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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 8, and 15 have been amended.
Claims 6, 13, and 20 have been previously withdrawn.
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) 15-17, filed 5 February 2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections, have been fully considered, and are not persuasive.
Applicant submits that the disclosed dynamic transportation matching system can improve on previous matching systems for better efficiency and timing. Applicant further submits that the disclosed model of predictive calculations to improve overall matching is a non-abstract improvement to specialty software used to match transportation requestors and providers, and the process of preemptively reserving provider devices based on predictions is an improvement to the speed and accuracy of such software.
Examiner respectfully disagrees, as the claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application, such as an improvement to the functioning of a computer or other technical field, as considered below in view of MPEP 2106. In particular, an improvement in the judicial exception itself is not an improvement in technology. Applicant’s improvement in this case is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technological field. Instead, the claims recite an improvement in the judicial exception itself (i.e., advertising, marketing, or sales activities), by utilizing historic data to improve the efficiency and accuracy of transportation service matching.
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 the following additional elements: ‘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.
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 current and historic data, which under broadest reasonable interpretation, is analogous to commercial or legal interactions, such as advertising, marketing, or sales activities. These concepts are grouped as 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’; ‘sending…an initial estimated time of arrival…’; ‘sending…the transportation request’ as drafted, recite a process that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, is/are certain methods of organizing human activity. Nothing in the claim limitations preclude the steps from being a method 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 historic data, which under broadest reasonable interpretation, is analogous to commercial or legal interactions, such as advertising, marketing, or sales activities. These concepts are grouped as certain methods of organizing human activity. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Wayne S Murray whose telephone number is (571)272-4306. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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
/JEFF ZIMMERMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights