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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1 September 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 8, and 15 have been amended.
Claims 6, 13, and 20 have been previously canceled.
Claims 1-5, 7-12, 14-19 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Applicant's Remarks
35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant’s remarks, see Page(s) 17-19, filed 1 September 2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections, have been fully considered, and are not persuasive.
Applicant submits that the claimed process integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application by reciting a specific computational change that occurs when the dynamic transportation matching system performs estimated time of arrival calculations and therefore reciting a change in the data structure used by the claimed system, not merely the display or transmission of information.
Examiner respectfully disagrees, as excluding a matched provider device from a pool before performing an estimated time of arrival calculation is a data-filtering/filtering rule, not a specific technical solution or improvement to the functioning of a computer itself. Instead, these concepts can be summarized as collecting, analyzing, selecting data, and presenting the results, similar to the concepts found to be abstract in Electric Power Group v. Alstom (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Additionally, the claims of the current application are similar to gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result (TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48), wherein the courts have indicated not to be sufficient to show an improvement to technology.
The claims recite additional elements at a high-level of generality such that in conjunction with the abstract limitations, they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (i.e., generic computer components performing generic computer functions). In their broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional element(s) comprise(s) only a processor, instructions in memory, a receiver, and a transmitter, being used to implement the functions of the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception in a generic computing environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception). Thus, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim(s) is/are directed to the judicial exception.
Thus, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim(s) is/are directed to the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-12, 14-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1, 8, and 15 recite(s) a system and series of steps for matching service requestors and service providers based on mathematical determinations, which under broadest reasonable interpretation, is analogous to mathematical calculations/relationships and commercial or legal interactions, such as advertising, marketing, or sales activities. These concepts are grouped as mathematical concepts and certain methods of organizing human activity.
The limitation(s) of, ‘receiving…a transportation request’; ‘identifying…a set of transportation provider devices’; ‘determining…an acceptance probability’; ‘adjusting the acceptance probability…’; ‘dynamically matching…a provider device…to the projected request based on the acceptance probability…’; ‘calculate a conversion score…’; ‘continually updates the set of transportation provider devices and calculations of acceptance probabilities…’; ‘preemptively reserving…the provider device’; ‘calculate a more accurate estimated time of arrival for the projected request…’; ‘sending…an initial estimated time of arrival…’; ‘sending the transportation request… to the provider device’ as drafted, recite a process that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, is/are mathematical concepts and certain methods of organizing human activity. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim(s) recite(s) the additional element(s) of ‘a non-transitory memory’, ‘one or more hardware processors’, ‘a requestor device’, ‘transportation provider devices’, ‘a non-transitory computer-readable medium’. These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that in conjunction with the abstract limitations, they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (i.e., generic computer components performing generic computer functions). In their broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional element(s) comprise(s) only a processor, instructions in memory, a receiver, and a transmitter, being used to implement the functions of the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception in a generic computing environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception). Thus, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim(s) is/are directed to the judicial exception.
Claim(s) 2-5, 7, 9-12, 14, and 16-19 further recite(s) the system and series of steps for matching service requestors and service providers based on current and historical data, which under broadest reasonable interpretation, is analogous to mathematical calculations/relationships and commercial or legal interactions, such as advertising, marketing, or sales activities. These concepts are grouped as mathematical concepts and certain methods of organizing human activity. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim(s) recite(s) the additional element(s) of ‘a non-transitory memory’, ‘one or more hardware processors’, ‘a requestor device’, ‘transportation provider devices’, ‘a non-transitory computer-readable medium’. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. In their broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional element(s) comprise(s) only a processor, instructions in memory, a receiver, and a transmitter, being used to implement the functions of the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception in a generic computing environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception). Thus, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim(s) is/are directed to the judicial exception.
Additionally, the claims recite(s) the additional elements of receiving and transmitting data over one or more networks. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of receiving and transmitting data), and amount to mere data transmission, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Thus, the claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea.
As discussed above, the additional elements amount to mere data transmission, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. As detailed in MPEP 2106, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the reception and transmission of data was considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
The generic functions of receiving and transmitting data are considered to be well‐understood, routine, and conventional elements previously known to the industry, because the functions can be summarized as the generic computer functions of receiving or transmitting data over a network. This is similar to how ‘using the Internet to gather data’ was found to be a well-known, routine, and conventional function in the decision of Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2015) (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) Elements That the Courts Have Recognized as Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity in Particular Fields). Thus, these elements amount to well‐understood, routine, and conventional elements previously known to the industry, which does not add significantly more, and therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept, and therefore, the claim(s) is/are not eligible.
As analyzed above in step 2A prong1 and prong 2, the limitations as an ordered combination, are merely applying the abstract idea in a generic computing environment. In addition, the claims do not improve functionality of a computer or improve any other technology. Thus, claims 1-5, 7-12, 14-19 are ineligible as the claims do not recite additional elements which result in significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Novelty/Non-Obviousness
The subject matter of claims 1-5, 7-12, 14-19 is not taught by the cited prior art and is considered novel. However, claims 1-5, 7-12, 14-19 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as described above.
The closest prior art of record are Pan (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20190325374), Jiang (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20200081933), Jefferies (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20180091930), Yamashita (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20180092057), Lye (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20210082074), Dhingra (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20220318719), Sweeney (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20150161564), and Zheng (“Order dispatch in price-aware ridesharing”, 2018).
The cited prior art, taken either individually or in combination with other prior art of record, fails to teach or suggest calculating a conversion score based on the acceptance probability, the probability of an acceptance of the transportation request converting to a physical transport, and the probability of the requestor device canceling the transportation request; and matching the provider device to the transportation request based on the conversion score.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Wayne S Murray whose telephone number is (571)272-4306. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey Zimmerman can be reached on (571) 272-4602. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Wayne S. Murray/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights