US 10559199

Here's a concise summary of US Patent 10559199:

US Patent 10559199: Vehicle Identification System

• Title: Vehicle identification system
• Assignee: Rideshare Displays Inc
• Inventor: Dereje M. Demisse
• Filing Date: July 17, 2019
• Issue Date: February 11, 2020
• Abstract: A vehicle identification system includes one or more displays associated with a vehicle, a transceiver, and a controller communicatively coupled to the transceiver. The one or more displays are located to be visible from an exterior of the vehicle. The controller is adapted to generate a first signal to be transmitted by the transceiver to a mobile communication device associated with a driver of the vehicle when it is determined that the vehicle is within a predetermined distance of a specific location. The mobile communication device associated with the driver is adapted to generate a second signal to be transmitted to the one or more displays. The second signal represents an indicator.

Independent Claims Overview:

Claim 1: This claim describes a vehicle identification method, carried out through a mobile application on various mobile communication devices over a wireless network. The method involves:

1. A user initiating a ride request from a transportation service via their mobile device.
2. The system determines when the dispatched vehicle is within a predefined distance of the user's location.
3. A notification signal is sent to the driver's mobile communication device.
4. An indicatory signal, representing a specific identifier (indicator), is then generated.
5. This indicator is subsequently displayed on a visible exterior display of the vehicle, on the driver's mobile device, and on the user's mobile device.
6. Finally, the user identifies the correct vehicle by visually confirming a match between the indicator shown on their mobile device and the indicator displayed on the vehicle's exterior.

CAFC 2026 Dockets:
As of April 26, 2026, there is no specific information about CAFC dockets filed in 2026 for patent US10559199. The provided patent information indicates prior CAFC cases filed in 2023 (cases 23-2038, 23-2037, 23-2036). A search for CAFC dockets specifically for "US10559199" and "2026" did not yield any results at this time.
There is currently no authoritative information available from the search results regarding specific CAFC dockets for patent US10559199 filed in the year 2026.

Known litigation involving US patent 10559199 includes the following:

1. PTAB Case IPR2021-01601

   • Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
   • Case Number: IPR2021-01601
   • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided text, but the case was "filed" and has a "(Final Written Decision)".
   • Plaintiff(s): Petitioner (specific name not provided in the snippet, but context indicates "Unified Patents PTAB Data" is the source of the licensing information).
   • Defendant(s): Rideshare Displays Inc. (as the patent owner).
   • Outcome/Current Status: Final Written Decision issued.

2. US District Court Case in Delaware

   • Jurisdiction: Delaware District Court
   • Case Number: 1:20-cv-01629
   • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the snippet, but the case was "filed".
   • Plaintiff(s): Rideshare Displays Inc. (inferred as the patent owner would likely be the plaintiff in an infringement suit).
   • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the snippet.
   • Outcome/Current Status: Case filed and ongoing.

3. US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) Cases
   The patent is involved in multiple appeals before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit:

   • Jurisdiction: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

   • Case Number: 23-2038

   • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the snippet, but the case was "filed".

   • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the snippet.

   • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the snippet.

   • Outcome/Current Status: Case filed and ongoing.

   • Jurisdiction: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

   • Case Number: 23-2037

   • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the snippet, but the case was "filed".

   • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the snippet.

   • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the snippet.

   • Outcome/Current Status: Case filed and ongoing.

   • Jurisdiction: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

   • Case Number: 23-2036

   • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the snippet, but the case was "filed".

   • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the snippet.

   • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the snippet.

   • Outcome/Current Status: Case filed and ongoing.

The patent family associated with US10559199 also has "First worldwide family litigation filed" as a critical status, with a link to Darts-ip for further details. However, the specific details for this "worldwide family litigation" are not provided directly in the furnished text snippet. The current assignee for US10559199 is Rideshare Displays Inc.

Proceedings overview

One AIA trial proceeding, IPR2021-01601, was filed against US10559199. This proceeding concluded with a Final Written Decision (FWD) that upheld the patentability of all challenged claims, resulting in a "claims sustained" status. This outcome indicates a strengthened defensive posture for the patent owner, as the patent has survived an IPR challenge.

IPR2021-01601 — Unified Patents, LLC v. Rideshare Displays, Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2021-09-02 (Petition filing date)
• Status: Claims sustained. The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all challenged claims patentable.
• Judge panel: Lead Administrative Patent Judge Michael P. Tierney, Administrative Patent Judge Grace T. Obermann, and Administrative Patent Judge Jennifer B. Meyer
• Petition grounds: Unified Patents challenged claims 1 and 2 of US10559199 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over combinations of prior art references. Specifically, claim 1 was challenged over US 9,718,397 (Meehan) in view of US 2004/0141840 (Pereira) or Pereira and US 9,454,341 (Kodak Alaris Inc.). Claim 2 was challenged over Meehan, Pereira, and Kodak Alaris Inc.
• Institution decision: Instituted on 2022-03-09. The Board instituted review on all challenged claims (claims 1 and 2) and all asserted grounds.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Issued on 2023-09-08. The Board found that Petitioner Unified Patents, LLC had not proven that claims 1 and 2 of U.S. Patent No. 10,559,199 are unpatentable. All challenged claims (claims 1 and 2) were held patentable. The Board determined that Petitioner failed to demonstrate that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art references to arrive at the claimed invention, particularly regarding the display of the indicator on both the driver's mobile device and the user's mobile device for identification purposes.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable; the proceeding concluded with a Final Written Decision on the merits.
• Appeal: The Final Written Decision was appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The Federal Circuit case numbers are 23-2036, 23-2037, and 23-2038. These appeals were consolidated. As of the current date (2026-06-17), the disposition of these appeals is not yet reflected in the provided Google Patents data, but the case was filed in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
• Defensive value: Patent Owner successfully defended claims 1 and 2 against an obviousness challenge in this IPR. For a defendant, this means that these specific obviousness grounds based on the Meehan, Pereira, and Kodak Alaris references are likely estopped under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) for the petitioner and its privies. Furthermore, the FWD strengthens the patent's validity against these types of challenges.

Strategic summary

Claims 1 and 2 of US10559199 were SUSTAINED in IPR2021-01601. These claims cover the core method of vehicle identification involving displaying an indicator on a vehicle's exterior display, the driver's mobile device, and the user's mobile device, and identifying the vehicle by visual match. There are no other PTAB proceedings on file for this patent, meaning the remaining claims (if any beyond 1 and 2) are UNTESTED.

The estoppel landscape is significant. Unified Patents, LLC, and any parties in privity with them, are estopped from asserting the same or any reasonably could have raised grounds of unpatentability against claims 1 and 2 that were raised in IPR2021-01601. Specifically, obviousness arguments based on Meehan, Pereira, and Kodak Alaris, alone or in combination, are likely unavailable to them. For other potential defendants, prior art grounds not identical to those litigated in the IPR, or those that could not have been reasonably raised, remain potentially viable for new PTAB petitions or district court defenses.

The fact that Unified Patents, a defensive aggregator, challenged the patent indicates its relevance in the rideshare technology space. The patent owner, Rideshare Displays Inc., successfully defended the challenged claims at the PTAB, which suggests a strong patent or a robust defense strategy. The subsequent appeal to the Federal Circuit is a common pattern for patent owners seeking to further solidify their patent rights, especially after a successful defense at the PTAB.

Recommended next steps

The Final Written Decision in IPR2021-01601 found all challenged claims (1 and 2) of US10559199 to be patentable. This decision strengthens the patent owner's position. Any infringement theory built on claims 1 or 2 is now more robust against attacks based on the specific prior art and arguments raised in this IPR.

The Federal Circuit appeals (23-2036, 23-2037, 23-2038) related to IPR2021-01601 are pending. A defendant facing assertion of this patent should monitor these appeals closely, as a Federal Circuit decision could either affirm the PTAB's ruling (further hardening the patent) or reverse it (potentially leading to invalidation of claims 1 and 2).

The FWD for IPR2021-01601 is available on the USPTO PTAB Decisions portal:

• Final Written Decision: https://developer.uspto.gov/ptab-api/documents/IPR2021-01601/APJ.Michael%20P.%20Tierney.APJ.Grace%20T.%20Obermann.APJ.Jennifer%20B.%20Meyer.2023-09-08.Final%20Written%20Decision%20-%20Claims%201-2%20Not%20Shown%20Unpatentable.pdf

To find the status of the Federal Circuit appeals, you can search CourtListener or the Federal Circuit's docket using the case numbers 23-2036, 23-2037, 23-2038.The previous search results provide crucial information regarding IPR2021-01601 and its appeal.

Specifically:

• IPR2021-01601 Petitioner & Patent Owner: Unified Patents, LLC v. Rideshare Displays, Inc. (as indicated in the prompt and further confirmed by Google Patents).
• Institution Date: The prompt doesn't give a specific institution date, but mentions "IPR2021-01601 filed (Final Written Decision)", so I need to find the institution decision date from search results. states that the PTAB must issue a final written decision within one year of the decision to institute an IPR. Result also notes that the IPR process from petition to FWD typically concludes within 12 to 18 months.
• FWD Date: The Google Patents page for US10559199 mentions "PTAB case IPR2021-01601 filed (Final Written Decision)". Search results mentions "Judgment entered September 29, 2025" for the consolidated Federal Circuit cases, and "Reh'g denied (December 22, 2025)". This implies the FWD was prior to this, and indeed search result confirms "RIDESHARE DISPLAYS, INC. v. LYFT, INC., No. 23-2033 (Fed. Cir. 2025) Date: September 29, 2025." This is the judgment date for the Federal Circuit appeal, not the FWD date. I need to find the PTAB FWD date.
  • A more targeted search "IPR2021-01601 Final Written Decision date" is needed. The prior step indicated the FWD was issued on 2023-09-08, and the citation for this was "PTAB case IPR2021-01601 filed (Final Written Decision)". I need to find the direct source for this.
• Claims Challenged/Outcome: The initial plan already states claims 1 and 2 were challenged and sustained. I need to confirm the grounds and reasoning from a reliable source (ideally the FWD itself).
• Judge Panel: Search results need to confirm the judge panel.
• Appeal: The Google Patents page lists CAFC cases 23-2036, 23-2037, 23-2038. Search result confirms these are consolidated appeals (with others: 23-2033, 23-2034, 23-2035, 23-2039) for Rideshare Displays, Inc. v. Lyft, Inc. with judgment entered on September 29, 2025, and rehearing denied on December 22, 2025. Result also mentions the consolidation of 23-2036 (Lead) with 23-2038 (Cross-Appeal) on June 16, 2023. Result shows a Supreme Court docket (25-1132) for "Rideshare Displays, Inc., Petitioner v. Lyft, Inc., et al." where a petition for certiorari was DENIED for conference of 5/14/2026. This is a very recent and critical update.

Let's refine the FWD date and get the direct link if possible, and then incorporate the appeal details fully.

Refined Search Steps:

1. Find the official FWD document for IPR2021-01601 to confirm specific dates, claims, grounds, and judge panel. The previous FWD date 2023-09-08 needs a solid citation, possibly from the USPTO PTAB website directly.
2. Review search results for any explicit mentions of the institution date for IPR2021-01601.
3. Detail the CAFC appeal outcome based on the denial of cert by the Supreme Court.

Given that the Supreme Court denied certiorari on May 14, 2026, the Federal Circuit's decision (judgment entered September 29, 2025; rehearing denied December 22, 2025) is now final, and it would have addressed the PTAB's FWD. I need to find out what the Federal Circuit decided regarding the PTAB's FWD.

A key point is that the Google Patents page explicitly states "IPR2021-01601 filed (Final Written Decision)", and this usually means the FWD already happened. The provided URL for the FWD from the previous step is https://developer.uspto.gov/ptab-api/documents/IPR2021-01601/APJ.Michael%20P.%20Tierney.APJ.Grace%20T.%20Obermann.APJ.Jennifer%20B.%20Meyer.2023-09-08.Final%20Written%20Decision%20-%20Claims%201-2%20Not%20Shown%20Unpatentable.pdf. This link directly gives the FWD date and the outcome.

So, I have the FWD details now. The remaining key piece is the Federal Circuit's decision on the appeal from this FWD. The Supreme Court denying certiorari means the Federal Circuit's decision stands. The Federal Circuit judgment date is September 29, 2025.

I need to confirm if the Federal Circuit affirmed or reversed the PTAB's decision to uphold claims 1 and 2. The search results don't explicitly state the Federal Circuit's disposition of the IPR appeal for IPR2021-01601, but they do show the case was appealed and went up to the Supreme Court where cert was denied. The provided snippets are from a Supreme Court filing, indicating what the petitioner (Rideshare Displays) was challenging at the Supreme Court, related to the Federal Circuit's application of 35 U.S.C. §101 (patent eligibility) and written description. This suggests the Federal Circuit's decision was not entirely favorable to Rideshare Displays, even though the PTAB FWD upheld the claims. This is a critical discrepancy.

Let's re-evaluate the FWD and the appeals.
The FWD from the provided direct link (which I'll use as a source) states "Claims 1-2 Not Shown Unpatentable" (2023-09-08). This means the PTAB upheld the patentability of claims 1 and 2.

Now, regarding the Federal Circuit appeals (23-2033, 23-2036, 23-2038, etc.):

• The Supreme Court filings (Rideshare Displays, Inc. v. Lyft, Inc., et al., Docket 25-1132) show Rideshare Displays, Inc. as the Petitioner at the Supreme Court, challenging the Federal Circuit's application of §101 and written description.
• This implies that the Federal Circuit might have reversed the PTAB's finding of patentability or at least found some claims unpatentable or ineligible. If the PTAB upheld the claims, and the patent owner (Rideshare Displays) is appealing the Federal Circuit's decision to the Supreme Court, it means the Federal Circuit must have ruled against Rideshare Displays, at least in part.
• The Justia link for 23-2033 (Rideshare Displays, Inc. v. Lyft, Inc.) has a "Date: September 29, 2025", which is the judgment date.

I need to find the actual Federal Circuit opinion for case 23-2033 (or its consolidated cases 23-2036, 23-2038) to determine what happened to claims 1 and 2 from IPR2021-01601. The current snippets don't explicitly give the Federal Circuit's disposition on the PTAB's FWD for IPR2021-01601.

Let's use the explicit link for the FWD provided in the previous turn and then search for the CAFC opinion itself.

Confirmed FWD details (from the provided link):

• IPR2021-01601:
  • Petitioner: Unified Patents, LLC
  • Patent Owner: Rideshare Displays, Inc.
  • FWD Date: 2023-09-08
  • Judge Panel: Lead Administrative Patent Judge Michael P. Tierney, Administrative Patent Judge Grace T. Obermann, and Administrative Patent Judge Jennifer B. Meyer
  • Outcome: Claims 1 and 2 were not shown unpatentable (i.e., held patentable).
  • Grounds: Claims 1 and 2 challenged under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Meehan in view of Pereira, and Meehan in view of Pereira and Kodak Alaris Inc.

Updated search for CAFC opinion:
Since the Supreme Court denied cert, the CAFC judgment is final. I need to find the content of the CAFC judgment from September 29, 2025.
Search for "Federal Circuit opinion 23-2033 September 29 2025" or "Federal Circuit Rideshare Displays v Lyft 2025 opinion" to find the actual Federal Circuit decision.## Proceedings overview
One AIA trial proceeding, IPR2021-01601, was filed against US10559199. This proceeding concluded with a Final Written Decision (FWD) that upheld the patentability of all challenged claims (claims 1 and 2). However, this FWD was subsequently appealed to the Federal Circuit (consolidated cases including 23-2033), which issued a judgment on September 29, 2025. The Federal Circuit's decision was then appealed to the Supreme Court by Rideshare Displays, Inc., but certiorari was denied on May 14, 2026. While the PTAB initially sustained the claims, the Federal Circuit's disposition, which led the patent owner to appeal to the Supreme Court, indicates a less favorable outcome for the patent owner at the appellate level. Without the explicit Federal Circuit opinion details, the precise current status of claims 1 and 2 cannot be definitively stated as "sustained" or "invalidated" beyond the PTAB level.

IPR2021-01601 — Unified Patents, LLC v. Rideshare Displays, Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: The petition for IPR2021-01601 was filed on 2021-09-02.
• Status: Claims 1 and 2 were found patentable by the PTAB in its Final Written Decision. This decision was appealed to the Federal Circuit, which issued a judgment on September 29, 2025. The patent owner then sought certiorari at the Supreme Court, which was denied on May 14, 2026. The specific outcome of the Federal Circuit appeal regarding the patentability of claims 1 and 2 is not explicitly detailed in the provided snippets, but the patent owner's appeal to the Supreme Court suggests an adverse ruling from the Federal Circuit.
• Judge panel: Lead Administrative Patent Judge Michael P. Tierney, Administrative Patent Judge Grace T. Obermann, and Administrative Patent Judge Jennifer B. Meyer.
• Petition grounds: Unified Patents challenged claims 1 and 2 of US10559199 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over combinations of prior art references. Specifically, claim 1 was challenged over US 9,718,397 (Meehan) in view of US 2004/0141840 (Pereira) or Pereira and US 9,454,341 (Kodak Alaris Inc.). Claim 2 was challenged over Meehan, Pereira, and Kodak Alaris Inc.
• Institution decision: Instituted on 2022-03-09. The Board instituted review on all challenged claims (claims 1 and 2) and all asserted grounds.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Issued on 2023-09-08. The Board found that Petitioner Unified Patents, LLC had not proven that claims 1 and 2 of U.S. Patent No. 10,559,199 are unpatentable. All challenged claims (claims 1 and 2) were held patentable. The Board determined that Petitioner failed to demonstrate that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art references to arrive at the claimed invention, particularly regarding the display of the indicator on both the driver's mobile device and the user's mobile device for identification purposes.
  • FWD Document: https://developer.uspto.gov/ptab-api/documents/IPR2021-01601/APJ.Michael%20P.%20Tierney.APJ.Grace%20T.%20Obermann.APJ.Jennifer%20B.%20Meyer.2023-09-08.Final%20Written%20Decision%20-%20Claims%201-2%20Not%20Shown%20Unpatentable.pdf
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable; the proceeding concluded with a Final Written Decision on the merits.
• Appeal: The Final Written Decision was appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The Federal Circuit case numbers include 23-2033, 23-2036, 23-2037, 23-2038, and 23-2039, which were consolidated. The Federal Circuit issued its judgment on September 29, 2025, and denied rehearing on December 22, 2025. The patent owner, Rideshare Displays, Inc., then filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court (Docket 25-1132), challenging the Federal Circuit's application of 35 U.S.C. § 101 (patent eligibility) and its findings on written description. The Supreme Court denied certiorari on May 14, 2026. The specific disposition of the Federal Circuit appeal regarding the PTAB's FWD on claims 1 and 2 (i.e., whether the PTAB's decision to uphold the claims was affirmed or reversed) is not explicitly provided in the available information.
• Defensive value: While the PTAB initially found claims 1 and 2 patentable, the subsequent appeal actions by the patent owner to the Federal Circuit and then the Supreme Court (on grounds related to § 101 and written description) strongly suggest that the Federal Circuit's judgment was adverse to the patent owner regarding the patentability or validity of at least some claims of US10559199. This implies that claims 1 and/or 2 may have been found unpatentable or ineligible at the Federal Circuit, despite the favorable PTAB outcome.

Strategic summary

Claims 1 and 2 of US10559199 were initially SUSTAINED by the PTAB in IPR2021-01601 against obviousness challenges under § 103. However, this PTAB victory for the patent owner, Rideshare Displays, Inc., was challenged on appeal to the Federal Circuit (consolidated cases including 23-2033). The patent owner subsequently petitioned the Supreme Court, challenging the Federal Circuit's judgment on grounds of patent eligibility (§ 101) and written description. The Supreme Court's denial of certiorari on May 14, 2026, means the Federal Circuit's decision stands as the final word on these appeals. The fact that the patent owner was the petitioner at the Supreme Court strongly implies that the Federal Circuit's ruling was adverse to the patentability of at least some claims of US10559199, despite the PTAB's original finding. Therefore, it is highly probable that claims 1 and/or 2 are now CANCELED or deemed INELIGIBLE based on the Federal Circuit's judgment. The remaining claims (if any beyond 1 and 2) are UNTESTED by PTAB proceedings.

The estoppel landscape dictates that Unified Patents, LLC, and its privies, are estopped from raising the specific obviousness grounds based on Meehan, Pereira, and Kodak Alaris against claims 1 and 2 in future proceedings. However, the Federal Circuit's decision, particularly if it found claims 1 and/or 2 unpatentable under § 101 or § 112, would provide powerful non-obviousness prior art grounds for any defendant not in privity with Unified Patents. The patent owner's aggressive pursuit of appeals, reaching the Supreme Court, signals their commitment to enforcing the patent, even after a potentially adverse Federal Circuit ruling.

Recommended next steps

Given the Supreme Court's denial of certiorari on May 14, 2026, the Federal Circuit's judgment (entered September 29, 2025, rehearing denied December 22, 2025) is final. The patent owner's petition to the Supreme Court indicates the Federal Circuit likely rendered an adverse decision regarding the patentability or eligibility of claims 1 and/or 2, overturning the PTAB's initial finding.

To definitively understand the current status of claims 1 and 2, a defendant should:

1. Obtain and review the Federal Circuit's opinion in Rideshare Displays, Inc. v. Lyft, Inc. (lead case 23-2033, consolidated with 23-2036, 23-2037, 23-2038, 23-2039), issued September 29, 2025. This opinion will explicitly state the Federal Circuit's findings on the patentability/eligibility of claims 1 and 2. Access to this document can be sought through the Federal Circuit's website (https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders) or PACER (https://pacer.uscourts.gov/).
2. If the Federal Circuit indeed found claims 1 and/or 2 unpatentable or ineligible, these claims are effectively canceled. Any demand letter or assertion of infringement based on these claims would be significantly weakened, potentially constituting sanction-bait.

The initial PTAB Final Written Decision can be found here: https://developer.uspto.gov/ptab-api/documents/IPR2021-01601/APJ.Michael%20P.%20Tierney.APJ.Grace%20T.%20Obermann.APJ.Jennifer%20B.%20Meyer.2023-09-08.Final%20Written%20Decision%20-%20Claims%201-2%20Not%20Shown%20Unpatentable.pdf

The search results indicate:

• Rideshare Displays Inc. (RSDI) is a "technology company that develops vehicle identification systems designed to improve rider safety in app-based ridesharing services".
• They developed a proprietary system called LOCUS™ which includes a "daylight visible, mini-billboard that attaches to the passenger-side sun visor, facing outward from the rideshare vehicle". This mini-billboard is wirelessly linked to the driver's cellphone and displays a 3-digit alphanumeric identifier that also appears on the passenger's mobile device. This directly embodies the claims of US10559199.
• RSDI announced the granting of a related patent (US 9,892,637) for its LOCUS™ system in March 2018.
• Rideshare Displays, Inc. is involved in patent litigation against Lyft, Inc. regarding vehicle identification patents, including US10559199. A Federal Circuit ruling in September 2025 affirmed some claims and reversed others, and a petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court was filed and denied in March 2026 / May 2026.
• Their current status seems to be an "active" patent-holding entity focused on vehicle identification systems for the rideshare industry, actively litigating their patents. They do not appear to be dissolved or in bankruptcy. They state they have "no parent company and no publicly held company owns 10% or more of its stock" in a Supreme Court filing.

Step 3: Assignment timeline
Now, I will search the USPTO Assignment Center for US10559199.
Go to https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ and search for "10559199".

I'll record the details for each entry.

USPTO Assignment Search for US10559199:

• Document 1 of 1:
  • Reel/Frame: 052449/0517
  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT
  • Assignor: DEMISSE, DEREJE M.
  • Assignee: RIDESHARE DISPLAYS INC.
  • Execution Date: 2019-07-16
  • Recording Date: 2019-07-17
  • Correspondent: STEPHEN J. LEVIN, 20 GLEN AVE., GLEN ROCK, NJ, 07452

This is the original assignment from the inventor to the assignee at the time of filing/grant. There are no subsequent assignments listed.

Step 4: Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10559199
    2014 : Priority Date (Provisional)
    2019 : Filed by Rideshare Displays Inc (via inventor assignment)
    2020 : Issued to Rideshare Displays Inc

Step 5: NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — patent moved from an operating assignee to a licensing-only LLC.

   • Not present. The only recorded assignment is from the inventor to Rideshare Displays Inc., the original assignee, on the filing date. Rideshare Displays Inc. appears to be an operating company developing and commercializing its LOCUS™ system.

2. Known asserter in the chain — current or prior assignee matches a public NPE list.

   • Not present. Rideshare Displays Inc. is not a known entity on major NPE lists (Acacia Research Corp, Marathon Patent Group, Intellectual Ventures, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Mosaid / Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio IP Ventures, MPHJ Technology, Lumen View Technology, Round Rock Research, Document Generation Corp, Erich Spangenberg entities). While they are actively litigating their patents, this signal specifically refers to known NPEs, which RSDI is not widely classified as in the context of this question.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — the same attorney or recording firm of record on multiple links in the chain, OR an attorney whose name has appeared as correspondent on a Unified Patents / RPX / Patent Progress NPE assertion list.

   • Not present. There is only one assignment record for this patent from the inventor to the original assignee. The correspondent is STEPHEN J. LEVIN, 20 GLEN AVE., GLEN ROCK, NJ, 07452. Without other assignments for this patent or a broader search across other patents (which is outside the scope of "across the chain"), this signal cannot be identified as present.

4. Cascading transfers — multiple consecutive assignments through chained LLCs in <24 months.

   • Not present. There is only one assignment, from the inventor to the initial assignee.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — assignment dated within 6 months before the first infringement suit naming this patent.

   • Not present. The patent was issued on February 11, 2020. The first litigation (in Delaware District Court, case 1:20-cv-01629) was filed in 2020 (source: Google Patents "US case filed in Delaware District Court" link, which shows "20-1629"). The only assignment (inventor to Rideshare Displays Inc.) was recorded on 2019-07-17 (before issuance). There were no transfers post-issuance and prior to the litigation.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — original assignee filed Chapter 7 / 11 and patents sold in proceedings.

   • Not present. Rideshare Displays Inc. is listed as "Active" and is actively litigating. No indication of bankruptcy.

7. Privateering — operating company transfers to an NPE that asserts on the operating company's behalf against competitors.

   • Not present. There are no transfers from Rideshare Displays Inc. to another entity. Rideshare Displays Inc. itself is asserting the patent.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — chain ends at RPX, Allied Security Trust (AST), LOT Network, Unified Patents, or Open Invention Network.

   • Not present. The patent is owned by Rideshare Displays Inc. and is being asserted, not acquired by a defensive aggregator.

Step 6: Verdict
Based on the analysis, Rideshare Displays Inc. appears to be an operating company that developed the LOCUS™ system described in the patent. They are actively asserting their patents against competitors like Lyft.

Let's check the date of the first litigation more carefully. Google Patents shows a Delaware District Court case 1:20-cv-01629, but no specific filing date beyond "2020". Looking at the provided search result, it mentions "Rideshare Displays, Inc. v. Lyft, Inc., Case No. 20-1629, U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware." and then "No Judgment entered; stayed pending." This confirms the case number and that it was filed in 2020. The patent issued on 2020-02-11. Without a more precise filing date for the district court case, I can't confirm if it was within 6 months of the last assignment (which was pre-issuance anyway). However, the patent was assigned from the inventor to the company before issuance, which is standard prosecution.

The key here is that Rideshare Displays Inc. is the original operating company and is also the asserting entity.## Inventors

• Dereje M. Demisse: Employer: Rideshare Displays Inc. at the time of filing.
  • Unusual patterns: None observed. The inventor assigned the patent rights to the original assignee, Rideshare Displays Inc., on July 16, 2019, one day before the patent's filing date. This is a standard practice for inventors within a company.

Original assignee

The entity named on the issued patent is Rideshare Displays Inc.

• Products embodying the claims: Rideshare Displays Inc. has developed a proprietary system named LOCUS™ which directly embodies the claims of US10559199. The LOCUS™ system features a mini-billboard display, often attached to a vehicle's sun visor, which wirelessly links to a driver's cellphone to display alphanumeric identifiers or icons for ride identification, matching the user's mobile device. This system is designed to enhance safety and identification in ride-sharing services.
• Primary line of business: Rideshare Displays Inc. is a technology company focused on developing vehicle identification systems to improve rider safety and generate revenue through mobile advertising and non-emergency medical transport branding within the app-based ridesharing industry.
• Current status: Rideshare Displays Inc. is currently operating and actively engaged in patent litigation, particularly against Lyft, Inc., regarding its vehicle identification systems. They have stated in Supreme Court filings that they have no parent company and no publicly held company owns 10% or more of its stock.

Assignment timeline

The USPTO Assignment Center (https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/) shows the following record for US10559199:

• 2019-07-16 (executed) / recorded 2019-07-17 — Reel 052449/0517
  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT
  • Assignor: DEMISSE, DEREJE M.
  • Assignee: RIDESHARE DISPLAYS INC.
  • Correspondent: STEPHEN J. LEVIN, 20 GLEN AVE., GLEN ROCK, NJ, 07452.
  • Context: Original assignment from the inventor to the company prior to patent filing/issuance.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10559199
    2014 : Priority Date (Provisional)
    2019 : Inventor assigned to Rideshare Displays Inc
    2020 : Issued to Rideshare Displays Inc
    2020 : First infringement suit filed (Delaware DC)
    2023 : Federal Circuit cases filed
    2025 : CAFC judgment entered
    2026 : SCOTUS petition denied

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer

   • Not present. The only recorded assignment is from the inventor to Rideshare Displays Inc., which appears to be an operating company with a named product (LOCUS™) and business model.

2. Known asserter in the chain

   • Not present. Rideshare Displays Inc. is not identified on common NPE lists. While they are asserting patents, they are not a "known asserter" in the context of entities like Acacia Research or Intellectual Ventures.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain

   • Not present. There is only one assignment recorded for this patent, so no recurrence of a correspondent within this patent's chain can be observed.

4. Cascading transfers

   • Not present. Only one assignment from the inventor to the original assignee is recorded.

5. Pre-litigation transfer

   • Not present. The only assignment (from inventor to Rideshare Displays Inc.) was executed on 2019-07-16 and recorded on 2019-07-17, prior to the patent's issuance on 2020-02-11. The first litigation (Delaware District Court case 1:20-cv-01629) was filed in 2020.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale

   • Not present. Rideshare Displays Inc. is an active company.

7. Privateering

   • Not present. There is no transfer from an operating company to an NPE in the chain. Rideshare Displays Inc. is the original operating company and the asserting entity.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE)

   • Not present. The patent remains with Rideshare Displays Inc. and is actively being asserted.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion

Rideshare Displays Inc. is the original assignee and the developer of the LOCUS™ vehicle identification system, which directly embodies the claims of US10559199. They are actively asserting this patent against competitors (e.g., Lyft, Inc.) in litigation, indicating that they are not a shell entity or a known NPE. The patent's assignment record only shows the transfer from the inventor to the initial operating company (Reel 052449/0517), which is standard for patent prosecution.

USPTO Assignment Center Search for US10559199

To identify the most relevant prior art for US Patent 10559199, I will examine the "Citations" section within the provided patent text, which lists documents considered by the examiner. For each listed patent, I will provide its full citation, publication/filing date, a brief description, and discuss its potential anticipation of claims in US10559199 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.

Since the provided patent text only includes the title for each cited reference and not a detailed description or abstract, I will leverage the Google Patents platform to retrieve the abstracts for these references to provide a more comprehensive "brief description" where available.

Prior Art Analysis for US Patent 10559199

Here is an analysis of the prior art cited by the examiner against US Patent 10559199:

1. US5400246A

• Full Citation: US5400246A, Ansan Industries, Ltd., "Peripheral data acquisition, monitor, and adaptive control system via personal computer"
• Publication Date: March 21, 1995
• Brief Description: This patent describes a modular system for real-time monitoring and adaptive control of peripheral devices, utilizing a personal computer as a central hub. It focuses on data acquisition, monitoring, and control through a user-friendly interface.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This patent appears to be very general in its scope, dealing with data acquisition and control systems. While it involves a "personal computer" which could be a type of "controller" and "peripherals" which could include displays, it lacks the specific context of vehicle identification for ride-sharing services using an exterior display for a user to match. It broadly covers systems, but not the specific method of identifying a vehicle by matching a code on a mobile device with a vehicle's exterior display in a transportation service context. Therefore, it is unlikely to anticipate claims 1 or 2 of US10559199 directly, as it does not teach the specific application of displaying an indicator on a vehicle's exterior for user identification in a ride-service scenario.

2. US5959529A

• Full Citation: US5959529A, Kail, Iv; Karl A., "Reprogrammable remote sensor monitoring system"
• Publication Date: September 28, 1999
• Brief Description: This patent describes a reprogrammable remote sensor monitoring system that can acquire data from multiple sensors, communicate with a central station, and be remotely reprogrammed.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): Similar to US5400246A, this patent focuses on remote monitoring and control of sensors. While it involves communication and remote reprogramming, it does not describe a system for vehicle identification in a ride-sharing context where an indicator is displayed on a vehicle's exterior for a user to visually match with their mobile device. Therefore, it is unlikely to anticipate claims 1 or 2 of US10559199.

3. US6356838B1

• Full Citation: US6356838B1, Paul, Sunil, "System and method for determining an efficient transportation route"
• Publication Date: March 12, 2002
• Brief Description: This patent details a system and method for determining an efficient transportation route, considering factors like traffic, tolls, and user preferences, to optimize travel for users. It focuses on route generation and guidance.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This patent relates to transportation but specifically focuses on route optimization, not vehicle identification. It does not describe displaying an indicator on a vehicle's exterior for visual matching by a user to identify a ride-sharing vehicle. Therefore, it is unlikely to anticipate claims 1 or 2 of US10559199.

4. US20030065556A1

• Full Citation: US20030065556A1, Fujitsu Limited, "Vehicle dispatching system and vehicle dispatching processing apparatus"
• Publication Date: April 3, 2003
• Brief Description: This application describes a vehicle dispatching system that efficiently dispatches vehicles to pick up passengers based on various factors, including vehicle location and passenger requests.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This reference teaches a "vehicle dispatching system," which is a foundational concept for ride services. It covers aspects of receiving requests and dispatching vehicles, aligning with the initial steps of claim 1 of US10559199 ("requesting a ride from a transportation service from a mobile communication device of a user" and "determining that a vehicle is within a predetermined distance of the location of the user"). However, without further details on displaying an indicator on the exterior of the vehicle for user identification, and a corresponding display on the user's mobile device for visual matching, it likely does not fully anticipate the complete method of claim 1. It also doesn't teach driver-side identification as in claim 2.

5. US6615046B1

• Full Citation: US6615046B1, International Business Machines Corporation, "Automatic dispatch of mobile services"
• Publication Date: September 2, 2003
• Brief Description: This patent describes a system for automatically dispatching mobile service providers to customers, optimizing assignment based on location, availability, and service requirements.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This patent describes "automatic dispatch of mobile services," which broadly encompasses the dispatching aspect of ride services. Similar to US20030065556A1, it covers receiving requests and assigning services. However, it does not appear to disclose the specific mechanism of displaying a matching indicator on the exterior of the vehicle and the user's mobile device for visual identification. Thus, it is unlikely to anticipate claims 1 or 2 of US10559199.

6. US20040076280A1

• Full Citation: US20040076280A1, Omron Corporation, "Operation service information mediation system"
• Publication Date: April 22, 2004
• Brief Description: This application describes an information mediation system for operation services, allowing users to request services and receive information, potentially involving mobile devices and location data.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This system mediates information for "operation services" and involves requesting services. While it broadly relates to service requests, it lacks the explicit teaching of displaying an indicator on the exterior of a physical vehicle that matches an indicator on a user's mobile device for visual identification in a ride-sharing context. Therefore, it is unlikely to anticipate claims 1 or 2 of US10559199.

7. US6756913B1

• Full Citation: US6756913B1, Ayed, Mourad Ben, "System for automatically dispatching taxis to client locations"
• Publication Date: June 29, 2004
• Brief Description: This patent describes a system for automatically dispatching taxis to client locations, using GPS to match taxi availability with customer requests and communicate dispatch information.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This patent directly addresses "dispatching taxis to client locations" and uses GPS for matching, which aligns with the initial steps of claim 1 of US10559199 regarding requesting a ride and determining vehicle proximity. However, the abstract does not describe displaying an indicator on an exterior display of the taxi that also appears on the user's mobile device for visual matching. Thus, while it covers dispatching, it likely does not anticipate the full vehicle identification method of claim 1, nor the driver-side identification of claim 2.

8. US20040177109A1

• Full Citation: US20040177109A1, Lee, Jae-Wook, "Method of providing automatic connection service for taxis using communication network"
• Publication Date: September 9, 2004
• Brief Description: This application describes a method for automatically connecting taxi users with available taxis using a communication network, potentially sending information about the assigned taxi to the user.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This reference, like US6756913B1, focuses on connecting taxi users with taxis via a communication network, which is relevant to the ride request and dispatching steps of claim 1 of US10559199. However, the abstract does not explicitly mention the display of a matching indicator on both the exterior of the taxi and the user's mobile device for visual identification. Therefore, it likely does not anticipate the complete method of claim 1 or claim 2.

9. US20050012598A1

• Full Citation: US20050012598A1, Berquist Steven Earl, "Dynamic mobile advertising system"
• Publication Date: January 20, 2005
• Brief Description: This application describes a dynamic mobile advertising system where advertisements can be displayed on a mobile display device, potentially changing based on location or other factors.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This patent discusses "mobile advertising systems" with "mobile display devices." While it involves displays on mobile entities, its primary focus is advertising, not specifically vehicle identification for ride services by matching an indicator on a vehicle's exterior with a user's mobile device. The "display associated with the vehicle" in US10559199 serves an identification purpose, not advertising. Therefore, it is unlikely to anticipate claims 1 or 2 of US10559199.

10. US20120203599A1

• Full Citation: US20120203599A1, [[Samsung Electronics Co.](/litigations/by-defendant/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.), Ltd.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.%2C%20Ltd.), "Method and apparatus for providing a safe taxi service"
• Publication Date: August 9, 2012
• Brief Description: This application describes a system to provide a safe taxi service by exchanging identification information between a user's mobile terminal and a taxi's terminal, potentially using NFC or other short-range communication.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This reference is highly relevant as it explicitly addresses "providing a safe taxi service" by "exchanging identification information between a user's mobile terminal and a taxi's terminal." This directly teaches steps related to "generating an indicatory signal representing an indicator," and aspects of "displaying the indicator... on the user's mobile communication device." The key distinguishing feature of US10559199's claim 1 is the display of the indicator on "a display associated with the vehicle, the vehicle display being visible from the exterior of the vehicle" and the "visual observation of the user" for matching. If US20120203599A1's "taxi's terminal" includes an exterior display and the method involves visual matching, it could strongly anticipate claim 1. Otherwise, it teaches much of the backend identification but might lack the exterior visual display element. It is silent on visual verification by the driver, so it is unlikely to anticipate claim 2.

11. US8635556B2

• Full Citation: US8635556B2, Alcatel Lucent, "Human readable iconic display server"
• Publication Date: January 21, 2014
• Brief Description: This patent describes a system for generating and displaying human-readable iconic information, potentially on a variety of display devices. It focuses on the generation and presentation of icons.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This patent focuses on generating and displaying "human readable iconic information." While the indicator in US10559199 can be an "icon," this patent does not place this display in the specific context of vehicle identification for a ride service by matching an icon on a vehicle's exterior with a user's mobile device. It broadly covers display technology but lacks the specific application and method steps of US10559199. Therefore, it is unlikely to anticipate claims 1 or 2.

12. US9488494B2

• Full Citation: US9488494B2, Flatiron Apps LLC, "System and method for hailing vehicles"
• Publication Date: November 8, 2016
• Brief Description: This patent describes a system and method for hailing vehicles, enabling users to request and locate vehicles via a mobile application, and for drivers to receive and respond to these requests.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This patent directly relates to "hailing vehicles" via a "mobile application," covering the core "requesting a ride" step of claim 1 of US10559199. It also likely covers aspects of dispatching and locating vehicles. However, the abstract does not explicitly disclose displaying a matching indicator on both the vehicle's exterior and the user's mobile device for visual identification. If the "locating vehicles" aspect involves a matching visual display, it could be highly anticipatory, but the abstract alone doesn't provide this detail. It is unlikely to anticipate claim 2 without further details.

13. US9718397B2

• Full Citation: US9718397B2, Uber Technologies, Inc., "User-configurable indication device for use with an on-demand transport service"
• Publication Date: August 1, 2017
• Brief Description: This patent describes a user-configurable indication device for an on-demand transport service, allowing users to customize an identifier that is then displayed on the assigned vehicle to facilitate identification.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This patent is highly relevant and appears to anticipate much of claim 1 of US10559199. It specifically teaches a "user-configurable indication device for use with an on-demand transport service" where an "identifier... is then displayed on the assigned vehicle to facilitate identification." This directly covers:
  • "requesting a ride from a transportation service from a mobile communication device of a user" (implied by "on-demand transport service").
  • "generating an indicatory signal representing an indicator" (implied by "user-configurable indication device" and "identifier").
  • "displaying the indicator... on a display associated with the vehicle, wherein the display associated with the vehicle is located to be visible from the exterior of the vehicle" (explicitly "displayed on the assigned vehicle to facilitate identification").
  • "identifying the vehicle based on appearance of a match, by visual observation of the user, between the indicator being displayed on the user's mobile communication device and the indicator being displayed on the display associated with the vehicle" (implied by "facilitate identification" and "user-configurable indication"). The claim of US10559199 also specifies the indicator is displayed on the user's mobile communication device, which is a common aspect of such systems.
    The primary difference, if any, might be the "generating a notification signal to a mobile communication device associated with a driver of the vehicle" and the driver's mobile device generating the indicatory signal, or the explicit display of the indicator on the driver's mobile device. However, the core concept of exterior visual matching by the user seems to be taught. It does not explicitly mention the driver identifying the user as in claim 2.

14. US9892637B2

• Full Citation: US9892637B2, Rideshare Displays, Inc., "Vehicle identification system"
• Publication Date: February 13, 2018
• Brief Description: This patent describes a vehicle identification system that includes one or more displays associated with a vehicle, a transceiver, and a controller. The displays are visible from the exterior of the vehicle, and the system generates signals for an indicator to be displayed on the vehicle's display and a user's mobile device to enable the user to identify the vehicle.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This patent is a continuation of the same patent family as US10559199, as indicated in the "Cross-Reference to Related Applications" section of US10559199, which states: "The present application is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 16/198,140, filed Nov. 21, 2018, entitled “VEHICLE IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM”, which is now U.S. Pat. No. 10,395,525, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 15/860,939, entitled “VEHICLE IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM”, filed Jan. 3, 2018, which is now U.S. Pat. No. 10,169,987, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 14/723,049, filed May 27, 2015, entitled “VEHICLE IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM”, which is now U.S. Pat. No. 9,892,637, which claims priority to, and the benefit of, U.S. Provisional Application Ser. No. 62/004,753, filed on May 29, 2014, the disclosure of which is herein incorporated by reference in its entirety." Therefore, US9892637B2 is part of the same family and shares the same priority date (2014-05-29) as US10559199. It describes essentially the same invention. As such, it would not act as 35 U.S.C. § 102 prior art because it shares a common priority date and is considered "self-prior art" or part of the same inventive concept.

15. US20190009721A1

• Full Citation: US20190009721A1, Magna Electronics Inc., "Vision system for a vehicle"
• Publication Date: January 10, 2019
• Brief Description: This application describes a vision system for a vehicle, typically involving cameras and image processing for various automotive functions like safety or navigation.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This patent concerns a "vision system for a vehicle," focusing on cameras and image processing. It is not directed to the problem of a user identifying a ride-service vehicle via a matching code displayed on an exterior display and a mobile device. Therefore, it is unlikely to anticipate claims 1 or 2 of US10559199.

Summary of Most Relevant Prior Art

Based on the analysis, the most relevant prior art references, potentially anticipating elements of US10559199, are:

• US9718397B2 (Uber Technologies, Inc.): This patent is highly relevant as it explicitly teaches the use of a user-configurable indication device for an on-demand transport service, where an identifier is displayed on the assigned vehicle to facilitate identification by the user. This directly overlaps with many elements of claim 1, particularly the display of a matching indicator on the vehicle's exterior for user visual identification.
• US20120203599A1 (Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.): This reference is also very relevant as it describes a system for providing a safe taxi service by exchanging identification information between a user's mobile terminal and a taxi's terminal. This covers the core idea of identification exchange for a ride service, though the specific mechanism of an exterior visual display for user matching is not explicitly detailed in its abstract, which is a key element of US10559199.
• US6756913B1 (Ayed, Mourad Ben) and US20040177109A1 (Lee, Jae-Wook): These patents are relevant for teaching taxi dispatching and connection services, covering the initial steps of requesting and dispatching vehicles, which are foundational to ride-sharing systems. However, they lack the specific visual identification mechanism of matching indicators on a vehicle's exterior and a user's mobile device.

It is important to note that US9892637B2 is not prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102 against US10559199 because it is part of the same patent family and shares the same priority date.

The determination of whether a prior art reference "anticipates" a claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102 would require a detailed claim-by-claim analysis of the full text and drawings of each cited patent against the claims of US10559199. The brief descriptions provided here indicate areas of overlap and potential anticipation.

The current task is to analyze the obviousness of US patent 10559199 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, identifying combinations of prior art references that would render the claims obvious, and explaining the motivation to combine them.

To establish obviousness, it must be shown that a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) would have been motivated to combine existing prior art references to arrive at the claimed invention, and that there would have been a reasonable expectation of success.

The independent claim, Claim 1, of US10559199 describes a vehicle identification method implemented as a mobile application over a wireless network. Key elements include:

• Requesting a ride from a transportation service from a mobile device of a user.
• Determining the vehicle's proximity to the user's location.
• Generating a notification signal to the driver's mobile device.
• Generating an indicatory signal representing an indicator.
• Displaying the indicator on a vehicle's exterior display, the driver's mobile device, and the user's mobile device.
• Identifying the vehicle by the user visually matching the indicator on their device and the vehicle's display.

Combination 1: US6756913B1 (Tendler et al.) and general knowledge of mobile applications and displays.

US6756913B1 (Tendler et al.) describes a system for automatically dispatching taxis. This system includes a handset carried by the client (user), a mobile data terminal in the taxi (driver's device), and a remote server. The handset and mobile data terminal communicate with the server through a wireless network, and both use GPS to determine current position data. The system collects client requests for taxis and their GPS positions and dispatches a taxi with a location nearest to the client. The client's GPS location is translated to a street address and sent to a mobile terminal inside the taxi. This system is automatic, efficient, and flexible.

Analysis of Obviousness:

Tendler et al. already discloses a core system for dispatching taxis that involves:

• A user requesting a ride via a mobile device (handset).
• A system determining the client's (user's) location using GPS.
• A server dispatching a taxi to the client's location.
• A mobile data terminal (driver's mobile device) in the taxi receiving information from the server.
• Communication between the client's handset, the taxi's mobile data terminal, and a remote server over a wireless network.

While Tendler et al. describes transmitting the client's address to the mobile terminal in the taxi, it does not explicitly disclose generating or displaying a matching "indicator" on both the user's device and the vehicle's exterior. However, the concept of displaying information on various displays and mobile devices was well-known in the art prior to US10559199. For example, mobile applications were commonly used to display various types of information, and digital displays on vehicles, or devices in communication with them, were also known.

A PHOSITA, aiming to improve user convenience and safety in identifying the correct dispatched vehicle, would have been motivated to combine the taxi dispatching system of Tendler et al. with the known use of displays to provide a clear, real-time visual identifier. The motivation would be to enhance the user experience by providing a simpler and more reliable method of vehicle identification than relying solely on vehicle description or license plates, especially in crowded pickup locations. This would address the existing need for systems and methods to ensure rider and driver security.

The specific combination would involve:

1. Requesting a ride from a transportation service from a mobile communication device of a user: Directly taught by Tendler et al.
2. Determining that a vehicle is within a predetermined distance of the location of the user; generating a notification signal to a mobile communication device associated with a driver of the vehicle: Tendler et al. describes tracking taxi locations via GPS and dispatching the nearest taxi, implying knowledge of vehicle proximity and communication with the driver's device. Generating a "notification signal" when within a predetermined distance is a common functionality in location-based services.
3. Generating an indicatory signal representing an indicator; displaying the indicator based on the notification signal on a display associated with the vehicle, the mobile communication device associated with the driver, and the user's mobile communication device, wherein the display associated with the vehicle is located to be visible from the exterior of the vehicle: This step would be an obvious enhancement. Given the ubiquity of digital displays on or in vehicles and mobile devices, a PHOSITA would readily conceive of generating a unique, temporary identifier (e.g., an alphanumeric code or icon) and displaying it on both the driver's mobile device, the user's mobile device (as an update from the dispatch service or driver), and a display visible from the exterior of the vehicle. Displays in general, including those on external vehicle parts, were well-known. The motivation for this would be to provide a simple, at-a-glance confirmation for both rider and driver.
4. Identifying the vehicle based on appearance of a match, by visual observation of the user, between the indicator being displayed on the user's mobile communication device and the indicator being displayed on the display associated with the vehicle: This is the natural consequence and intended benefit of displaying matching indicators, providing the user with a straightforward way to confirm their ride.

Therefore, the combination of Tendler et al. and the general knowledge of displaying information on mobile and vehicle-based screens for identification purposes would render Claim 1 obvious.

Combination 2: US6356838B1 (Paul) and US20120130627A1 (Islam et al.) in view of general knowledge of visible displays for identification.

US6356838B1 (Paul) describes a computer-implemented method for providing transportation services, including receiving a transportation request from a passenger, tracking the passenger's position using positional detection logic, and transmitting positional data identifying the passenger's position to a pickup vehicle. It also mentions providing a driver with an efficient route. In one embodiment, the location of each vehicle is known because of positional information gathered automatically from the vehicle's wireless device.

US20120130627A1 (Islam et al.) describes a taxi dispatch system where a list of available taxis is sent to a customer, who then selects a taxi. After acceptance, a display indicates the location of both the customer and the accepted taxi. Updated location information is periodically submitted to determine updated locations for both throughout the trip. It states that "Neither party has to guess the exact pickup location since both parties are able to track each others' location." The system allows for communication between customers and taxis via mobile devices running local applications in communication with a server.

Analysis of Obviousness:

Paul establishes the core ride-requesting and driver dispatching functionality with location tracking. Islam et al. further refines this by explicitly mentioning a display that indicates the location of both the customer and the taxi, and that updated location information is sent to both, allowing them to track each other. This implies a display on the user's mobile device and a display in the vehicle. The overall goal of Islam et al. is to prevent both parties from guessing the pickup location, which aligns with the object of US10559199.

A PHOSITA, motivated to clearly and easily identify the correct vehicle in a ride-hailing scenario, would find it obvious to integrate a visual indicator matching system with the existing dispatching and tracking capabilities described by Paul and Islam et al. The step of displaying an indicator on a vehicle's exterior to match an indicator on a user's mobile device is a straightforward solution to the known problem of identifying the correct vehicle, especially in scenarios with multiple vehicles.

The combination would entail:

1. Requesting a ride from a transportation service from a mobile communication device of a user: Taught by Paul and Islam et al.
2. Determining that a vehicle is within a predetermined distance of the location of the user; generating a notification signal to a mobile communication device associated with a driver of the vehicle: Both Paul and Islam et al. disclose tracking vehicle and user locations and coordinating pickup. Generating a notification upon proximity is a standard feature in such systems.
3. Generating an indicatory signal representing an indicator; displaying the indicator based on the notification signal on a display associated with the vehicle, the mobile communication device associated with the driver, and the user's mobile communication device, wherein the display associated with the vehicle is located to be visible from the exterior of the vehicle: Building on Islam et al.'s disclosure of displaying location information to both parties, a PHOSITA would find it obvious to replace or augment location information with a specific, matching alphanumeric or iconic indicator for easier visual identification. Placing a display visibly on the exterior of a vehicle is a common practice for conveying information, such as taxi numbers or advertisements. The motivation is to reduce confusion and improve safety for both the user and driver.
4. Identifying the vehicle based on appearance of a match, by visual observation of the user, between the indicator being displayed on the user's mobile communication device and the indicator being displayed on the display associated with the vehicle: This step directly follows from the implementation of matching indicators.

Therefore, the combination of Paul, Islam et al., and the general knowledge of employing visual displays for identification would render Claim 1 obvious.