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
This action is responsive to Applicant’s claims filed 12/09/2025.
Claims 21-40 are currently pending and have been examined here.
Claims 1-20 have been canceled.
Claims 21, 26-28, 30, 31, and 36-39 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see pages 15-25 of Applicant’s response filed 12/09/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, on pages 16-18, that the claims do not recite one or more abstract ideas, since the human mind is not equipped to perform steps (i)-(iv) outlined on page 17. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner respectfully notes that no dynamic ingestion of telemetry data is recited by the claims. Rather, the claims merely use one or more GPS devices in their ordinary capacity to bring location information into the system. A human could perform the steps recited for processing this information. The mere fact that the information is real-time information on a plurality of vehicles does not preclude the limitations from reciting mental processes, since the claims merely use the capabilities of a general purpose computer to speed up processes which could be performed mentally. As such, the claims do in fact recite one or more abstract ideas, and Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive.
Applicant argues, on pages 18-20, that the claims integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application thereof. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant argues that, similar to DDR, the claims at hand solve a technology based problem specific to ride-sharing logistics by ensuring uninterrupted rideshares by matching devices using vehicle fuel or battery data. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner respectfully notes that the alleged improvement is to the abstract idea itself (the business process of determining how to match riders and drivers) rather than to any particular computer technology or technical field. The benefits of the invention would be brought about if the abstract idea steps were practiced outside of the realm of the generic computer components recited. As MPEP 2106.05(a)(II) notes, “it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology.” Since the alleged improvements are to the abstract idea itself, rather than to any particular computing technology or technical field, Applicant’s arguments are found unpersuasive.
Applicant argues, on pages 21-24, that the claims recite something significantly more than the recited abstract ideas and are therefore eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 similar to the claims set forth in BASCOM. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner respectfully notes that, in BASCOM, the specific placement of a filtering server brought about a technical improvement through the claims’ specifically ordered combination of elements. No such specific arrangement of elements which brings about a technical improvement is set forth here. Rather, the claims recite one or more abstract ideas along with the requirement to implement them on a set of generic computer components. Applicant’s arguments are therefore unpersuasive.
Applicant argues, on pages 23-24, that the claims recite a technical solution to a technical problem, and therefore the claims should be considered eligible under Step 2B. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner respectfully notes that the problem allegedly solved (ensuring uninterrupted rideshares by matching drivers and riders) is not a technical one, since it does not specifically arise in the realm of computer networks. Furthermore, the solution provide is not a technical one since the benefits of the invention would be brought about if the abstract idea steps were practiced outside of the realm of the generic computer components recited. Applicant’s arguments are therefore unpersuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The claims are drawn to ineligible patent subject matter, because the claims are directed to a recited judicial exception to patentability (an abstract idea), without claiming something significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Claims are ineligible for patent protection if they are drawn to subject matter which is not within one of the four statutory categories, or, if the subject matter claimed does fall into one of the four statutory categories, the claims are ineligible if they recite a judicial exception, are directed to that judicial exception, and do not recite additional elements which amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 375 U.S. ___ (2014). Accordingly, claims are first analyzed to determine whether they fall into one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter. Then, if the claims fall within one of the four statutory categories, it must be determined whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). In determining whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception, the claim is first analyzed to determine whether the claim recites a judicial exception. If the claim does not recite one of these exceptions, the claim is directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. If the claim recites one of these exceptions, the claim is then analyzed to determine whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. Claims which integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception are directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. If the claim fails to integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Finally, if the claims are directed to a judicial exception to patentability, the claims are then analyzed determine whether the claims are directed to patent eligible subject matter by reciting meaningful limitations which transform the judicial exception into something significantly more than the judicial exception itself. If they do not, the claims are not directed towards eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding independent claims 21, 31, and 36 the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (a machine, a process, and an article of manufacture, respectively.) The claimed invention of independent claims 21, 31, and 36 is directed to a judicial exception to patentability, an abstract idea. The claims include limitations which recite elements which can be properly characterized under at least one of the following groupings of subject matter recognized as abstract ideas by MPEP 2106.04(a):
Mathematical Concepts: mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity: fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes: concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)
Claims 21, 31, and 36, as a whole, recite the following limitations:
receiving a transportation request. . . the transportation request comprising a real-time pickup location. . . (claims 21, 31, and 36; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could receive a transport request comprising a real time location; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial rideshare companies would perform this step in coordinating ridesharing services for customers)
determining. . . an expected duration of time for the transportation request based on historical data comprising historical position data. . . (claims 21, 31, and 36; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could determine an expected duration for a ride based on historical data; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial rideshare companies would perform this step in coordinating ridesharing services for customers)
determining. . . real-time locations of a set of driver computing devices based on real-time position data. . . (claims 21, 31, and 36; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could determine real-time locations of computing devices based on real-time location data; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial rideshare companies would perform this step in coordinating ridesharing services for customers)
identifying. . . a subset of driver computing devices by automatically removing one or more driver computing devices from the set of driver computing devices based on the real-time pickup location for the passenger computing device and the real-time locations of the set of driver computing devices; (claims 21, 31, and 36; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could identify a subset of devices based on this data by removing certain driver devices from consideration; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial rideshare companies would perform this step in coordinating ridesharing services for customers)
identifying. . . driver availability data comprising respective shift end times for the subset of driver computing devices based on the historical data tracked. . . (claims 21, 31, and 36; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could identify driver availability based on shift end times and historical data; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial rideshare companies would perform this step in coordinating ridesharing services for customers)
determining. . . available fuel levels or available battery power levels of vehicles associated with the subset of driver computing devices; (claims 21, 31, and 36; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could determine available fuel levels or battery power levels associated with subsets of devices; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial rideshare companies would perform this step in coordinating ridesharing services for customers)
selecting. . . from the subset of driver computing devices, a first driver computing device to pick up the passenger computing device at the real-time pickup location by comparing a first shift end time for the first driver computing device of the subset of driver computing devices and a second shift end time for a second driver computing device of the subset of driver computing devices with the expected duration of time for the transportation request and comparing the available fuel levels or available battery power levels of the vehicles to a determined fuel level or a determined battery power level sufficient to complete the transportation request without interruption and removing the second driver computing device from consideration for fulfilling the transportation request; (claims 21, 31, and 36; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could make this selection based on these criteria and remove a device which doesn’t fit the criteria; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial rideshare companies would perform this step in coordinating ridesharing services for customers)
determining, based on the real-time pickup location. . . real-time navigational data comprising navigational instructions comprising navigational directions to the real-time pickup location for presentation on the first driver computing device; (claims 21, 31, and 36; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could determine navigation data comprising navigational instructions; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial rideshare companies would perform this step in coordinating ridesharing services for customers)
and transmitting. . . the real- time navigational data . . . providing navigational directions to the real-time pickup location corresponding to the transportation request; (claims 21, 31, and 36; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since, but for the requirement to use an electronic transmission (which comprises generic computer implementation of the abstract idea, as outlined below), a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could send navigation data to a user; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial rideshare companies would perform this step in coordinating ridesharing services for customers)
generating, based on the global positioning system of the passenger computing device, an updated pickup location by monitoring a current location of the passenger computing device in real-time; (claims 21, 31, and 36; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could generate an updated pickup location by monitoring a current location of a passenger computing device in real time based on GPS data; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial rideshare companies would perform this step in coordinating ridesharing services for customers)
transmitting. . . .an updated pickup location comprising updated real-time navigational data based on the updated pickup location. (claims 21, 31, and 36; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since, but for the requirement to use an electronic transmission (which comprises generic computer implementation of the abstract idea, as outlined below), a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could send an updated pickup location comprising updated real-time navigational data based on an updated pickup location; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial rideshare companies would perform this step in coordinating ridesharing services for customers)
Moving forward, the above recited abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
The added limitations do not represent an integration of the abstract idea into a practical application because:
the claims represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, and merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
the claims merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (activity which can be characterized as incidental to the primary purpose or product that is merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim). See MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or
the claims represent mere general linking of the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2016.05(h)
Beyond those limitations which recite the abstract idea, the following limitations are added:
A computer-implemented method comprising: (claim 21; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
. . . from a passenger computing device, (claims 21, 31, 36; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
. . . provided by a global positioning system of the passenger computing device; (claims 21, 31, 36; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
. . . by a backend server device. . . (claims 21, 31, 36; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
. . . provided by respective global positioning systems of historical driver computing devices; (claims 21, 31, 36; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
. . . wherein the set of driver computing devices comprises a plurality of driver computing devices. . . (claims 21, 31, 36; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
. . . to the first driver computing device by the backend server device. . . (claims 21, 31, 36; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
A system comprising: (claim 31; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
at least one processor; (claim 31; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
and at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to: (claim 31; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause a computing device to: (claim 36; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
and transmitting, to the first driver computing device by the backend server device, the real- time navigational data to control presentation of the navigational instructions on the first driver computing device, the presentation of the navigational instructions providing navigational directions to the real-time pickup location corresponding to the transportation request. (claims 21, 31, 36; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of post-solution data output)
The claims, as a whole, are directed to the abstract idea(s) which they recite. The claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)). Therefore, because the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea) and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claims, as a whole, are directed to the judicial exception.
Turning to the final prong of the test (Step 2B), independent claims 21, 31, and 36 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because there are no meaningful limitations which transform the exception into a patent eligible application. The following limitations have been characterized above as extra-solution activity:
and transmitting, to the first driver computing device by the backend server device, the real- time navigational data to control presentation of the navigational instructions on the first driver computing device, the presentation of the navigational instructions providing navigational directions to the real-time pickup location corresponding to the transportation request. (claims 21, 31, 36; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents the court-recognized well-understood routine and conventional computer function of transmitting and receiving information over a network)
As outlined above, the claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)).
Furthermore, no specific limitations are added which represent something other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Besides performing the abstract idea itself, the generic computer components only serve to perform the court-recognized well-understood computer functions of receiving or transmitting data over a network, performing repetitive calculations, electronic record keeping, and storing and retrieving information in memory. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. The specification details any combination of a generic computer system program to perform the method. Generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be routine in any computer implementation and because the Alice decision noted that generic structures that merely apply the abstract ideas are not significantly more than the abstract ideas. Therefore, independent claims 21, 31, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to ineligible subject matter.
Claims 22-30, 32-35, and 37-40, recite the same abstract idea as their respective independent claims.
The following additional features are added in the dependent claims:
Claims 22 and 32:
wherein identifying the driver availability data comprises identifying respective shift break times associated with the subset of driver computing devices.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could identify shift break times associated with driver devices; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial rideshare companies would perform this step in coordinating ridesharing services for customers.
Claim 23:
wherein identifying the driver availability data comprises identifying, for one or more driver computing devices of the subset of driver computing devices, a time estimate for completing a respective current transportation trip.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could identify a time estimate for completing a respective current trip; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial rideshare companies would perform this step in coordinating ridesharing services for customers.
Claims 24 and 34:
wherein identifying the driver availability data comprises identifying respective shift start times and the respective shift end times received via corresponding user interfaces of the subset of driver computing devices.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could identify shift start times and end times; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial rideshare companies would perform this step in coordinating ridesharing services for customers. Regarding the use of a user interface to receive this data, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use.
Claim 25:
wherein determining an available fuel level or available battery power level of the vehicles comprises receiving, from a driver computing device integrated with a vehicle, sensor data indicative of a current fuel tank level or a current battery charge state, and storing the sensor data in driver availability data tracked by the backend server device.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could receive this information and store it; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial rideshare companies would perform this step in coordinating ridesharing services for customers. Regarding the use of a driver computing device, sensors, and a data storage device, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use.
Claims 26 and 37:
wherein selecting the first driver computing device to pick up the passenger computing device at the real-time pickup location is based on the first shift end time for the first driver computing device and a shift break time end time for a third driver computing device.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could select a device to pick up a passenger based on a shift end time and a shift break time; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial rideshare companies would perform this step in coordinating ridesharing services for customers.
Claims 27 and 38:
wherein selecting the first driver computing device to pick up the passenger computing device at the real-time pickup location is based on the first shift end time for the first driver computing device and an extended availability for the first driver computing device to extend a shift of the first driver computing device past the first shift end time.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could select a device to pick up a passenger based on a shift end time and an extended availability; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial rideshare companies would perform this step in coordinating ridesharing services for customers.
Claims 28 and 39:
wherein selecting between the first driver computing device and the second driver computing device further comprises adjusting a determined fuel level or a determined battery power based on real-time traffic data, the real-time traffic data indicating expected delays that would increase fuel or energy consumption during the transportation request.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could adjust fuel or battery levels based on real time traffic data; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial rideshare companies would perform this step in coordinating ridesharing services for customers.
Claims 29 and 40:
wherein selecting the first driver computing device comprises comparing a remaining time length prior to the first shift end time and an expected duration for transporting the passenger computing device according to the transportation request.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could make this comparison; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial rideshare companies would perform this step in coordinating ridesharing services for customers.
Claim 30:
wherein selecting the first driver computing device to pick up the passenger computing device at the real-time pickup location comprises: transmitting the transportation request to an additional driver computing device;
receiving, from the additional driver computing device, an indication to reject the transportation request;
and transmitting the transportation request to the first driver computing device for automatic acceptance.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could send a request to another device, receive a rejection thereof, and then transmit the request to another device for automatic acceptance; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial rideshare companies would perform this step in coordinating ridesharing services for customers.
Claim 33:
retrieve, by the backend server device, passenger account information from a social network system associated with a user of the passenger computing device, the passenger account information including user profile data from the social network system; and
select the first driver computing device for the transportation request based on analyzing a social graph representing relationships of the social network system to determine a connection between the passenger computing device and the first driver computing device.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could retrieve this information and select a driver computing device based on analyzing a social graph to determine a connection between the passenger device and the driver device; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial rideshare companies would perform this step in coordinating ridesharing services for customers. Regarding the use of a social network system, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use.
Claim 35:
identify the driver availability data by identifying an extended availability for one or more driver computing devices of the subset of driver computing devices.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could identify an extended availability for a device of a subset of devices; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial rideshare companies would perform this step in coordinating ridesharing services for customers.
The above limitations do not represent a practical application of the recited abstract idea. The claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)). Therefore, because the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea) and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claims are also directed to the judicial exception.
Furthermore, the added limitations do not direct the claim to significantly more than the abstract idea. No specific limitations are added which represent something other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, none of the dependent claims 22-30, 32-35, and 37-40, individually, or as an ordered combination, are directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Please see MPEP §2106.05(d)(II) for a discussion of elements that the Courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional, activity in particular fields.
Please see MPEP §2106 for examination guidelines regarding patent subject matter eligibility.
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 EMMETT K WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2624. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 6 a.m. - 4:45 p.m..
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, Resha Desai can be reached on 571-270-7792. 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.
/EMMETT K. WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights