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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 19, 2026, has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s response to Office action was received on March 19, 2026.
In response to Applicant’s amendment of the claims, please note the new claim objections, below in this Office action.
In response to Applicant’s amendment of the claims, the claim rejections section for 35 U.S.C. 112, written description requirement, has been correspondingly amended, below in this Office action. Note the following, with respect to this section:
a. In response to Applicant’s amendment of the claims, the 112, written description requirement, rejections of claims 10-11 and 13 have been withdrawn.
b. Claim 14 previously had two separate issues under 35 U.S.C. 112, written description requirement. In response to Applicant’s amendment of the claims, both rejections of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. 112, written description requirement, have been withdrawn.
c. The 112, written description requirement, rejection of claim 4 remains. This is because, although it appears that Applicant attempted to correct the issue, Applicant did not delete the language of “expressed as fuel consumption per unit distance”.
d. The 112, written description requirement, rejection of claim 8 remains. This is because, although it appears that Applicant attempted to correct the issue, Applicant did not delete all of the language relating to vector polyline.
In response to Applicant’s amendment of the claims, please note the new claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112, indefiniteness, below in this Office action.
Applicant’s response is technically non-compliant. This is because the claim listing does not include any mention of claim 20, whether canceled or not. Claim 20 was present in the previous claim listing dated November 12, 2025. In order to expedite prosecution of this application, Examiner is waiving this non-compliancy and treating claim 20 as if claim 20 has the same recited language as in the claim listing dated November 12, 2025. Please clarify the status of claim 20 in Applicant’s next claim listing.
Applicant’s amendments have not addressed the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(d)/fourth paragraph, from the previous Office action. Therefore, those rejections remain, below in this Office action.
In response to Applicant’s amendment of the claims, the corresponding 101 claim rejections, from the previous Office action, have been correspondingly amended, below in this Office action.
Regarding the 101 claim rejections, Applicant argues that the 101 rejections should be withdrawn in view of the alleged technical improvements to network architecture, server-side computation, and selective unicast filtering that distinguish the claimed invention from the abstract idea of ridesharing coordination. In response, Examiner does not note any apparent technological improvements to network architecture, as the network seems comprised of servers and clients with typical generic computing devices that would be commonly found in networks. Server-side computation also does not qualify as a technological improvement, since systems involving servers and so-called “dumb” client terminals are also so long-present in computing technology as to be generic. It has also long been known that such a setup has advantages such as avoiding resource load on the client side, allowing the client-side devices to be relatively low in computing capabilities. By “selective unicast filtering”, it appears that Applicant is referring to features in the claims such as only transmitting the ridesharing opportunity to a single driver in claim 1, rather than additional drivers as well. While it is true that resources may be saved by sending only one communication rather than more, Examiner does not believe this currently qualifies as a technological or computing improvement for 101 eligibility purposes. This is because this is simply a long-time generic computing technique that was known to have this advantage. For example, email has been around for decades now. It has long been known that one can save resources if one only needs to send one email rather than multiple ones. Thus, this type of technique is so established in the technology as to be generic and not an improvement to the technology by the standards of Applicant’s priority date, similar to one obtaining an advantage of faster data processing by using a computer processor to process data in an automated way. Therefore, Examiner does not find these 101 arguments to be persuasive.
Novel/Non-Obvious Subject Matter
Examiner has determined that all of Applicant’s claims have overcome having prior art rejections. The reason for this is that Examiner does not believe that, at the time of Applicant’s priority date, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine prior art disclosures to result in the particular combinations of elements/limitations in the claims, including the particular configurations of the elements/limitations with respect to each other in the particular combinations, without the use of impermissible hindsight.
Claim Objections
Claims 4, 8, 10-11, and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
a. In the fourth line of claim 4, please replace the word “use” with --user-- to correct an apparent typographical error.
b. In the fifth line of claim 8, please remove the period immediately before the word “and” to correct an apparent typographical error.
c. In the fifth line of claim 10, please replace the word “used” with --user-- to correct an apparent typographical error.
d. In the seventh line of claim 10, please replace the word “dirver” with --driver-- to correct an apparent typographical error.
e. In the eighth line of claim 11, please replace the word “used” with --user-- to correct an apparent typographical error.
f. In the eighth line of claim 11, please replace the word “feeback” with --feedback-- to correct an apparent typographical error.
g. In the sixth line of claim 13, please replace the first occurrence of the word “amounts” with --amount-- to correct an apparent typographical error.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “non-eligible driver devices” in claim 1; and “broadcast-based systems” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As per Claim 4, claim 4 states that the fuel-efficiency of the vehicle is expressed as fuel consumption per unit distance. Examiner could not find support for this feature in Applicant’s application-as-originally-filed. As part of reviewing the application-as-originally-filed, Examiner performed text-string searches of Applicant’s specification for “fuel”, “gas”, “petrol”, “diesel”, “deisel”, and “efficien”. The closest disclosures that Examiner found were in Applicant’s specification-as-originally-filed, paragraphs [0068], [0069], and [0102]. These paragraphs represent fuel efficiency in terms of distance per unit of fuel consumption, such as miles per gallon. However, this is not the same as fuel consumption per unit of distance. Therefore, claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, written description requirement.
As per Claim 8, the claim refers to “vector polyline”. Examiner could not find support for this feature in Applicant’s application-as-originally-filed. As part of reviewing the application-as-originally-filed, Examiner performed text-string searches of Applicant’s specification for “vector”, “vecter”, “poly”, and “line”. The closest disclosure that Examiner found was Applicant’s drawings-as-originally-filed, Figure 6. However, that figure makes no reference to vector polyline(s). Therefore, claim 8 is rejected for this reason under 35 U.S.C. 112, written description requirement.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As per Claim 4, claim 4 recites “wherein the fuel-efficiency comprises a distance traveled per unit of fuel consumed expressed as fuel consumption per unit distance”. This statement appears to assign two conflicting meanings to the fuel-efficiency. Therefore, claim 4 is indefinite.
As per Claim 8, claim 8 recites the limitation "the vector polyline data" in the fifth and sixth lines of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Specifically, claim 16 attempts to incorporate only part of claim 12 (claim 12(a)(iii)). However, a proper dependent claim must include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 17-20 incorporate the issue via their dependencies from Claim 16.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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) 1-2, 4, and 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per Claim(s) 1, Claim(s) 1 recite(s):
- a) receiving driver input data from the driver, the driver input data including data indicating a driver destination;
- b) receiving passenger input data from the passenger, the passenger input data including data indicating a passenger destination;
- c) determining that the driver input data and the passenger input data satisfy predetermined criteria based at least in part on: (i) a passenger route being within a configurable distance-variance threshold and/or time-variance threshold of a driver route, and (ii) the driver destination corresponding to the passenger destination; obtains the driver route and the passenger route and generates map overlay data corresponding to at least the passenger route;
- d) calculating an estimated passenger usage amount for the passenger based at least in part on a fuel-efficiency of a vehicle of the passenger user and on at least one of: an added distance corresponding to the passenger route, a cost-distance analysis of the passenger route, and an extra amount comprising at least one of a parking fee, an entrance fee, or a toll;
- e) outputting first rideshare data only to the driver identified as satisfying the predetermined criteria, the first rideshare data comprising: (i) data indicating a location of the passenger, (ii) the estimated passenger usage amount, and (iii) at least a portion of the map overlay data corresponding to the passenger route; thereby reducing messaging to non-eligible drivers;
- f) receiving selection data from the driver, the selection data indicating a selection of the passenger;
- g) responsive to the selection data, outputting ride proposal data to the passenger, the ride proposal data including at least the estimated passenger usage amount and at least a portion of the map overlay data;
- h) receiving acceptance data from the passenger indicating an acceptance corresponding to the ride proposal data, the acceptance data optionally including an adjusted passenger usage amount;
- i) outputting second rideshare data to the driver, the second rideshare data including data indicating the acceptance from the passenger and, when present, the adjusted passenger usage amount.
Each of the above limitations falls within the abstract-idea category of “Certain methods of organizing human activity.” Specifically, those limitations relate to the following subject matter that is grouped into the category of “Certain methods of organizing human activity”:
- commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations): sets up a ridesharing transaction;
- managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions): manages interactions between drivers and passengers, each of which may involve people.
To the extent that any of these limitations are recited alongside recitations of generic computer components, as described below in this rejection: If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers subject matter recognized as certain methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim(s) recite the following additional elements/limitations, each of which are addressed in the list below with the reason(s) why they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
- a computer-implemented method executed by a system; a system comprising a backend server and client applications on a first user computing device and a second user computing device, the first user computing device comprising a GPS receiver, a wireless transceiver, a processor, a display, and a touchscreen user interface, and the second user computing device comprising a GPS receiver, a wireless transceiver, a processor, a display, and a touchscreen user interface; a data network including at least one of the Internet and a cellular data network; the backend server executing a module; wherein the backend server obtains the first route and the second route by invoking a web mapping service and generates map overlay data corresponding to at least the second route; outputting via transmitting; reducing broadcast messaging to devices and reducing server and network load relative to broadcast-based systems; devices: These element(s)/limitation(s) amount to mere instructions to apply an exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In making this determination, examiners may consider whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Mere instructions to apply an exception is a consideration with respect to both integration of an abstract idea into a practical application and significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) states: “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).” This is the case with these particular claim element(s)/limitation(s). Those elements/limitations do not meaningfully limit the claim because implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. Therefore, these particular claim element(s)/limitation(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for at least this reason.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim(s) are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, either individually or as an ordered combination. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of computer-related components amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claim(s) are not patent eligible.
As per dependent claim(s) 2, 4, and 6-11, these claim(s) incorporate the above abstract idea via their dependencies on the respective independent claim(s). The additional element(s)/limitation(s) of the respective independent claim(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they add significantly more, with respect to those dependent claim(s), under the same reasoning as above with respect to the respective independent claim(s).
Those dependent claim(s) add the following generic computer components, which do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor add significantly more, under the same reasoning as given above with respect to generic computer components in the independent claim(s). Those additional generic computer components and their corresponding dependent claim(s) are as follows:
- the backend server refrains from transmitting the data to user computing devices (claim 7);
- displayable on a map (claim 8);
- the backend server transmits data to the user computing device for rendering on the display (claim 8).
The remaining added elements/limitations of those dependent claim(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor add significantly more because they all merely add further functional step(s) and/or detail to the abstract idea; as part of the abstract idea, they cannot integrate into a practical application or be significantly more than the abstract idea of which they are a part. For example, claim 4 merely adds detail regarding the estimated passenger usage amount.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor add significantly more. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, and 6-11 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application and is without significantly more.
Claim(s) 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per Claim(s) 12, Claim(s) 12 recite(s):
- i) receive driver input data from a driver and passenger input data from a passenger, the driver input data including a driver destination and the passenger input data including a passenger destination;
- ii) determine that the driver input data and the passenger input data satisfy predetermined criteria based at least in part on: (A) a passenger route being within a configurable distance-variance threshold and/or time-variance threshold of a driver route, and (B) the driver destination corresponding to the passenger destination; obtain the routes and generate map overlay data;
- iii) calculate an estimated passenger usage amount for the passenger based at least in part on a fuel-efficiency of a vehicle of the passenger user and on at least one of: an added distance corresponding to the passenger route, a cost-distance analysis of the passenger route, and an extra amount comprising at least one of a parking fee, an entrance fee, or a toll;
- iv) output first rideshare data only to the driver identified as satisfying the predetermined criteria, the first rideshare data comprising data indicating a location of the passenger, the estimated passenger usage amount, and at least a portion of the map overlay data corresponding to the passenger route;
- v) receive selection data from the driver indicating selection of the passenger;
- vi) responsive to the selection data, output ride proposal data to the passenger including at least the estimated passenger usage amount and at least a portion of the map overlay data;
- vii) receive acceptance data from the passenger indicating acceptance corresponding to the ride proposal data, and output second rideshare data to the driver including data indicating the acceptance and, when present, an adjusted passenger usage amount.
Each of the above limitations falls within the abstract-idea category of “Certain methods of organizing human activity.” Specifically, those limitations relate to the following subject matter that is grouped into the category of “Certain methods of organizing human activity”:
- commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations): sets up a ridesharing transaction;
- managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions): manages interactions between drivers and passengers, each of which may involve people.
To the extent that any of these limitations are recited alongside recitations of generic computer components, as described below in this rejection: If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers subject matter recognized as certain methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim(s) recite the following additional elements/limitations, each of which are addressed in the list below with the reason(s) why they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
- an apparatus for a mobile application; one or more servers comprising processors, memory, and non-transitory storage storing executable instructions that, when executed, cause the one or more servers; a data network including at least one of the Internet and a cellular data network; a first user computing device; a second user computing device; executing a module; the one or more servers obtain the routes by invoking a web mapping service and generate map overlay data; outputting by transmitting; the first user computing device comprising a GPS receiver, a wireless transceiver, a processor, a display, and a touchscreen user interface; the second user computing device comprising a GPS receiver, a wireless transceiver, a processor, a display, and a touchscreen user interface: These element(s)/limitation(s) amount to mere instructions to apply an exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In making this determination, examiners may consider whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Mere instructions to apply an exception is a consideration with respect to both integration of an abstract idea into a practical application and significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) states: “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).” This is the case with these particular claim element(s)/limitation(s). Those elements/limitations do not meaningfully limit the claim because implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. Therefore, these particular claim element(s)/limitation(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for at least this reason.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim(s) are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, either individually or as an ordered combination. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of computer-related components amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claim(s) are not patent eligible.
As per dependent claim(s) 13-15, these claim(s) incorporate the above abstract idea via their dependencies on the respective independent claim(s). The additional element(s)/limitation(s) of the respective independent claim(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they add significantly more, with respect to those dependent claim(s), under the same reasoning as above with respect to the respective independent claim(s).
Those dependent claim(s) add the following generic computer components, which do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor add significantly more, under the same reasoning as given above with respect to generic computer components in the independent claim(s). Those additional generic computer components and their corresponding dependent claim(s) are as follows:
- the one or more servers refrain from transmitting the data to user computing devices (claim 15).
The remaining added elements/limitations of those dependent claim(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor add significantly more because they all merely add further functional step(s) and/or detail to the abstract idea; as part of the abstract idea, they cannot integrate into a practical application or be significantly more than the abstract idea of which they are a part. For example, the remaining portion of claim 14 merely adds that route data is obtained that was generated based on driver destination and passenger destination.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor add significantly more. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Claim(s) 12-15 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application and is without significantly more.
Claim(s) 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per Claim(s) 16, Claim(s) 16 recite(s):
- i) receiving driver input data from the driver and passenger input data from the passenger;
- ii) determining that the driver input data and the passenger input data satisfy predetermined criteria based at least in part on: (A) a passenger route being within a configurable distance-variance threshold and/or time-variance threshold of a driver route, and (B) the driver destination corresponding to the passenger destination; obtain the routes and generate map overlay data;
- iii) calculating an estimated passenger usage amount for the passenger as set forth in claim 12(a)(iii);
- iv) outputting first rideshare data only to the driver identified as satisfying the predetermined criteria, the first rideshare data comprising at least the estimated passenger usage amount and at least a portion of the map overlay data;
- v) receiving selection data from the driver and outputting ride proposal data to the passenger including at least the estimated passenger usage amount and at least a portion of the map overlay data;
- vi) receiving acceptance data from the passenger and outputting second rideshare data to the driver including data indicating the acceptance and, when present, an adjusted passenger usage amount.
Each of the above limitations falls within the abstract-idea category of “Certain methods of organizing human activity.” Specifically, those limitations relate to the following subject matter that is grouped into the category of “Certain methods of organizing human activity”:
- commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations): sets up a ridesharing transaction;
- managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions): manages interactions between drivers and passengers, each of which may involve people.
To the extent that any of these limitations are recited alongside recitations of generic computer components, as described below in this rejection: If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers subject matter recognized as certain methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim(s) recite the following additional elements/limitations, each of which are addressed in the list below with the reason(s) why they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
- a system; a first user computing device comprising a GPS receiver, a wireless transceiver, a processor, a display, and a touchscreen user interface; a second user computing device comprising a GPS receiver, a wireless transceiver, a processor, a display, and a touchscreen user interface; one or more servers configured to perform operations; a data network including at least one of the Internet and a cellular data network; executing a module; the one or more servers obtain the routes by invoking a web mapping service and generate map overlay data; outputting via transmitting: These element(s)/limitation(s) amount to mere instructions to apply an exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In making this determination, examiners may consider whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Mere instructions to apply an exception is a consideration with respect to both integration of an abstract idea into a practical application and significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) states: “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).” This is the case with these particular claim element(s)/limitation(s). Those elements/limitations do not meaningfully limit the claim because implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. Therefore, these particular claim element(s)/limitation(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for at least this reason.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim(s) are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, either individually or as an ordered combination. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of computer-related components amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claim(s) are not patent eligible.
As per dependent claim(s) 17-20, these claim(s) incorporate the above abstract idea via their dependencies on the respective independent claim(s). The additional element(s)/limitation(s) of the respective independent claim(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they add significantly more, with respect to those dependent claim(s), under the same reasoning as above with respect to the respective independent claim(s).
Those dependent claim(s) add the following generic computer components, which do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor add significantly more, under the same reasoning as given above with respect to generic computer components in the independent claim(s). Those additional generic computer components and their corresponding dependent claim(s) are as follows:
- the one or more servers are configured to reduce network bandwidth and server load by transmitting the data only to particular user computing devices (claim 20).
The remaining added elements/limitations of those dependent claim(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor add significantly more because they all merely add further functional step(s) and/or detail to the abstract idea; as part of the abstract idea, they cannot integrate into a practical application or be significantly more than the abstract idea of which they are a part. For example, the remaining portion of claim 17 merely receives threshold value(s) to use in determining that the predetermined criteria are satisfied.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor add significantly more. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Claim(s) 16-20 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application and is without significantly more.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Dayama, US 20170372235 A1 (dynamic transportation pooling).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN ERB whose telephone number is (571)272-7606. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 11:30 AM - 8 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, NATHAN UBER can be reached at (571) 270-3923. 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.
nhe
/NATHAN ERB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628