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 in reply to the amendment filed on 3/03/2026.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7, 10-11, 14, 16, 18-19 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS dated 12/18/2025 contained an original copy of CN 11969280. This reference was initially listed in the IDS dated 9/10/2025, which contained a translation thereof but not an original copy, failing to meet the requirements of 37 CFR 1.98. While this reference as listed in the IDS dated 9/10/2026 was considered as per the Non-Final Rejection dated 12/10/2025 despite this previous shortcoming, it is presently acknowledged that this original copy, in conjunction with the previously provided translation, now meets the requirements of 37 CFR 1.98.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Preliminary Matters
The presently amended claims are non-compliant with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.121. Specifically, Claims 4-5 are labeled as “Previously Presented,” yet both contain present amendments. In the interests of compact prosecution, the amended claims are entered and examined as if they were compliant.
Objections
The present amendments to Claim 10 obviate the previous objection thereto; therefore, this objection is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112
The amendments to Claims 11 and 18 obviate the previous 112(a) rejections thereto; therefore, these rejections are withdrawn.
The amendments to the claims obviate all previous 112(b) rejections; therefore, these rejections are withdrawn. Specifically regarding Claim 19, while the previous indefiniteness is cured by the present amendments thereto, the language “modify the one or more databases to add the match between the provider device and the additional requester device” is now interpreted as merely a superfluous reiteration of functionality already claimed in Claim 18 (upon which Claim 19 depends).
The amendments to Claim 14 obviate the previous 112(d) rejection thereto; therefore, this rejection is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 101 analysis have been considered and are unpersuasive.
Applicant first argues that the claims as amended are eligible under Step 2A, Prong Two as “the claims recite a specific technical solution to a technological problem arising in conventional computer-implemented transportation matching systems. Specifically, the technological problem lies in the architectural rigidity of binary matched/unmatched systems that prematurely commit provider devices to requester devices and therefore require destructive cancellation and recomputation when conditions change.” Applicant cites to Paragraphs 0005 and 0036 of the specification as support. Examiner disagrees, both based on the previous advancement of essentially this same argument in the Remarks of 8/11/2025 (addressed in the Final Rejection of 8/27/2025) and based on the presently asserted merits of this argument as relate to the claims as presently amended.
Examiner finds that this argument merely cloaks an abstract concept in technological language in similar manner as several previously advanced and refuted arguments. Here, the problem is not a technological problem specifically directed to computer systems which happen to perform transportation matching, but rather a broader problem related to the purely abstract business concern of transportation matching and assignments.
The “rigidity” asserted has nothing to do with any recited technology or technological aspect, but rather relates to previous methods of effectuating the abstract business process of matching and assigning providers and requesters of transportation services. This rigidity, both as asserted in the present Remarks and as described in the original disclosure (ie: the “rigid first-in-first-out models” vaguely referenced in Paragraph 0034), is merely the instant finalization of matches into assignments which are not reconsidered and potentially reassigned based on changing circumstances (e.g., new transportation requests from different requesters, potentially of different types such as flexible and priority; better matches between such new requests and providers who are already assigned to service previous requests). This is the “binary” status of either assigned or available referenced in the present arguments. Again, this has nothing to do with the technological functionality of the recited generic computer elements, e.g., in stark contrast to the technological improvements in Enfish.
This “rigid[]” and “binary” provider status of either assigned or available is not a technological problem, but rather a broader abstract problem. Likewise, the solution of re-considering previous assignments, potentially changing an assigned provider to another requester, is not a technological solution but rather a purely abstract, business solution. That these abstract business functions are claimed as being performed at a high level by way of generic computer elements (including a machine learning/hyperparameter model thereof) and communications therebetween does nothing to make this otherwise (see various citations to caselaw provided to this effect in previous Office Actions). Instead, this problem is present in transportation services, regardless of the presence or absence of any recited technological elements, making it abundantly clear that this problem does not stem from such technological elements. For example, as explained in response to previous arguments, the argued “multi-state provider device control architecture” is nothing more than the abstract assigning of one of several “states” (e.g., reserved, released) to a provider of transportation services (represented in the claims by way of a personal device carried by said provider), and the potential changing of that status based on re-assignment of that provider. The shortcoming here is not of the technological elements themselves or the “architecture” thereof as asserted, but rather the business managerial choice in pre-existing transportation services not to re-consider or potentially re-assign (“dynamically,” as argued) providers who are already assigned to service requesters. This does not qualify as an improvement to a technology (see, e.g., MPEP 2106.05(a): “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.”). See also the response to the previous iteration of this argument in the Final Rejection of 8/27/2025.
Applicant next argues that “the amended independent claims recite machine learning prediction model and hyperparameter model limitations that are not claimed in the abstract. Rather, the outputs of the models are integrated into the technical solution by dynamically determining reservation capacity and controlling provider device state transitions within the multi-state database architecture. At this Step 2A, Prong Two, the inquiry is not whether such model components are routine and conventional, but whether they integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application. Here, the machine learning prediction model and the hyperparameter model operate as part of a continuous system-control mechanizing governing reservation sizing and state mutation in response to airport-specific conditions.” The only part of this argument with which Examiner agrees is the notion that “[a]t this Step 2A, Prong Two, the inquiry is not whether such model components are routine and conventional, but whether they integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application,” and this is only because the well-understood, routine, and conventional consideration is part of Step 2B rather than Step 2A, Prong Two. Regarding the rest of this argument, essentially a reiteration and slight expansion/re-wording of an argument advanced and refuted in the Interview of 2/10/2026, Examiner disagrees.
While the claimed “machine learning prediction model” and “hyperparameter model” themselves are non-abstract additional elements (and indeed, have always been considered as such in previous 101 analyses of Claims 16-17), the “limitations” in which they are claimed are most certainly claimed such that abstract ideas are recited. Regarding the limitation “generating, utilizing a machine learning prediction model trained on historical features, predicted requester devices for the airport pickup location,” the prediction of requests expected at the airport pickup location based on analysis of historical information is an abstract idea (e.g., statistical/mentally performable data analysis of the type found to be abstract in myriad pieces of caselaw), and the high-level performance of this abstract function by way of a machine learning model does not make this otherwise.
Regarding the limitation “generating, utilizing a hyperparameter model, a hyperparameter comprising a number of provider devices to reserve based on the predicted requester devices, the current device features, and airport features,” the estimation of a number of providers to reserve to service the predicted requests likewise is an abstract idea in the same manner as the machine learning functionality addressed immediately above, and the high-level performance of this abstract function by way of a hyperparameter model does not make this otherwise. In neither limitation are any technical details regarding the manner in which the machine learning model or the hyperparameter model function to achieve these abstract results provided, and no such details appear to be present in the original disclosure which likewise describes this functionality at an extremely high-level (see, e.g., Paragraphs 0142, 0145, 0149-0150). Further still, the use of the terms “the current device features” and “airport features” as variables used to make this prediction do not render this function technological in nature, but rather similarly cloak abstract concepts in technological language. For example, the claimed “device features,” while sounding technological in nature, are actually described in the original disclosure (in the scant instances in which the term is used) as global positioning data (e.g., latitudes and longitudes), such as may be subsequently used to determine time metrics and ranking order (see, e.g., Paragraphs 0022), which is an abstract piece of data rather than a technological feature. Similarly, the original disclosure describes “airport features” as abstract information associated with a particular airport, such as regulations, physical layout, or provider capacities thereof (see, e.g., Paragraphs 0032, 0071, 0143). In keeping with the content and various Examples set forth in the July 2024 PEG Update, the functionality recited as being accomplished by the machine learning model and hyperparameter model are categorized as reciting abstract ideas. No amount of burying these abstract concepts in technical jargon (e.g., “controlling provider device state transitions within the multi-state database architecture,” “system-control mechanizing governing,” “state mutation,” etc.) will avoid the abstract nature of these functions.
Regarding the subsequent use of the abstract outputs of the machine learning model and hyperparameter model, these do not integrate the claims into a practical application by way of achieving an improvement to a technology or otherwise. Rather, these outputs are used as variables to achieve further abstract goals, ie: the matching and assignment (and sometimes modifications thereof) of providers to service requests from a plurality of requesters. See explanations above and in previous Office Actions. As an illustration, this is in contrast to Example 47, Claim 3 of the July 2024 PEG Update, which utilizes the abstract result of an AI model to achieve non-abstract, technological improvements (ie: the removal of anomalous and potentially hazardous network packets, and the blocking of future traffic from the sources of said anomalous network packets).
Regarding Step 2B, Applicant makes essentially the same argument as addressed above regarding Step 2A, Prong Two, modifying it such that Applicant asserts that “the additional elements of the currently amended independent claims qualify as ‘significantly more’ as they are improvements to a technology or technical field” (going on to assert the same permanent/binary matching which was explained above to be an improvement to an abstract business model rather than a technology). Regarding Step 2B, MPEP 2106.05 states in relevant part that “[a]n inventive concept ‘cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself.’ Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016).” As nearly the entirety of the independent claims recite abstract ideas (including the status assignment/modifications and various matchings and un-pairings of providers and requesters) rather than additional elements, Applicant is left with little to make such an argument. What remains (the additional elements) are essentially a collection of generic computer devices, some of which comprising GUIs and one of which comprising a machine learning model and a hyperparameter model, and digital communications therebetween. Such a ubiquitous arrangement of additional elements does not constitute significantly more than the recited abstract ideas. The functionality argued by Applicant here almost entirely comprises the abstract elements of the claims, which likewise cannot evidence an inventive concept as per the citation above.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1, 11, and 18 contain variations on the following limitation: “monitoring transmissions between the one or more server devices, the plurality of provider devices, and a plurality of requester devices to determine current device features.” As “device features” are described in the original disclosure as global positioning data (e.g., latitudes and longitudes), such as may be subsequently used to determine time metrics and ranking order (see, e.g., Paragraphs 0022), this limitation as relates to provider devices is considered a superfluous reiteration of the previous limitation “receiving, via one or more server devices, updating streams of global positioning system data from a plurality of provider devices.” This limitation does newly claim the determination of such “device features” for a plurality of requester devices.
In Claim 19, the language “modify the one or more databases to add the match between the provider device and the additional requester device” is now interpreted as merely a superfluous reiteration of functionality already claimed in Claim 18 (upon which Claim 19 depends).
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Claims 1, 11, and 18, the limitations of identifying from the updating streams of global positioning system data, a subset of providers outside of a threshold radius of an airport pickup location but within an airport boundary region; determining, for the subset of providers based on a subset of global positioning system data corresponding to the subset of providers, a plurality of time metrics relative to the airport pickup location; generating, based on historical features, predicted requesters for the airport pickup location; monitoring transmissions between the one or more server devices, the plurality of providers, and a plurality of requesters to determine current device features; generating a hyperparameter comprising a number of provider devices to reserve based on the predicted requesters, the current device features, and airport features; prior to receiving a flexible priority airport transportation request from a requester: generating, based on the hyperparameter comprising the number of providers to reserve, a set of reserved providers of the subset of providers for airport time priority services by changing one or more of the subset of providers to a reserved state within one or more databases based on the plurality of time metrics relative to the airport pickup location; detecting, utilizing an updated subset of global positioning system data from the updating streams of global positioning system data corresponding to the subset of providers, an updated plurality of time metrics relative to the airport pickup location for the set of reserved providers; generating a released provider by modifying a second provider of the set of reserved providers from the reserved state to a released state within the one or more databases upon determining that a provider of the set of reserved providers has crossed the threshold radius and is not associated with a preliminary match at a time when the second provider crosses the threshold radius; providing, for display to a requester, a flexible transportation request option, a standard transportation request option, and a priority transportation request option; based on a user interaction with at least one of the flexible transportation request selectable element or the (standard/priority) transportation request selectable element, receiving the flexible priority airport transportation request from the requester device; in response to receiving the flexible priority airport transportation request: accessing the modified set of reserved providers in the reserved state within the one or more databases to generate the preliminary match between the requester and a provider from the modified set of reserved provider; modifying the one or more databases to add the preliminary match between the requester and the provider from the modified set of reserved providers; providing, to the provider, instructions to navigate to the airport pickup location; providing, for display to an additional requester, a second flexible transportation request option, a second standard transportation request option, and a second priority transportation request option; upon receiving an additional user selection of the second priority transportation request option, modifying the one or more databases to remove the preliminary match between the requester and the provider and add a match between the provider and the additional requester; and upon adding the match between the provider and the additional requester, modifying the one or more databases to add an additional match between the second provider and the requester, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover certain methods of organizing human activity. For example, these limitations fall at least within the enumerated categories of commercial or legal interactions and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)).
Additionally, the limitations of identifying from the updating streams of global positioning system data, a subset of providers outside of a threshold radius of an airport pickup location but within an airport boundary region; determining, for the subset of providers based on a subset of global positioning system data corresponding to the subset of providers, a plurality of time metrics relative to the airport pickup location; generating, based on historical features, predicted requesters for the airport pickup location; monitoring transmissions between the one or more server devices, the plurality of providers, and a plurality of requesters to determine current device features; generating a hyperparameter comprising a number of provider devices to reserve based on the predicted requesters, the current device features, and airport features; prior to receiving a flexible priority airport transportation request from a requester: generating, based on the hyperparameter comprising the number of providers to reserve, a set of reserved providers of the subset of providers for airport time priority services by changing one or more of the subset of providers to a reserved state within one or more databases based on the plurality of time metrics relative to the airport pickup location; detecting, utilizing an updated subset of global positioning system data from the updating streams of global positioning system data corresponding to the subset of providers, an updated plurality of time metrics relative to the airport pickup location for the set of reserved providers; generating a released provider by modifying a second provider of the set of reserved providers from the reserved state to a released state within the one or more databases upon determining that a provider of the set of reserved providers has crossed the threshold radius and is not associated with a preliminary match at a time when the second provider crosses the threshold radius; providing, for display to a requester, a flexible transportation request option, a standard transportation request option, and a priority transportation request option; based on a user interaction with at least one of the flexible transportation request selectable element or the (standard/priority) transportation request selectable element, receiving the flexible priority airport transportation request from the requester device; in response to receiving the flexible priority airport transportation request: accessing the modified set of reserved providers in the reserved state within the one or more databases to generate the preliminary match between the requester and a provider from the modified set of reserved provider; modifying the one or more databases to add the preliminary match between the requester and the provider from the modified set of reserved providers; providing, to the provider, instructions to navigate to the airport pickup location; providing, for display to an additional requester, a second flexible transportation request option, a second standard transportation request option, and a second priority transportation request option; upon receiving an additional user selection of the second priority transportation request option, modifying the one or more databases to remove the preliminary match between the requester and the provider and add a match between the provider and the additional requester; and upon adding the match between the provider and the additional requester, modifying the one or more databases to add an additional match between the second provider and the requester, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes. For example, these limitations recite activity comprising observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Additionally, the limitations of determining, for the subset of providers based on a subset of global positioning system data corresponding to the subset of providers, a plurality of time metrics relative to the airport pickup location; detecting, utilizing an updated subset of global positioning system data from the updating streams of global positioning system data corresponding to the subset of providers, an updated plurality of time metrics relative to the airport pickup location for the set of reserved providers; and generating a released provider by modifying a second provider of the set of reserved providers from the reserved state to a released state within the one or more databases upon determining that a provider of the set of reserved providers has crossed the threshold radius and is not associated with a preliminary match at a time when the second provider crosses the threshold radius, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mathematical concepts. For example, these limitations recite mathematical relationships and/or calculations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships, or managing interactions between people, it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper but for recitation of generic computer components, it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical relationships, mathematical formulae or equations, or mathematical calculations, it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of at least one processor; a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising processor-executable instructions; one or more server devices; receiving updating streams of global positioning system data from a plurality of provider devices; provider devices comprising graphical user interfaces; a plurality of requester devices comprising selectable elements; a trained machine learning prediction model; a hyperparameter mode; and one or more databases. At least one processor; a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising processor-executable instructions; one or more server devices; provider devices comprising graphical user interfaces; a plurality of requester devices comprising selectable elements; a trained machine learning prediction model; a hyperparameter mode; and one or more databases, in the context of the claims as a whole, amount to no more than mere instructions to apply a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Receiving updating streams of global positioning system data from a plurality of provider devices, in the context of the claims as a whole, amounts to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because they do not, individually or in combination, impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas. The claims are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply a judicial exception, and insignificant extra-solution activity for the same reasons as discussed above in relation to integration into a practical application. The limitation found to recite insignificant extra-solution activity, upon reevaluation, is further determined to be well-understood, routine, and conventional as per MPEP 2106.05(d) as “[r]eceiving or transmitting data over a network.” These cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, when considering the additional elements alone and in combination, there is no inventive concept in the claims, and thus the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 2-10, 12-17, and 19-20, describing various additional limitations to the method of Claim 1, system of Claim 11, or product of Claim 18, amount to substantially the same unintegrated abstract idea as Claims 1, 11, and 18 (upon which these claims depend, directly or indirectly) and are rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Claim 2 discloses identifying, utilizing the updating streams of global positioning system data, a first subset of the subset of provider devices at an initial provider device staging location and a second subset of the subset of provider devices at an airport provider device tiered staging location (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process); determining a ranking order corresponding to the airport provider device tiered staging location based on an arrival order of the second subset of the plurality of provider devices at the airport provider device tiered staging location (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity, a mental process, and a mathematical concept); and based on the ranking order, matching the requester device with a reserved provider device of the second subset of the subset of provider devices (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process), which do not integrate the claims into a practical application.
Claim 3 discloses generating the set of reserved provider devices from the second subset of the subset of provider devices based on an inverse order of the arrival order of the second subset of the subset of provider devices (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity, a mental process, and a mathematical concept), which does not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 4 discloses in response to identifying a new provider device at the airport provider device tiered staging location, changing the new provider device to the reserved state and modifying a third provider device of the set of reserved provider devices to the released state based on the ranking order (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process), which does not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 5 discloses determining a reserved time for a fourth provider device of the set of reserved provider devices (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process); and in response to determining that the reserved time exceeds a threshold reservation time, modifying the fourth provider device to the released state for the airport time priority services (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity, a mental process, and a mathematical concept), which do not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claims 6 and 20 disclose identifying a plurality of pre-dispatch provider devices pre-dispatched to the airport pickup location, the plurality of pre-dispatch provider devices pre-dispatched from an airport provider device staging location to the airport pickup location without a matched requester device (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process); determining time metrics relative to the airport pickup location for the plurality of pre-dispatch provider devices (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process); and generating the set of reserved provider devices from the plurality of pre-dispatch provider devices based on the time metrics for the plurality of pre-dispatch provider devices (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process), which do not integrate the claims into a practical application.
Claim 7 discloses in response to determining, based on the updating streams of global positioning system data, that a pre-dispatch provider device of the set of reserved provider devices is located within the threshold radius of the airport pickup location, releasing the pre-dispatch provider device from being reserved for the airport time priority services by modifying the pre-dispatch provider device to the released state (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity, a mental process, and a mathematical concept), which does not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 8 discloses in response to receiving a flexible time delay airport transportation request from a flex requester device at the airport pickup location, dispatching a flex provider device to the airport pickup location (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity); and reserving the flex provider device for the airport time priority services by modifying the flex provider device to the reserved state, based on a time metric of the flex provider device relative to the airport pickup location (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process), which do not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 9 discloses in response to receiving the flexible priority airport transportation request, selecting the flex provider device as the provider device to match to the requester device (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process), which does not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 10 discloses receiving the flexible time delay airport transportation request from the flex requester device at the airport pickup location (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process); in response to determining that the flex provider device is reserved for the airport time priority services and is within the threshold radius relative to the airport pickup location, modifying the flex provider device to the released state and matching the flex provider device to the flex requester device (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity, a mental process, and a mathematical concept), which does not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 12 discloses in response to identifying preliminary matches between the plurality of provider devices and a plurality of requester devices (mere instructions to apply a judicial exception) at the airport pickup location, dispatch the plurality of provider devices to the airport pickup location (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity); and generate the set of reserved provider devices from the plurality of provider devices based on the plurality of time metrics relative to the airport pickup location (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process), which do not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 13 discloses identify a plurality of unavailable provider devices (mere instructions to apply a judicial exception) transporting requester devices (mere instructions to apply a judicial exception) to the airport boundary region (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process); determine time metrics relative to the airport pickup location for the plurality of unavailable provider devices (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process); and generate the set of reserved provider devices from the plurality of unavailable provider devices based on the time metrics relative to the airport pickup location (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process), which do not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 14 discloses upon receiving the additional user interaction with the second priority transportation request selectable element, from the additional requester device, match the provider device of the set of reserved provider devices to the additional requester device, wherein the provider device was not preliminarily matched to the additional requester device (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process), which does not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 15 discloses generate the set of reserved provider devices until detecting that one or more provider devices of the set of reserved provider devices is within the threshold radius of the airport pickup location (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity, a mental process, and a mathematical concept), which does not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 16 discloses utilize the hyperparameter model (mere instructions to apply a judicial exception) to select one or more hyperparameters comprising at least one of: the number of provider devices to reserve, a threshold reservation radius, or a threshold reservation time (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process), which does not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 17 discloses wherein the hyperparameter model comprises at least one of a simulator model, a machine learning model, or an objective function (generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use), which does not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 19 discloses identifying, utilizing the global positioning system data outside of the threshold radius of the airport pickup location, a first subset of the plurality of provider devices at an initial provider device staging location and a second subset of the plurality of provider devices at an airport provider device tiered staging location (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process); determining a ranking order corresponding to the airport provider device tiered staging location based on an arrival order of the second subset of the plurality of provider devices at the airport provider device tiered staging location (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity, a mental process, and a mathematical concept); and upon receiving the additional user interaction, select the provider device based on the ranking order corresponding to the airport provider device tiered staging location (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process), and modify the one or more databases to add the match between the provider device and the additional requester device (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process), which do not integrate the claims into a practical application.
Discussion of Prior Art Cited but Not Applied
For additional information on the state of the art regarding the claims of the present application, please see the following documents not applied in this Office Action (all of which are prior art to the present application):
PGPub 20200151624 – “Systems and Methods for Remote Provider Pool Check-In for Dynamic Transportation Networks,” Sierra et al, disclosing a system for matching transportation requesters with transportation providers, which provides check-in functionality for providers when they enter a designated matching area, thereby allowing said providers to be matched to requesters
PGPub 20220076170 – “Utilizing Provider Device Efficiency Metrics to Select a Provider Device for a Future Time Window,” Chang et al, disclosing a transportation matching system which considers transportation requests with a flexible time for fulfillment
PGPub 20200279195 – “On-Demand Transportation Management System,” Kobori et al, disclosing a transportation matching and fulfillment system, including categorization of requesting passengers into buckets of “high-priority passengers” and “general passengers,” including distinct fulfillment practices based on said categorization
PGPub 20210042668 – “Systems and Methods for Autonomous Vehicle Deployment and Control,” Gao et al, disclosing a transportation matching system which ranks a list of providers to give priority for matching, wherein said ranking is based on requester preferences and respective provider histories and ratings requester preferences
PGPub 20170228666 – “Graphical Interfaces, Systems and Methods of Automation in the Creation of Open and Closed Networks and in the Dispatching of Rides Through the Networks,” Bauer, disclosing a system for providing a plethora of potential services (including ride requests) by way of matching requesters and providers of corresponding service or luxury levels
Wang et al, The Optimal Queuing Strategy for Airport Taxis, IEEE Access, Vol. 8, disclosing techniques for servicing transportation requests of customers at an airport by utilizing provider queues
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 MARK C CLARE whose telephone number is (571)272-8748. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30am-2:30pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey Zimmerman can be reached at (571) 272-4602. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARK C CLARE/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/MICHAEL P HARRINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights