DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The following is a Final Office Action in response to applicant’s amendments received on 05/13/2026.
Claim 1 is amended. Claims 5-7 are cancelled. Claims 1-4 are considered in this Office Action. Claims 1-4 are currently pending.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection set forth in this Office Action.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection to claims have been considered, however they are primarily raised in light of applicant’s amendments. An updated the 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection will address applicant’s amendment.
Applicant's amendments and arguments have been considered; and they overcome 35 USC §103 rejection. See Discussion of Prior Art section set forth below.
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance with the “Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance”.
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is first noted that the method (claims 1-4) is directed to an eligible category of subject matter (i.e., process, machine, and article of manufacture respectively). Thus, Step 1 is satisfied.
With respect to Step 2, and in particular Step 2A Prong One, it is next noted that the claims recite an abstract idea by reciting concepts of ride share agreement between a rider and a driver which is considered commercial or legal interactions (including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations) and managing interactions between people, which falls into the “certain methods of organizing human activity” group within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas. The claims further fall under “mental process” grouping. The limitations reciting the abstract idea are highlighted in italics and the limitation directed to additional elements highlighted in bold, as set forth in exemplary claim 1, are: A method of providing a plurality of ride series to a driver comprising: in a processing system; identifying metrics of the plurality of ride series using a ride organizer module; wherein the request for the plurality of ride series is from a passenger module, wherein each of the plurality of ride series comprises a plurality of trips by a dependent passenger having common start points and destinations and including an offered fare where the dependent passenger is not a ride organizer, and wherein the plurality of ride series is defined using recurrence rules; identifying a plurality of possible drivers that can provide service for the plurality ride series using a ride scheduling module; offering at least one ride of each of the plurality of ride series to the plurality of possible drivers using the ride scheduling module , wherein the ride series is presented in bulk to the drivers for simultaneous claiming and scheduling; assigning the at least one ride of one or more of the plurality of ride series to one driver of the plurality of possible drivers if the one driver claims the offered ride and accepts the offered fare using the ride scheduling module; automatically updating, by the ride scheduling module, a list of available rides for the one driver after the one driver claims the offered ride by identifying related rides based on compatible pickup times, destinations, and ride-series metrics relative to the claimed rude; filtering out rides that overlap wholly or partially in time with the claimed ride, and presenting remaining compatible rides that do not conflict with the claimed ride for simultaneous claiming to construct a feasible multi-ride driver schedule; transmitting verified driver identity and vehicle information to the dependent passenger and ride organizer prior to the ride to ensure passenger safety; automatically offering a personalized bonus to each of the plurality of drivers by the ride scheduling module to take at least one unclaimed ride of the plurality of ride series; wherein the personalized bonus is based on historical data stored in historical data module for each of the plurality of drivers, and the personalized bonus is different for each of the plurality of drivers for the at least one unclaimed ride, automatically escalating the personalized bonus in value using a bonus escalation module operatively coupled to the historical data module and by the ride scheduling module until the at least one unclaimed ride is claimed by any of the plurality of drivers.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the following additional elements: processing system, ride organizer module, passenger module, wherein the ride series is presented in bulk to the drivers for simultaneous claiming and scheduling (amounts to displaying data which is extra-solution activity), and presenting remaining compatible rides that do not conflict with the claimed ride for simultaneous claiming to construct a feasible multi-ride driver schedule(amounts to displaying data which is extra-solution activity); transmitting verified driver identity and vehicle information to the dependent passenger and ride organizer prior to the ride to ensure passenger safety(amounts to extra-solution activity), using a bonus escalation module operatively coupled to the historical data module and by the ride scheduling module the personalized bonus is based on historical data stored in historical data module, and ride scheduling module. However, the additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Furthermore, these claims as a whole have been fully considered, however they are directed to the use of generic computing elements (Applicant’s Specification figure 11 and [0063-0068]describe high level general purpose computer) to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application and is tantamount to simply saying “apply it” using a general purpose computer, which merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (computer based operating environment) by using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to particular application.
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry, it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims recite the following additional elements: processing system, ride organizer module, passenger module, wherein the ride series is presented in bulk to the drivers for simultaneous claiming and scheduling (amounts to displaying data which is extra-solution activity), and presenting remaining compatible rides that do not conflict with the claimed ride for simultaneous claiming to construct a feasible multi-ride driver schedule(amounts to displaying data which is extra-solution activity); transmitting verified driver identity and vehicle information to the dependent passenger and ride organizer prior to the ride to ensure passenger safety(amounts to extra-solution activity), using a bonus escalation module operatively coupled to the historical data module and by the ride scheduling module the personalized bonus is based on historical data stored in historical data module, and ride scheduling module. The claims as a whole have been considered, but merely serve to tie the invention to a particular operating environment (i.e., computer-based implementation), though at a very high level of generality and without imposing meaningful limitation on the scope of the claim. In addition, Applicant’s Specification (figure 11) describes generic off-the-shelf computer-based elements for implementing the claimed invention, and which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, which is not enough to transform an abstract idea into eligible subject matter. Such generic, high-level, and nominal involvement of a computer or computer-based elements for carrying out the invention merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which is not enough to render the claims patent-eligible, as noted at pg. 74624 of Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 241, citing Alice, which in turn cites Mayo.
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that the ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The dependent claims have been fully considered as well, however, similar to the finding for claims above, these claims are similarly directed to the abstract idea of certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process, without integrating it into a practical application and with, at most, a general-purpose computer that serves to tie the idea to a particular technological environment, which does not add significantly more to the claims. The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Prior Art Discussion
Claims 1-4 would be allowable, if they were amended in such way to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejections set forth in the action.
Independent claim 1 is rendered neither obvious nor anticipated by the available field of prior art. The claim overcomes the prior art combination of the record such that none of the cited prior art references can be applied to form the basis of a 35 USC 102 rejection nor can they be combined to fairly suggest in combination, the basis of a 35 USC 103 rejection when the limitations are read in the particular environment of the claims.
The closest prior art of record is Narayan (US 2018/0211228 A1, hereinafter “Narayan”) in view Willner et al. (US 2020/0160235 A1, hereinafter “Willner”), Absher et al. (US 2018/0025309 A1, hereinafter “Absher”) in view of Dicker et al. (US 2017/0352125 A1, hereinafter “Dicker”), RideShare Guy (NPL: “Understanding Lyft’s Driver Bonuses”, published 07/19/2018, hereinafter “Lyft”).
Narayan is directed to a method and system for requesting a ride for a third-party rider. Auser device may be used to transmit a ride request to a server for a third-party rider. The user device may receive an indication of a driver from a set of trusted drivers among a pool of drivers. Further, the user device and a device associated with the third-party user may receive a ride confirmation. Narayan further discloses that the user is the ride requestor but not necessarily a ride service recipient. a user may be a parent scheduling a ride for a child. Thus, the ride requestor may be considered to be the parent while the third-party rider is a child. In this way, the parent may schedule a ride for a child during which the safety of the child may be protected. Narayan further discloses the function of allowing the user to set up the requested ride as a recurring ride by interacting with toggle button. Willner is directed to method for providing a ride-sharing platform may include sending driver trip information from a plurality of driver devices and rider trip information from a plurality of rider devices to a communication module on a platform server, receiving by a ride matching module on the server the rider destination information and rider starting location, receiving the driver destination information, sending to a matched driver device the rider trip information comprising the rider destination information and rider starting information for a matched rider device, displaying on the matched driver device the matched rider destination information and rider starting information, waiting for reservation input, and confirming the reservation input. Absher discloses the function of a shifter accesses the shift worker platform, the shifter calendar may be one of a plurality of user interface views available to the shifter, e.g. on a display of a computing device associated with the shifter. The shifter calendar allows the shifter to easily see suitable shifts to work as well as schedule gaps where no suitable shifts are available, in which case the shifter might cast a wider net by working outside her typical geographic area or below her typical minimum pay. Similar to the job provider client calendar shown in FIG. 2, shifter calendar shown in FIG. 3 may be a weekly calendar arranged with columns representing the days of a week and rows representing time slots, e.g. hours. In the example shown in FIG. 3, the time slots run from 5:00 AM through 4:00 AM (24 hours) and the days run from Sunday through Saturday (7 days), but the job provider client calendar may be customizable to limit the view to the hours of interest of the particular shifter. The shifter calendar may include one or more filled shifts or more schedule gaps, a plurality of buttons, a filters panel, a shift details panel, and one or more available shifts. Lyft discloses the function of personalized bonuses per driver. Dicker discloses system can communicate with a user device and receive a set of request data for a scheduled request at a scheduled date and a scheduled time. The set of request data indicates a start location and a destination location for the scheduled request. The network system can record the scheduled request in a scheduling log, and implement a hierarchical selection process to fulfill the scheduled request.
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 REHAM K ABOUZAHRA whose telephone number is (571)272-0419. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Epstein can be reached at (571)-270-5389. 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.
/REHAM K ABOUZAHRA/ Examiner, Art Unit 3625
/BRIAN M EPSTEIN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights