DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-11, 14, and 15 have been amended.
Claim 12 has been cancelled.
Claims 1-11 and 13-15 are currently pending and have been examined.
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) 1-11 and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1, 11, 13, 14, and 15 recite(s) a system and series of steps for coordinating transportation service bookings and initiating associated payments, which under broadest reasonable interpretation, is analogous to commercial or legal interactions, such as advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors. These concepts are grouped as certain methods of organizing human activity.
The limitation(s) of, ‘receive one of the plurality of unique non-payment passenger identifiers…’; ‘determine…an optimal transport solution for the booking…’; ‘initiate payment for the booking…’; ‘receive a unique non-payment passenger identifier in relation to a booking’; ‘send the unique non-payment passenger identifier…’; ‘receive at least one predetermined destination address…’; ‘receive user input confirming the booking…’; ‘send a request for an optimal transport solution for the booking…’; ‘receive a unique non-payment passenger identifier…’; ‘send the unique non-payment passenger identifier…’; ‘determine…an optimal transport solution for the booking…’; ‘initiate payment for the booking…’, as drafted, recite a process that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, is/are certain methods of organizing human activity. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim(s) recite(s) the additional element(s) of ‘a communication server apparatus’, ‘a processor’, ‘a memory’, ‘booking communication devices’, ‘a non-transitory storage medium’, ‘communication network equipment’, ‘a first processor and a first memory’, ‘a second processor and a second memory’. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. In their broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional element(s) comprise(s) only a processor, instructions in memory, a receiver, and a transmitter, being used to implement the functions of the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception in a generic computing environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception). Thus, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim(s) is/are directed to the judicial exception.
Claim(s) 2-10 further recite(s) the system and series of steps for coordinating transportation service bookings and initiating associated payments, which under broadest reasonable interpretation, is analogous to commercial or legal interactions, such as advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors. These concepts are grouped as certain methods of organizing human activity. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. In their broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional element(s) comprise(s) only a processor, instructions in memory, a display, a receiver, and a transmitter, being used to implement the functions of the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception in a generic computing environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception). Thus, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim(s) is/are directed to the judicial exception.
Additionally, the claims recite(s) the additional elements of receiving and transmitting data over a communication network and storing the data. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of receiving and transmitting data), and amount to mere data transmission and data storage, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Thus, the claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea.
As discussed above, the additional elements amount to mere data transmission, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. As detailed in MPEP 2106, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the reception, transmission, and storage of data was considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
The generic functions of receiving and transmitting data are considered to be well‐understood, routine, and conventional elements previously known to the industry, because the functions can be summarized as the generic computer functions of receiving or transmitting data over a network. This is similar to how ‘using the Internet to gather data’ was found to be a well-known, routine, and conventional function in the decision of Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2015) (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) Elements That the Courts Have Recognized as Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity in Particular Fields). Thus, these elements amount to well‐understood, routine, and conventional elements previously known to the industry, which does not add significantly more, and therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept, and therefore, the claim(s) is/are not eligible.
The generic functions of storing received data in memory are considered to be well‐understood, routine, and conventional elements previously known to the industry, because the functions can be summarized as the generic computer functions of storing and retrieving information in memory. This is similar to how storing and retrieving information in memory was found to be a well-known, routine, and conventional function in the decision of Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2015) (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) Elements That the Courts Have Recognized as Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity in Particular Fields). Thus, these elements amount to well‐understood, routine, and conventional elements previously known to the industry, which does not add significantly more, and therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept, and therefore, the claim(s) is/are not eligible.
As analyzed above in step 2A prong 2, the limitations as an ordered combination, are merely applying the abstract idea in a generic computing environment. In addition, the claims do not improve functionality of a computer or improve any other technology. Thus, claims 1-11 and 13-15 are ineligible as the claims do not recite additional elements which result in significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-8, 11, and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kakuchi (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20220358497).
In regards to claim 1, Kakuchi teaches:
A communication server apparatus for booking a transportation service, the communication server apparatus comprising a processor and a memory, the communication server apparatus being configured, under control of the processor, to execute instructions stored in the memory (Kakuchi: ¶50 discloses a transportation service management controller comprising a processor and a memory), to:
store in the memory, a plurality of users, wherein one or more users having an associated payment method, and one or more of the one or more users having an associated payment method having at least one associated unique non-payment passenger identifier, each associated unique non-payment passenger identifier having at least one predetermined destination address (Kakuchi: ¶37, ¶54, ¶60-63 disclose a plurality of user identifiers stored in the memory, wherein the user identifier is associated with a payment method, destination locations, and other non-payment identifiers),
store in the memory a plurality of booking communication devices, each booking communication device having a predetermined pickup location (Kakuchi: ¶38-41, ¶43-44, ¶47 disclose a plurality of booking devices (i.e., the taxi vehicles), wherein each booking device is associated with predetermined locations),
receive one of the plurality of unique non-payment passenger identifiers, presented to one of the plurality of booking communication devices in relation to a booking (Kakuchi: ¶44 discloses receiving a passenger identifier (i.e., certificate medium) being presented to the communication device (i.e., the taxi vehicle)),
determine using the processor an optimal transport solution for the booking based on at least the predetermined pickup location of the booking communication device and on the predetermined destination address retrieved from the memory (Kakuchi: ¶72 discloses determining a transport solution based on the pickup location and the destination location), and
initiate payment for the booking using the payment method associated with the respective user for the unique non-payment passenger identifier (Kakuchi: ¶45, ¶63, ¶72-73 disclose processing the payment method associated with the passenger identifier).
In regards to claim 2, Kakuchi teaches the communication server apparatus of claim 1. Kakuchi further teaches wherein each unique non-payment passenger identifier is associated with a sub user (Kakuchi: ¶68 disclose wherein the passenger identifier may be associated with a substitute user).
In regards to claim 4, Kakuchi teaches the communication server apparatus of claim 2. Kakuchi further teaches wherein the communication server apparatus is configured to receive two or more predetermined destination addresses from a user in respect of the respective associated sub users (Kakuchi: ¶62, ¶72 disclose wherein the system may register a plurality of predetermined destinations and may present them to the user for selection).
In regards to claim 5, Kakuchi teaches the communication server apparatus of claim 4. Kakuchi further teaches receive a selection from the passenger between two or more predetermined destination addresses, displayed on the booking communication device, corresponding to the presented unique non- payment passenger identifier (Kakuchi: ¶62, ¶72 disclose wherein the system may register a plurality of predetermined destinations and may present them to the user for selection).
In regards to claim 6, Kakuchi teaches the communication server apparatus of claim 4. Kakuchi further teaches receive a selection from the passenger between multiple transportation types, and the optimal transport solution also being based on the selected transportation type (Kakuchi: ¶36, ¶50 disclose receiving user selected transportation request details and allocating taxi vehicles accordingly).
In regards to claim 7, Kakuchi teaches the communication server apparatus of claim 1. Kakuchi further teaches wherein the communication server apparatus is configured to inform the user regarding each booking relating to an associated sub user (Kakuchi: ¶75 discloses sending a notification to the parent regarding the status of their child’s transportation booking).
In regards to claim 8, Kakuchi teaches the communication server apparatus of claim 1. Kakuchi further teaches wherein the communication server apparatus is configured to receive a request to disable a selected unique non-payment passenger identifier and to disable the selected unique non- payment passenger identifier from further bookings (Kakuchi: ¶64, ¶74 discloses wherein the user identifier is disabled when the use condition is not met and is only enabled to request a transportation booking when the use condition is met).
In regards to claim 11, the claim recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 1 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons set forth above for claim 1.
In regards to claim 13, Kakuchi teaches the method of claim 11. Kakuchi further teaches A non-transitory storage medium, storing instructions, which when executed by a processor, causes the processor to perform the method of claim 11 (Kakuchi: ¶47 discloses a semiconductor memory (for example, a RAM, a ROM, and a solid-state drive) and a magnetic disk (for example, a hard disk drive)).
In regards to claim 14, the claim recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 1 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons set forth above for claim 1.
In regards to claim 15, the claim recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 1 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons set forth above for claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 3, 9, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kakuchi (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20220358497), in view of Calvert (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20210406893).
In regards to claim 3, Kakuchi teaches the communication server apparatus of claim 2. Although Kakuchi teaches receiving predetermined destinations for substitute users, the reference does not explicitly state receiving spending limits.
However, Calvert teaches wherein the communication server is configured to receive spending limits from a user in respect of the respective associated sub users (Calvert: ¶83 discloses receiving a budget restriction for another user).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the budget restriction, as taught by Calvert, into the system and method of Kakuchi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “complete a transaction via an internet-connected vehicle by automatic enforcement of business rules (e.g., parental spending control tools, or employee spending tracking tools)” (Calvert: ¶8).
In regards to claim 9, Kakuchi teaches the communication server apparatus of claim 1. Although Kakuchi teaches that passenger identifiers may be associated with substitute users, the reference does not explicitly state storing a PIN for each passenger identifier.
However, Calvert teaches wherein the memory stores a PIN for each associated unique non-payment passenger identifier (Calvert: ¶35, ¶67, ¶75 disclose receiving and storing an authentication PIN associated with the passenger identifiers).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the authentication PIN, as taught by Calvert, into the system and method of Kakuchi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “complete a transaction via an internet-connected vehicle by automatic enforcement of business rules (e.g., parental spending control tools, or employee spending tracking tools)” (Calvert: ¶8).
In regards to claim 10, Kakuchi teaches the communication server apparatus of claim 1. Although Kakuchi teaches that passenger identifiers may be associated with substitute users, the reference does not explicitly state storing a nickname associated with the passenger identifiers.
However, Calvert teaches wherein the memory stores a Sub user Nickname for each associated unique non-payment passenger identifier (Calvert: ¶71, 74-75, Fig. 8 disclose receiving and storing sub-user nicknames (e.g., Stacy (daughter)) associated with the passenger identifiers).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the sub-user nicknames, as taught by Calvert, into the system and method of Kakuchi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “complete a transaction via an internet-connected vehicle by automatic enforcement of business rules (e.g., parental spending control tools, or employee spending tracking tools)” (Calvert: ¶8).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Wayne S Murray whose telephone number is (571)272-4306. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm ET.
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.
/Wayne S. Murray/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
