip information including a first set of parameters corresponding with a plurality of rides, the first set of parameters including mileage, travel duration, and location data of an individual ride of the plurality of rides (See “Transportation service process 10 automates the booking process including the initial reservation, order distribution to vendors, scheduler, vehicle availability, and change or cancel reservation requests. In block 12, the transportation service system 10 is set-up by the transportation service coordinator. The service coordinator operates as a third party, independent and apart from the vendors, which manages the reservation system for transportation services for the benefit of vendors and customers alike. The transportation service system 10 contains an inventory of vendor's rental resources available for rent. The vendors utilize the transportation service system 10 for booking their fleet. In block 14, a customer makes a reservation inquiry for vendor rental resources. The customer may be a retail consumer, corporate client, another vendor, or partner of the transportation service system.” in Paragraph [0044], “FIG. 4 illustrates a data entry screen or home webpage 70 designed for retail customer 50 to use the transportation service system 10. Screen 70 is an interface to the transportation service system 10 and is made available through a portal by the transportation service coordinator. Most webpages in the transportation service system 10 have selections or links across the top of the page for customer, reservation, dispatch, vehicle, employee, accounting, printing, email, rate, duplicate reservation, notes, accounting, vehicle scheduler, and auto dispatch. The data entry boxes or fields allow the user to enter data into system 10. Some fields are general purpose and will accept any data. Other fields accept only predetermined values and may have a pull-down selection menu.” in Paragraph [0056], “Under reservation info tab, in block 74, the user has fields for lead passenger, phone number, date of service, pick-up time, drop-off time, number of hours, number of passengers, vehicle type, event type, event name, salesperson, taken by, ordered by, order number, order date, last update, pay type, charge type, farm-in from, rate, farm-out to, and total price. Button 75 allows the user to calculate price.” in Paragraph [0057]); establishing a compound rate structure, the compound rate structure including: a minimum, baseline compensation value; a qualified transportation compensation value, established based on applying a qualified rate to values of the first set of parameters included in the first trip information; and at least one cost-adjustment factor, adjustable at least based on a specified rider classification or a specified trip classification; determining a monetary value of the specified travel period, based on the first trip information and the compound rate structure, for the first provider (See “System 10 further calculates the rate for use of the rental resources based on the reservation information and vendor-supplied information. The rates are calculated based on estimated time and distance to perform the transportation service. The rate calculation takes into account vehicle type, driving route, actual distance, road conditions, weather, construction, traffic, fuel consumption, price of fuel, and driver's compensation. The information is derived from the vendor, reservation, and other sources.” in Paragraph [0063], “The rate calculation considers all the real factors that influence the total cost associated with operating the vehicle over the route, including vehicle type, time, distance, fuel, and driver compensation. The factors for the rate calculation can be updated real-time as conditions change. The user can even get an updated rate calculation while en route to their destination. System 10 will compute the rate directly based on the above real conditions or adjust a base rate by a calculated percentage increase based on the factors described above. For example, the fifty miles from point 90 to point 95 over one hour with all the above factors may come to $250. Alternatively, if the base rate for the limousine for the trip from point 90 to point 95 is $200, the rate may be increased by 20% for adverse weather and construction delays. The rate calculation may also factor in the varying consumer price index for inflationary variances.” in Paragraph [0070], and “The transportation services are rendered to retail customer 50, i.e., the driver picks up the customer at the designated time and location and takes the customer where he or she wants to go. Depending on the circumstances the actual charges may be different from the estimated pricing given to the customer. For example, the customer may change his plans while en route causing additional time and mileage to be incurred. Natural or man-made delays in the form of weather and construction obstacles may be experienced. When the driver completes the transportation services, the actual charges are updated in system 10.” in Paragraph [0074]); and displaying, via a user interface, the first provider transportation assessment for determining a cost associated with the first provider (See Fig. 4 and “Under reservation info tab, in block 74, the user has fields for lead passenger, phone number, date of service, pick-up time, drop-off time, number of hours, number of passengers, vehicle type, event type, event name, salesperson, taken by, ordered by, order number, order date, last update, pay type, charge type, farm-in from, rate, farm-out to, and total price. Button 75 allows the user to calculate price.” in Paragraph [0057]).
Regarding Claim 2, Wurster teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as described above. Wurster also teaches accessing a plurality of simulated prospective trips, an individual prospective trip corresponding with the first trip information; comparing the monetary value of the specified travel period, corresponding with the first trip information of the first provider, with an estimated cost of a second provider (See “In block 86, the transportation service system 10 presents a list of vendor rental resources that match or closely align with the reservation inquiry. The listing shown in FIG. 7 represents the vendor rental resources that match or closely align with the reservation inquiry.” in Paragraph [0062] and “A table of possible rental resources is sent back to retail customer 50. The rental resources that match the reservation criteria are displayed for retail customer 50 with estimated pricing in rental resource list 96 as shown in FIG. 7. The list includes vendor name, rate, and vehicle type. Retail customer 50 can review the available rental resources within the geographical area and make the desired selection. Once making the selection, the system displays the relevant reservation information, including the selected rental resource, for the customer's review.” in Paragraph [0072]); and automatically assigning the specified prospective trip of the plurality of simulated, prospective trips between either the first provider or a second provider based on the comparison (See “Under reservation info tab, in block 74, the user has fields for lead passenger, phone number, date of service, pick-up time, drop-off time, number of hours, number of passengers, vehicle type, event type, event name, salesperson, taken by, ordered by, order number, order date, last update, pay type, charge type, farm-in from, rate, farm-out to, and total price. Button 75 allows the user to calculate price. Block 74 allows the user to select exact matches only or to let the system suggest rental resources closely aligned with the reservation inquiry. In block 76, the user has fields for routing type, time date, and category.” in Paragraph [0057] and “In block 84, the customer makes reservation inquiry to the transportation service system 10. The customer may want a limousine for six people. System 10 searches its database and retrieves records that match or closely align with the reservation request. The records for the rental resources in the central database are compared to the reservation inquiry to find matches. In some cases, the system selects records that exactly match the reservation inquiry, i.e., the selected vehicles may have more than the requested features in the reservation inquiry, but the selected vehicles must have at least the features requested in the reservation inquiry. Alternatively, the system may select vehicles that closely align with the reservation inquiry. For example, the customer may have requested a sedan-style stretch limousine. The system will retrieve records for the sedan-style, if any, but may also offer other types of stretch limousines that might accommodate the customer's needs, particularly if the number of hits for an exact match to the original reservation inquiry was low or zero. The customer might favorably consider the alternative choices once he or she sees the whole picture. Screen 70 in FIG. 4 includes the option for the customer to specify exact matches only or whether they want to see other rental resources that closely align with their reservation inquiry.” in Paragraph [0060]).
Regarding Claim 3, Wurster teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as described above. Wurster also teaches receiving, on a periodic basis from a plurality of vehicles in a fleet of vehicles, respective telemetry data received from trip telemetry software, corresponding with respective specified travel periods;
wherein the first provider is associated with at least one vehicle of the fleet of vehicles (See “The rate calculation considers all the real factors that influence the total cost associated with operating the vehicle over the route, including vehicle type, time, distance, fuel, and driver compensation. The factors for the rate calculation can be updated real-time as conditions change. The user can even get an updated rate calculation while en route to their destination. System 10 will compute the rate directly based on the above real conditions or adjust a base rate by a calculated percentage increase based on the factors described above. For example, the fifty miles from point 90 to point 95 over one hour with all the above factors may come to $250. Alternatively, if the base rate for the limousine for the trip from point 90 to point 95 is $200, the rate may be increased by 20% for adverse weather and construction delays.” in Paragraph [0070] and “The transportation service system 10 is fully integrated into wireless networks such as cellular phones, global positioning system (GPS), radio frequency identification (RFID), and personal digital assistant (PDA), as well as bridging technology between these devices. Through wireless communication tool 172, customer 168 can access real-time weather, traffic, and obstacle reports (accidents and construction) for any geographic locale. Traffic reporting tool 174 gives up-to-the-minute traffic status. The traffic report includes congested areas, accidents, and alternative routes. Weather reporting tool 176 gives current weather and road conditions. The weather report includes temperature, precipitation, forecast, and advisories. The traffic and weather reports can also estimate time to destination or estimate time of arrival. System 10 can provide driving directions to any destination and update such direction if the plans or conditions change.” in Paragraph [0085]).
Regarding Claim 4, Wurster teaches all the limitations of Claims 1 and 3 as described above. Wurster also teaches automatically and recurringly generating invoices for a plurality of providers based on the respective telemetry data, an invoice for the first provider based on the determined monetary value of the specified period (See “The billing system supports customer accounts and sub-accounts. System 10 can generate credit card authorization and send reports formatted to any accounting system.” in Paragraph [0076], “The billing for the transportation services rendered to retail customer 50 are posted by the vendor and sent back to the transportation service coordinator for reconciliation and payment. The customer's credit card is charged or the customer is invoiced for payment. The customer makes payment to the transportation service coordinator, who utilizes automated clearing house (ACH) banking services to reconcile vendor accounts receivable. Each vendor may have completed multiple reservations through the transportation service coordinator. System 10 matches up customer payments with vendor invoices and ensures that the accounts are reconciled. The vendor will receive one aggregate payment from the transportation service coordinator as settlement of all outstanding invoices for the given billing cycle.” in Paragraph [0077], and “FIG. 19 is a data entry screen for billing information. Block 252 has fields for credit card information. Block 254 has fields for customer billing address. The transportation service coordinator uses the billing information to bill the customer and reconcile vendor invoices.” in Paragraph [0101]).
Regarding Claim 5, Wurster teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as described above. Wurster also teaches wherein the trip information includes raw trip data received from trip routing or tracking software and corresponding with the specified travel period, wherein the first set of parameters included in the first trip information are recorded values included in the raw trip data (See “The transportation service system 10 is fully integrated into wireless networks such as cellular phones, global positioning system (GPS), radio frequency identification (RFID), and personal digital assistant (PDA), as well as bridging technology between these devices. Through wireless communication tool 172, customer 168 can access real-time weather, traffic, and obstacle reports (accidents and construction) for any geographic locale. Traffic reporting tool 174 gives up-to-the-minute traffic status. The traffic report includes congested areas, accidents, and alternative routes. Weather reporting tool 176 gives current weather and road conditions. The weather report includes temperature, precipitation, forecast, and advisories. The traffic and weather reports can also estimate time to destination or estimate time of arrival. System 10 can provide driving directions to any destination and update such direction if the plans or conditions change.” in Paragraph [0085] and “FIG. 10 illustrates data entry screen or webpage 120 for posting the final charges for the transportation services rendered... Under the posting tab, in block 124, the user has fields for charges such as total number of hours, service charge, stops, wait time, travel time, gratuity, bridge tolls, parking, airport fee, fuel surcharge, service fee, miscellaneous, deposit, and total charges.” in Paragraph [0078]).
Regarding Claim 6, Wurster teaches all the limitations of Claims 1 and 5 as described above. Wurster also teaches receiving rider data corresponding with the specified travel period, the rider data including the specified rider classification corresponding with a rider qualifier, the rider qualifier indicating whether an individual traveler qualifies for nonstandard travel pricing (See “System 10 presents special deals and promotions to customers with tool 182. System 10 also supports offers for business where the customer can name his own price or bid for transportation services and see if any vendor responds.” in Paragraph [0088]).
Regarding Claim 11, Wurster teaches all the limitations of Claims 1 and 5-6 as described above. Wurster also teaches automatically generating a statement of fees due to the first provider for the specified travel period; and triggering electronic delivering of the statement to at least one of the first provider or to a recipient of services on behalf of the first provider (See “The billing system supports customer accounts and sub-accounts. System 10 can generate credit card authorization and send reports formatted to any accounting system.” in Paragraph [0076], “The billing for the transportation services rendered to retail customer 50 are posted by the vendor and sent back to the transportation service coordinator for reconciliation and payment. The customer's credit card is charged or the customer is invoiced for payment. The customer makes payment to the transportation service coordinator, who utilizes automated clearing house (ACH) banking services to reconcile vendor accounts receivable. Each vendor may have completed multiple reservations through the transportation service coordinator. System 10 matches up customer payments with vendor invoices and ensures that the accounts are reconciled. The vendor will receive one aggregate payment from the transportation service coordinator as settlement of all outstanding invoices for the given billing cycle.” in Paragraph [0077], and “FIG. 19 is a data entry screen for billing information. Block 252 has fields for credit card information. Block 254 has fields for customer billing address. The transportation service coordinator uses the billing information to bill the customer and reconcile vendor invoices.” in Paragraph [0101]).
Regarding Claim 12, Wurster teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as described above. Wurster also teaches determining a second provider transportation assessment of a second provider, including: receiving second trip information corresponding with a second specified travel period associated with the second provider, the second trip information including a second set of parameters corresponding with a second plurality of rides, the second set of parameters including mileage, travel duration, and location data of an individual ride of the plurality of rides (See “Transportation service process 10 automates the booking process including the initial reservation, order distribution to vendors, scheduler, vehicle availability, and change or cancel reservation requests. In block 12, the transportation service system 10 is set-up by the transportation service coordinator. The service coordinator operates as a third party, independent and apart from the vendors, which manages the reservation system for transportation services for the benefit of vendors and customers alike. The transportation service system 10 contains an inventory of vendor's rental resources available for rent. The vendors utilize the transportation service system 10 for booking their fleet. In block 14, a customer makes a reservation inquiry for vendor rental resources. The customer may be a retail consumer, corporate client, another vendor, or partner of the transportation service system.” in Paragraph [0044], “FIG. 4 illustrates a data entry screen or home webpage 70 designed for retail customer 50 to use the transportation service system 10. Screen 70 is an interface to the transportation service system 10 and is made available through a portal by the transportation service coordinator. Most webpages in the transportation service system 10 have selections or links across the top of the page for customer, reservation, dispatch, vehicle, employee, accounting, printing, email, rate, duplicate reservation, notes, accounting, vehicle scheduler, and auto dispatch. The data entry boxes or fields allow the user to enter data into system 10. Some fields are general purpose and will accept any data. Other fields accept only predetermined values and may have a pull-down selection menu.” in Paragraph [0056], “Under reservation info tab, in block 74, the user has fields for lead passenger, phone number, date of service, pick-up time, drop-off time, number of hours, number of passengers, vehicle type, event type, event name, salesperson, taken by, ordered by, order number, order date, last update, pay type, charge type, farm-in from, rate, farm-out to, and total price. Button 75 allows the user to calculate price.” in Paragraph [0057]); establishing a second compound rate structure, the second compound rate structure including: a second minimum, baseline compensation value; a second qualified transportation compensation value, established based on applying a second qualified rate to values of the second set of parameters included in the second trip information; and at least one second cost-adjustment factor, adjustable at least based on a second specified traveler classification or a second specified trip classification;
determining a second monetary value of the second specified travel period, based on the second trip information and the second compound rate structure, for the second provider (See “System 10 further calculates the rate for use of the rental resources based on the reservation information and vendor-supplied information. The rates are calculated based on estimated time and distance to perform the transportation service. The rate calculation takes into account vehicle type, driving route, actual distance, road conditions, weather, construction, traffic, fuel consumption, price of fuel, and driver's compensation. The information is derived from the vendor, reservation, and other sources.” in Paragraph [0063], “The rate calculation considers all the real factors that influence the total cost associated with operating the vehicle over the route, including vehicle type, time, distance, fuel, and driver compensation. The factors for the rate calculation can be updated real-time as conditions change. The user can even get an updated rate calculation while en route to their destination. System 10 will compute the rate directly based on the above real conditions or adjust a base rate by a calculated percentage increase based on the factors described above. For example, the fifty miles from point 90 to point 95 over one hour with all the above factors may come to $250. Alternatively, if the base rate for the limousine for the trip from point 90 to point 95 is $200, the rate may be increased by 20% for adverse weather and construction delays. The rate calculation may also factor in the varying consumer price index for inflationary variances.” in Paragraph [0070], and “The transportation services are rendered to retail customer 50, i.e., the driver picks up the customer at the designated time and location and takes the customer where he or she wants to go. Depending on the circumstances the actual charges may be different from the estimated pricing given to the customer. For example, the customer may change his plans while en route causing additional time and mileage to be incurred. Natural or man-made delays in the form of weather and construction obstacles may be experienced. When the driver completes the transportation services, the actual charges are updated in system 10.” in Paragraph [0074]); and displaying, via the user interface, the second provider transportation assessment for determining a second cost associated with the second provider (See Fig. 4 and “Under reservation info tab, in block 74, the user has fields for lead passenger, phone number, date of service, pick-up time, drop-off time, number of hours, number of passengers, vehicle type, event type, event name, salesperson, taken by, ordered by, order number, order date, last update, pay type, charge type, farm-in from, rate, farm-out to, and total price. Button 75 allows the user to calculate price.” in Paragraph [0057]).
Regarding Claim 13, Wurster teaches all the limitations of Claims 1 and 12 as described above. Wurster also teaches comparing the first provider transportation assessment with the second provider transportation assessment to determine a difference in value between the first and second provider, wherein the first trip information and the second trip information correspond to a same trip (See “In block 84, the customer makes reservation inquiry to the transportation service system 10. The customer may want a limousine for six people. System 10 searches its database and retrieves records that match or closely align with the reservation request. The records for the rental resources in the central database are compared to the reservation inquiry to find matches. In some cases, the system selects records that exactly match the reservation inquiry, i.e., the selected vehicles may have more than the requested features in the reservation inquiry, but the selected vehicles must have at least the features requested in the reservation inquiry. Alternatively, the system may select vehicles that closely align with the reservation inquiry. For example, the customer may have requested a sedan-style stretch limousine. The system will retrieve records for the sedan-style, if any, but may also offer other types of stretch limousines that might accommodate the customer's needs, particularly if the number of hits for an exact match to the original reservation inquiry was low or zero. The customer might favorably consider the alternative choices once he or she sees the whole picture. Screen 70 in FIG. 4 includes the option for the customer to specify exact matches only or whether they want to see other rental resources that closely align with their reservation inquiry.” in Paragraph [0060], “In block 86, the transportation service system 10 presents a list of vendor rental resources that match or closely align with the reservation inquiry. The listing shown in FIG. 7 represents the vendor rental resources that match or closely align with the reservation inquiry.” in Paragraph [0062], “A table of possible rental resources is sent back to retail customer 50. The rental resources that match the reservation criteria are displayed for retail customer 50 with estimated pricing in rental resource list 96 as shown in FIG. 7. The list includes vendor name, rate, and vehicle type. Retail customer 50 can review the available rental resources within the geographical area and make the desired selection.” in Paragraph [0072], and Fig. 7).
Claims 14-19 and 24-26 are product claims corresponding to method Claims 1-6 and 11-13. All of the limitations in Claims 14-19 and 24-26 are found reciting the same scopes of the respective limitations in Claims 1-6 and 11-13. Accordingly, Claims 14-19 and 24-26 are considered anticipated (rejection) by the same rationales presented in the rejection of Claims 1-6 and 11-13, respectively set forth above.
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 U.S.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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 7 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wurster in view of Walker; Kimberly (US PG Pub. No. 2024/0378690 A1; hereinafter "Walker").
Regarding Claim 7, Wurster teaches all the limitations of Claims 1 and 5-6 as described above. Wurster does not explicitly teach; however, Walker teaches wherein the rider qualifier is a financial code indicative of rider information, the financial code indicating whether the rider is classified by a governing entity as at least one of general education, special education, homeless, or eligible for a section 504 route (See “In some examples, the parent and child relationship can be substituted, for example, by a coach and players on a sports team, a school district and a student, a medical health plan and a patient, a bar and an intoxicated patron, a company and employees, and/or an airline and its passengers. It will be understood in the art that the implementation of the invention will be consistently applied across a diverse group of relationships. In some examples the coach of a sports team can request a rideshare, or a series of rideshares for the teammates and approve the transactions. In some examples, a school district will request a rideshare for a special needs student and approve for and pay for the rideshare for that student. In other examples a medical health plan could put in a request for a rideshare of a patient with the medical health plan and approve and pay for the rideshare. In some instances, the patient can request the rideshare and get approval by the medical health plan which would then pay for the rideshare for the patient.” in Paragraph [0020]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Wurster to include wherein the rider qualifier is a financial code indicative of rider information, the financial code indicating whether the rider is classified by a governing entity as at least one of general education, special education, homeless, or eligible for a section 504 route, as taught by Walker, in order to provide more appropriate pricing for passengers.
Claim 20 is a product claim corresponding to method Claim 7. All of the limitations in Claim 20 are found reciting the same scopes of the respective limitations in Claim 7. Accordingly, Claim 20 is considered obvious (rejection) by the same rationales presented in the rejection of Claim 7, respectively set forth above.
Claims 8-10 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wurster in view of Ho; William (US PG Pub. No. 2019/0212149 A1; hereinafter "Ho").
Regarding Claim 8, Wurster teaches all the limitations of Claims 1 and 5-6 as described above. Wurster does not explicitly teach; however, Ho teaches wherein the rider qualifier is an indication of a need for a ride accommodation including at least one of a need for a car seat, an aide, a safety vest, a lift vehicle for a wheelchair, solo transport, a barrier vehicle, or a seat belt locking cover (See “In a paratransit system, users request rides from a pickup location to a drop off location within a certain time window. The users may indicate that they will be travelling with a guest or helper and that they may have special needs such as needing a wheel chair etc.” in Paragraph [0020] and “As will be understood by those of ordinary skill in the art, scheduling systems store records of a number of trip requests that are received from users. There are numerous ways of requesting a trip. For example, users may call in a trip request to a call center. Alternatively, a rider may enter a trip request into a web site or enter a trip request on an app. for a mobile computing device. Data for a trip request generally include a requested pickup time and a requested drop off time, a pickup location and a drop off location, the number of riders to go on the trip, any special needs of a rider (e.g. wheelchair needed or special medical needs).” in Paragraph [0024]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Wurster to include wherein the rider qualifier is an indication of a need for a ride accommodation including at least one of a need for a car seat, an aide, a safety vest, a lift vehicle for a wheelchair, solo transport, a barrier vehicle, or a seat belt locking cover, as taught by Ho, in order to provide an appropriate vehicle that meets the passenger’s needs.
Regarding Claim 9, Wurster teaches all the limitations of Claims 1 and 5 as described above. Wurster does not explicitly teach; however, Ho teaches determining, based on the raw trip data, an amount of deadhead time and an amount of intertrip time corresponding with an individual ride of the plurality of rides; wherein the at least one cost-adjustment factor includes cost adjustment based on the determined amount of deadhead time (See “The smaller number of trips included in the various clusters are scheduled by analyzing the trips for inclusion into a packet provided they meet all the member trip quality criteria, meet their requested pickup and drop off times, can be serviced by a single vehicle and meet other criteria set by the operator (e.g. minimal deadhead trip lengths, minimal vehicle idle times etc.) Once a packet is defined, it is a mini-manifest or a mini-route that is not changed by the subsequent processing of other trip requests in the requested trip set.” in Paragraph [0044] and “Once the packets are determined, they are chained together to form routes. In one embodiment, packets are only chained together if determined quality metrics are met. For example, packets are not combined if the combination introduces too much dead time in the chaining of the packets—i.e. the last drop off from one packet takes too long a time to get to the first pickup of the next packet. In addition, packets are not combined if the deadhead trip distance (e.g. the distance driven by a vehicle with no passengers) required to chain them together is too great. The allowable deadhead time and deadhead distance are parameters to set by the service provider. They prevent chaining that might be “legal”, but are not “good”, since time and distance while driving empty is essentially unused resource.” in Paragraph [0084]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Wurster to include determining, based on the raw trip data, an amount of deadhead time and an amount of intertrip time corresponding with an individual ride of the plurality of rides; wherein the at least one cost-adjustment factor includes cost adjustment based on the determined amount of deadhead time, as taught by Ho, in order to provide the most efficient round trip energy expenditures.
Regarding Claim 10, Wurster in view of Ho teaches all the limitations of Claims 1, 5, and 9 as described above. Wurster does not explicitly teach; however, Ho teaches determining an amount of deadhead mileage or distance corresponding with the deadhead time (See “The smaller number of trips included in the various clusters are scheduled by analyzing the trips for inclusion into a packet provided they meet all the member trip quality criteria, meet their requested pickup and drop off times, can be serviced by a single vehicle and meet other criteria set by the operator (e.g. minimal deadhead trip lengths, minimal vehicle idle times etc.) Once a packet is defined, it is a mini-manifest or a mini-route that is not changed by the subsequent processing of other trip requests in the requested trip set.” in Paragraph [0044] and “Once the packets are determined, they are chained together to form routes. In one embodiment, packets are only chained together if determined quality metrics are met. For example, packets are not combined if the combination introduces too much dead time in the chaining of the packets—i.e. the last drop off from one packet takes too long a time to get to the first pickup of the next packet. In addition, packets are not combined if the deadhead trip distance (e.g. the distance driven by a vehicle with no passengers) required to chain them together is too great. The allowable deadhead time and deadhead distance are parameters to set by the service provider. They prevent chaining that might be “legal”, but are not “good”, since time and distance while driving empty is essentially unused resource.” in Paragraph [0084]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Wurster to include determining an amount of deadhead mileage or distance corresponding with the deadhead time, as taught by Ho, in order to provide the most efficient round trip energy expenditures.
Claims 21-23 are product claims corresponding to method Claims 8-10. All of the limitations in Claims 21-23 are found reciting the same scopes of the respective limitations in Claims 8-10. Accordingly, Claims 21-23 are considered obvious (rejection) by the same rationales presented in the rejection of Claims 8-10, respectively set forth above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAYAR M KYU whose telephone number is (571)272-3419. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00 am - 6:00 pm.
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.
/T.M.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/JEFF ZIMMERMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628
