Patent Application 18504267 - Bus Route Mobile Application

Title: Bus Route Mobile Application
Application Information

Invention Title: Bus Route Mobile Application
Application Number: 18504267
Submission Date: 2025-05-14T00:00:00.000Z
Effective Filing Date: 2023-11-08T00:00:00.000Z
Filing Date: 2023-11-08T00:00:00.000Z
National Class: 701
National Sub-Class: 465000
Examiner Employee Number: 94914
Art Unit: 3667
Tech Center: 3600
Rejection Summary

102 Rejections: 1
103 Rejections: 1
Cited Patents

No patents were cited in this rejection.
Office Action Text



    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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined in this application.
This communication is the first action on merits. 
Information disclosure statement was filed and considered by examiner. 

Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: the recited limitation(s) “comprised of a share ETA is a first instance of abbreviation for estimated time of arrival and therefore it should be recited as follows “comprised of an estimated time of arrival (ETA)”.  Appropriate correction is required.

Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b)  CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.


The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.


Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 16, the recited limitation “if a rider of the bus is not marked as attendance…” is indefinite. the claim recites an “if” limitation in which under the broadest reasonable interpretation it does not necessitate the limitation in the claim. Examiner suggest amending the claim to recite “when a rider of the bus is not marked as attendance…”. 

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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter.  
101 Analysis
Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, the claim is determined to be directed to an abstract idea.  The rationale for this determination is explained below:  
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the Office is charged with determining whether the scope of the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1). 
If the claim falls within one of the statutory categories (Step 1), the Office must then determine the two-prong inquiry for Step 2A whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea), and if so, whether the claim is integrated into a practical application of the exception.  
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. 
101 Analysis – Step 1: Statutory Category
Independent claims 1, 8, and 20 are rejected under 35 USC §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a process and machine respectively, which are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: Yes).  
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited
The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea).  The abstract idea falls under “Mental Processes” Grouping. Independent claims 1, 8, and 20 recite generating a bus route; creating a profile, wherein the profile is comprised of a pick-up address or a drop-off address. These limitation(s), as drafted, is (are) a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, other than reciting “mobile application to automatically perform the generation”. The claim limitations encompass a person looking at different types of data such as address (starting point and destination point) and route data could generate/determine a bus route and create a profile which comprises of a pick-up and drop-off address. The mere nominal recitation of this generation/determination is being done automatically does not take the claim limitation(s) out of the mental process grouping and merely function to automate the generating steps. Thus, the claims recite a mental process. (step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial exception recited: Yes).
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 2: Practical Application
The independent claims recite the additional limitations/elements of a mobile application comprising, a map interface, input address feature, a profile, a messaging feature, a share route feature, a confirmation notification feature, attendance feature, driving on a route created by the bus route mobile application in response to the pick-up or drop-off address. The features are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. for receiving/collecting various input data (address input data, profile input data, messaging input data, etc.) and amount to mere data gathering features, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The driving step/element is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general action or change being taken based on the results of the generating step) and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional limitation(s) of a mobile application is/are recited at a high level of generality and merely function to automate the generating steps. 
Accordingly, even 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.  
The claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea (Step 2A—Prong 2:  Practical Application?: No).
101 Analysis – Step 2B: Inventive Concept 
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity.  
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element/limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the features and driving steps/additional elements were considered to be extra-solution activities in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that these steps are performed by anything other than conventional components performing the conventional activity (steps) of the claim.  MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).  Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function.  Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. The claim is ineligible (Step 2B:  Inventive Concept?: No).  
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-17, and 19-20 do not include any other additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.

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.


(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.

Claims 1-6, 8-13, 15, 17-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim Gil (KR102008611B1).
NOTE: see NPL machine translation of KR102008611B1 for mapping of the claims. 
With respect to claim 1, Kim discloses bus route mobile application comprising: a mobile application that automatically generates a bus route (see at [0027], [0033], [0045], and [0068]), the mobile application comprised of: a map interface (see at least [0019], [0052], and [0055-0059]); an input address feature (see at least [0013-0014], [0019], [0021], [0026], [0032-0033], and [0046-0047]); a profile (see at least [0013-0014], [0019], [0021], [0026], [0032-0033], and [0046-0047]); a messaging feature (see at least [0014], [0019-0023], [0033], and [0059-0064]); and a share route feature (see at least [0032-0033]).
With respect to claim 2, Kim discloses wherein the input address feature allows a user to input a pick-up address or a drop-off address (see at least [0013-0014], [0019], [0021], [0026], [0032-0033], and [0046-0047]).
With respect to claim 3, Kim discloses wherein the pick-up address or the drop-off address is displayed on the map interface via an icon (see at least [0019], [0052], and [0055-0059]).
With respect to claim 4, Kim discloses wherein the bus route mobile application creates a route based on the pick-up address or the drop-off address see at [0027], [0033], [0045], and [0068]).
With respect to claim 5, Kim discloses wherein a user can input a piece of information relating to the pick-up address of the drop-off address within the profile (see at least [0013-0014], [0019], [0021], [0026], [0032-0033], and [0046-0047]).
With respect to claim 6, Kim discloses wherein the piece of information is comprised of information relating to a pick-up instruction or a drop-off instruction (see at least [0013-0014], [0019], [0021], [0026], [0032-0033], and [0046-0047]).
With respect to claim 8, Kim discloses bus route mobile application comprising: a mobile application that automatically generates a bus route (see at [0027], [0033], [0045], and [0068]), the mobile application comprised of: an input address feature (see at least [0013-0014], [0019], [0021], [0026], [0032-0033], and [0046-0047]); a map interface (see at least [0019], [0052], and [0055-0059]); a profile (see at least [0013-0014], [0019], [0021], [0026], [0032-0033], and [0046-0047]); a messaging feature (see at least [0014], [0019-0023], [0033], and [0059-0064]); and a share route feature (see at least [0032-0033]); a confirmation notification feature (see at least [0019] and [0040-0041]); and an attendance feature (see at least [0013] and [0021]).
With respect to claims 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13, they are a route mobile application features that recite substantially the same limitations as the respective route mobile application features of claims 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. As such, claims 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 are rejected for substantially the same reasons given for the respective claims 12, 3, 4, 5, and 6 and are incorporated herein. 
With respect to claim 15, Kim discloses wherein the confirmation notification feature sends a notification to a user of the bus route mobile application when a rider of the bus has been picked up or dropped off (see at least [0018], [0024], and [0033-0034]).
With respect to claim 17, Kim discloses wherein the bus route mobile application is comprised of a share ETA feature which shares the ETA of a specific rider of the bus at a pick-up or a drop-off address with a user of the bus route mobile application (see at least [0013], [0019-0021], [0023], [0026], and [0032-0033]).
With respect to claim 18, Kim discloses a method of using a bus route mobile application, the method comprising the following steps: providing a bus route mobile application that generates a bus route (see at [0027], [0033], [0045], and [0068]), the bus route mobile application comprised of a profile feature (see at least [0013-0014], [0019], [0021], [0026], [0032-0033], and [0046-0047]), a map feature (see at least [0019], [0052], and [0055-0059]), a messaging feature (see at least [0014], [0019-0023], [0033], and [0059-0064]), an input address feature see at least [0013-0014], [0019], [0021], [0026], [0032-0033], and [0046-0047]), and a remove address feature see at least [0013-0014], [0019], [0021], [0026], [0032-0033], and [0046-0047]); creating a profile via the profile feature (see at least [0013-0014], [0019], [0021], [0026], [0032-0033], and [0046-0047]), wherein the profile is comprised of a pick-up address or a drop-off address (see at least [0013-0014], [0019], [0021], [0026], [0032-0033], and [0046-0047]); and driving on a route created by the bus route mobile application in response to the pick-up or drop-off address see at [0027], [0033], [0045], and [0068]).
With respect to claim 20, Kim discloses a step of observing a map icon created by a map interface of the bus route mobile application (see at least [0019], [0052], and [0055-0059]).

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.

Claims 7, 14, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim Gil (KR102008611B1) in view of Anand (US 20180292542 A1).
NOTE: see NPL machine translation of KR102008611B1 for mapping of the claims. 
With respect to claim 7, Kim do not specifically disclose wherein the share route feature automatically shares the bus route to a user of the bus route mobile application once the bus route has been generated by the bus route mobile application.
Anand teaches wherein the share route feature automatically shares the bus route to a user of the bus route mobile application once the bus route has been generated by the bus route mobile application (see at least [0063-0064])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Kim, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Anand wherein the share route feature automatically shares the bus route to a user of the bus route mobile application once the bus route has been generated by the bus route mobile application. This would be done to develop some automated systems using latest technologies to provide easy and reliable means for monitoring and tracking of students in a school network (see Anand para 0005).
With respect to claim 14, it is a route mobile application feature that recite substantially the same limitation as the respective route mobile application feature of claims 7. As such, claim 14 is rejected for substantially the same reasons given for the respective claim 7 and is incorporated herein. 
With respect to claim 16, Kim do not specifically disclose wherein if a rider of the bus is not marked as in attendance on the bus via the attendance feature, the bus route mobile application automatically sends a notification to a user of the bus route mobile application.
Anand teaches wherein if a rider of the bus is not marked as in attendance on the bus via the attendance feature, the bus route mobile application automatically sends a notification to a user of the bus route mobile application (see at least [0048], [0050], and [0063-0064]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Kim, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Anand wherein if a rider of the bus is not marked as in attendance on the bus via the attendance feature, the bus route mobile application automatically sends a notification to a user of the bus route mobile application. This would be done to develop some automated systems using latest technologies to provide easy and reliable means for monitoring and tracking of students in a school network (see Anand para 0005).
With respect to claim 19, Kim do not specifically disclose a step of taking an attendance of a rider of the bus via an attendance feature of the bus route mobile application.
Anand teaches a step of taking an attendance of a rider of the bus via an attendance feature of the bus route mobile application (see at least [0048], [0050], and [0063-0064]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Kim, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Anand of a step of taking an attendance of a rider of the bus via an attendance feature of the bus route mobile application. This would be done to develop some automated systems using latest technologies to provide easy and reliable means for monitoring and tracking of students in a school network (see Anand para 0005).


Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDALLA A KHALED whose telephone number is (571)272-9174.  The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8:00 Am-5:00, every other Friday 8:00A-5:00AM.
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached on (313) 446-4821.  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 PAIR.  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 571-272-1000.

/ABDALLA A KHALED/Examiner, Art Unit 3667