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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 3, 6-7, and 35-44 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to rejections made under 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the examiner’s rejections is not legally or factually deficient because A. the Office Action improperly characterizes the claims at a high level of abstraction, B. failed to identify the abstract idea C. improper data collection, analysis, output, and D. failed to apply step 2A prong two. ( Remarks 3-6).
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the OA ( as explained below) captures the "basic thrust" of the invention and is consistent with the Specification (e.g., receiving ride information, posting the ride information, receiving bids from transportation providers, ranking bids, allocating funding and subsidies, and generating transport pass.)- which falls under certain methods of organizing human activities ( e.g., service providers and customers). See specification [0001] systems and methods for community-based transportation management to optimize how users, individually and/or as a community, can request and plan one or more trips; and to optimize how transportation service vendors can provide and plan routes, obtain forecasting of transportation demand, bid on transit trips; and to optimize payments and subsidies and communication of routing and scheduling between users, communities, funding sources, and vendors.
The claims recite steps of collecting data (e.g., collect ride and user information), analyzing data (e.g., analyzing bids and funding criteria) and outputting the data (e.g., output ranked matches and transport pass). "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Examiner notes that the claims are analyzed under Step 2A prong two as explained below. The additional elements merely invoking generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it”. Under MPEP §2106.04(d), merely implementing an abstract idea on generic computer components does not integrate it into a practical application. Additionally, the claims do not provide a technological improvements.
Applicant further argues the claims are eligible under Step 2A, prong one because they do not recite a method of organizing human activity. Applicant argues the claims are directed to system-executed operation, not human. Applicant argues “the claims of the present application are not for humans to follow rules or instructions, but rather are for a method to be carried out on a system, utilizing and transforming various types of information, as laid out in the claim limitations”( Remarks 7-9).
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the claim recite a method of organizing human activities. See October 2019 update, the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping. The number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping. The claims manage interactions between riders, providers and funding entities. This is sufficient under MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Applicant further argues the claims under step 2A, prong two, integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because A. recite specific and constrained application performed by a system B. achieve concrete technical result C. do not merely invoke a generic computer D. OA does not address practical application ( remarks 9- 11).
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the claims are not integrated into a practical application. The recited modules merely invoking generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it”. Under MPEP § 2106.04(d), integration into a practical application requires more than merely implementing an abstract idea using generic computer components. Applicant admits “It is true that the specification of the present application does recite that the specific modules and processing devices that are explicitly recited in both the claim limitations and in the specification of the application can be implemented on conventional computers or any of a long list of types of computer and computing devices”. Applicant did not provide a specific feature that provides a technical improvements. Ranked bids, subsidy allocation, and issuance of a transport pass are business outcomes, not technological improvement.
We have also held that improving a user's experience while using a computer application is not, without more, sufficient to render the claims directed to an improvement in computer functionality. For example, in Trading Techs. I, we held patent ineligible claims directed to a computer-based method for facilitating the placement of a trader's order. Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (Trading Techs. I). Although the claimed display purportedly "assist[ed] traders in processing information more quickly," we held that this purported improvement in user experience did not "improve the functioning of the computer, make it operate more efficiently, or solve any technological problem." Id.; see also Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1378, 1381, 1384-85 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (Trading Techs. II) (holding that claims "focused on providing information to traders in a way that helps them process information more quickly" did not constitute a patent-eligible improvement to computer functionality). Customedia Technologies v. Dish Network, 951 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
Applicant further argues that the claims are eligible under Step 2B because A. the ordered combination is not well understood, routine or conventional B. are not directed to mental processes or human-executable steps C. claims do not merely use a computer as a tool D. OA provides no evidence support of conventionality ( Remarks 11-13).
These arguments are unpersuasive. Here, the Specification confirms that the system may be implemented using conventional computing devices. No unconventional hardware or architecture is disclosed. Considering the claim elements in ordered combination does not change the analysis. The combination performs the abstract idea using standard data processing operations. See also Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2355, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 78, 101 USPQ2d at 1968 (after determining that a claim is directed to a judicial exception, "we then ask, '[w]hat else is there in the claims before us?") (emphasis added)). Instead, an inventive concept is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2355, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 101 USPQ2d at 1966). Additionally, the OA did not categorize the claim under “ mental processes”.
The claims recite a judicial exception (organizing commercial transportation services with funding allocation), do not integrate the exception into a practical technological application; and do not recite significantly more than the abstract idea implemented on generic computing components. Accordingly, the §101 rejection is maintained.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3, 6-7, and 35-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1, 3, 6-7, and 35--44 is directed to a method (i.e., a process). Therefore, claims1, 3, 6-7, and 35-44 fall within the one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One
Independent claims 1, substantially recites: receiving group information, wherein the group information comprise a group characteristic associated with a group; defining the group based on the group information; receiving user information for a user, wherein the user information identifies a characteristic associated with the user; determining that the characteristic of the user information matches the group characteristic; receiving ride information that is indicative of the group or a member of the group requesting transportation from a first location to a second location, that member or more than one members being referred to as a rider and directing the ride information; defining a ride based on the ride information, wherein the ride comprises one or more desired criteria; posting the ride information onto a transportation marketplace; receiving one or more bids from one or more transportation providers, wherein each of the one or more transportation providers is a member of the transportation marketplace; sending the one or more bids to a user associated with the group; reporting, with the one or more bids, a set of optimal matches for the ride based on bid ranking and route optimization of the ride information, including but not limited to geographic data, historical route efficiency, loading and unloading time, additional passengers accompanying the rider, medical condition, personal care attendants, mobility aides and devices needed, cancellation and no-show history, ability to pay for ride, and other user-specific desired criteria of the ride best matches for the ride, wherein the best matches are based on calculating and suggesting one or more routes based on the one or more bids, as matched to the desired criteria of the ride; and receiving an instruction from the user associated with the group, wherein the instruction indicates whether the group has accepted a bid from the one or more bids or rejected the bid; updates the one or more bids and the one or more transportation providers available, in response to changes in user demand and real-time weather, traffic, and other data inputs for rides; wherein the funding request is processed to allocate subsidies or using rewards points and other funding across multiple sources; receiving a funding information and generating a Community-Managed Transport Pass and physically generate an image of the Community-Managed Transport Pass for physically display and generating an image of the community- Managed Transport Pass to be printed.
Independent claims 35, substantially recites receiving group information, wherein the group information comprise a group characteristic associated with a group and comprise a set of transportation preferences and needs information; defining the group based on the group information; receiving user information for a user, wherein the user information identifies one or more characteristic associated with the user; determine on a continuous basis that the characteristic of the user information matches the group characteristic; receiving ride information indicative of the group or a member of the group requesting transportation from a first location to a second location, wherein the ride information comprises one or more desired criteria; defining a transportation request based on the ride information and directing the ride information; establishing a community-managed transport pass, wherein the community-managed transport pass is later generated for display to a user, or is made into a physical card; receiving one or more bids from a first member of a transportation marketplace for the transportation request; transportation marketplace comprising a plurality of members, wherein the plurality of members comprise transportation providers;Page 3 of 14Attorney Docket No. HBS-002USApplication No. 15/680,173 receiving one or more bids from a second member of the transportation marketplace for the transportation request; and receiving an instruction from a user associated with the group, wherein the instruction indicates whether the group has accepted a bid from the one or more bids or rejected the bid; sending a funding request and receiving a funding information generating a Community-Managed Transport Pass and physically generate an image of the Community-Managed Transport Pass for physically display and generating an image of the community- Managed Transport Pass to be printed.
The limitations stated above are processes that under broadest reasonable interpretation ( i.e., managing commercial transportation services through bid matching and funding allocation ) covers “certain methods of organizing human activity” (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people and commercial or legal interactions and following rules or instructions) because the claims recite steps of collecting data ( collect ride and user information) , analyzing data ( analyzing bids and funding criteria) and outputting the data ( output ranked matches and transport pass). Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1 and 35 as a whole amounts to: (i) merely invoking generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (or an equivalent).
The claims recite the additional elements of: (i) Non-transitory computer readable media, system comprising a market place module, routing module payment module, forecasting module, a first processing device, processing device, distributed computing environment, dynamically, real-time, user device, screen of a user device, third processing device, online, a device, transmitting, which are recited at a high-level of generality (See specification: [0060-61] The various modules and/or functions described above may be implemented by computer-executable instructions, such as program modules, executed by a conventional computer. Generally, program modules include routines, programs, objects, components, data structures, etc. that perform tasks or implement particular abstract data types. Those skilled in the art will appreciate that the invention may be practiced with various computer system configurations, including hand-held wireless devices such as mobile phones or PDAs, interactive voice response systems, multiprocessor systems, microprocessor-based or programmable consumer electronics, minicomputers, mainframe computers, and the like. The invention may also be practiced in distributed computing environments where tasks are performed by remote processing devices that are linked through a communications network. In a distributed computing environment, program modules may be in both local and remote computer-storage media including memory storage devices. [0062-63] The central computing device, also referred to as a processor 1100, may comprise or consist of a general-purpose computing device in the form of a computer including a processing unit, a system memory, and a system bus that couples various system components including the system memory to the processing unit. Computers typically include a variety of computer-readable media that can form part of the system memory and be read by the processing unit. By way of example, and not limitation, computer readable media may comprise computer storage media and communication media. [0065-66] [0065] The processing unit that executes commands and instructions may be a general-purpose computer, network, internet [ 0041] system 1000, with mapping and/or routing information searchable in real time), such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination (see Fig.10-11), it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The Specification describes these at a high level of generality and in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy the statutory disclosure requirements.
Accordingly, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements amount to no more than: (i) “apply it” (or an equivalent) and are not a practical application of the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., (i) merely invoking the generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it”, which do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional elements of: Non-transitory computer readable media, system comprising a market place module, routing module payment module, forecasting module, a first processing device, processing device, distributed computing environment, dynamically, real-time, user device, screen of a user device, third processing device, online, a device, transmitting, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in the claims adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are ineligible.
Dependent Claims Step 2A:
The limitations of the dependent claims but for those addressed below merely set forth further refinements of the abstract idea without changing the analysis already presented ( i.e., they merely narrow the abstract idea without adding any new additional elements beyond it). Additionally, for the same reasons as above, the limitations fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea (e.g., using computers and internet) as the independent claims.
Dependent Claims Step 2B:
The dependent claims merely use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement a narrowed abstract idea. They do not add any additional elements not already analyzed and the abstract idea has the same ineligible relationship when viewed in combination as the independent claims do. Accordingly, they are not directed to significantly more than the exception itself for the same reasons as the independent claims, and are not eligible subject matter under § 101.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Abhyanker (US 2015/0185034 A1) reciting system and method for generating automotive listing data by verified users of a neighborhood.
Seriani (US 2014/0229258A1) reciting system and method for enabling transportation service providers to competitivity bid.
Dangott et al. (US 2014/0114815 A1) reciting system and method for managing subsidy accounts.
Cao (US 20160364823 A1) reciting system and method for on-demand transportation.
Hummel (US 20170200321 A1) reciting system and method for ridesharing.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANAL A. ALSAMIRI whose telephone number is (571)272-5598. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shannon Campbell can be reached at 571)272-5587. 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.
/M.A.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/SHANNON S CAMPBELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628