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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09/24/2025 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/24/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement filed 07/23/2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-5, 7-14, 16-19, and 61-63 filed on 07/23/2025 are presently examined. Claims 6 and 15 are cancelled. Claims 1, 5, 10-14, and 16-19 are amended. Claims 61-63 are new.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the 35 USC 101 rejection, Applicant's arguments filed 04/02/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the human mind is not equipped to determine all of the following factors while the ridesharing vehicle is mid-ride with the first user:
“…direct the ridesharing vehicle to pick up the first user…
…calculate a first penalty for the first user…
…calculate a second penalty for the second user…
…determine a drop off order between the first user and the second user…
…set a route for the ridesharing vehicle based on the drop off order…
…redirect the ridesharing vehicle according to the route.”
Step 2A, Prong One: Applicant argues the human mind is not equipped to determine, in real time, penalties for a plurality of ride requests by a ride sharing management system. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The term “in real time” does not explicitly define how it is only possible to complete the task in real time by a computer and impossible for the human mind. The human mind processes sensory data in real time and can perform multiple tasks at once. Whether or not the human mind is prone to error where a computer is not is moot, as the error - or lack thereof - is not present in the claims. Examiner kindly restates that “redirect” or directing vehicles is not an explicit recitation of control of the vehicle. It may merely encompass providing updates to a display in the manually driven vehicles which is not significantly more. The steps in the claim are merely determination steps that could be done mentally along with additional limitations not adding significantly more.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Applicant argues the invention is integrated into a practical application because redirecting vehicles according to routes transforms it from its prior state. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As mentioned above, redirecting is not an explicit control of a vehicle – it may merely be displaying results in a vehicle, which is not significantly more.
Step 2B: Applicant argues the limitations provide significantly more than the abstract idea, and subsequently the Applicant recites the limitations previously indicated as the abstract idea of mental process steps. Therefore, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitations recited in the arguments regarding Step 2B are not “additional limitations,” they are the limitations indicated as mental processing, the abstract idea. Therefore the “significantly more” argument for these limitations is moot. The additional limitations are underlined in the 35 USC 101 analysis below, and those limitations are indeed, not significantly more. Receiving requests and data is merely receiving or transmitting data over a network. This is explicitly not significantly more, since merely receiving or transmitting data over a network is routine and conventional. See the detailed analysis below for more information.
Therefore, the 35 USC 101 rejection will be maintained.
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 1-5, 7-14, 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claims 1-5, and 7-9 are directed to a system with a processor (i.e., a machine). Claims 10-14, and 16-18 are directed to a method (i.e., process). Claim 19 is directed to a computer executing a non-transitory computer program (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claims 1-5, 7-14, 16-19, and 61-63 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claims 1, 10, and 19 recite similar limitations. Claim 1 will be a representative claim. Claim 1 recited limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized in bolding below):
A system for managing a fleet of ridesharing vehicles, the system comprising:
a communications interface configured to receive requests for shared rides from a plurality of users;
at least one processor configured to:
receive, via the communications interface, a first request for a shared ride from a first user, the first request including information related to a first pick-up location of the first user, a first desired destination of the first user, and a priority of the first user;
determine, in real-time, a first estimated drop-off time of the first user based on the first pickup-up location, the first desired destination;
calculate, in real-time, a mandatory drop-off time for the first user based on the priority;
assign, in real-time, a rideshare vehicle of a fleet of ridesharing vehicles that can transport the first user to the first desired destination to minimize a difference between the mandatory drop-off time and the estimated drop-off time, wherein the fleet of ridesharing vehicles is more than 100 vehicles;
direct, in real-time, the ridesharing vehicle to pick up the first user;
receive, via the communications interface, a second request for a shared ride from a second user, the second request including information related to a second pick-up location of the second user, a second desired destination of the second user, and a second priority of the second user;
assign, in real-time, the rideshare vehicle to the second user;
determine, in real-time, a second estimated drop off time of the second user based on the second pick- up location and the second desired destination;
calculate, in real-time, a second mandatory drop-off time for the second user based on the second priority; and
calculate, in real-time, a first penalty for the first user based on:
i) the medical condition of the first user
ii) a first updated estimated arrival of the first user that is the drop-off time of the first user if the second user is dropped off at the second desired destination before dropping the first user off at the first desired destination, and
iii) the mandatory drop-off time of the first user;
calculate, in real-time, a second penalty for the second user based on:
i) the medical condition of the second user
ii) a second updated estimated arrival of the second user that is the drop-off time of the second user if the first user is dropped off at the first desired destination before dropping the second user off at the second desired destination, and
iii) the mandatory drop-off time of the second user;
determine, in real-time, a drop off order between the first user and the second user based on the first penalty and the second penalty;
set, in real-time, a route for the rideshare vehicle based on the drop off order; and
redirect, in real-time, the ridesharing vehicle according to the route.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “determine, in real-time, a first estimated drop-off time…”, “calculate, in real-time, a mandatory drop-off time…”, and “assign, in real-time, a rideshare vehicle…”, “calculate, in real-time, a first penalty…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person making estimations and calculations to assign vehicles based on data. Further, the terms “direct” and “redirect” when used for directing the rideshare vehicle do not recite positive control of the vehicle. In the Applicant’s specification, direct is used in the following, but not limited to, paragraphs and contexts: [0031] “directing… the first driver and the second driver to the meeting point”; [0063] “directing users and/or ridesharing vehicles to pick-up and/or drop-off locations”; [0070] “Guiding the users to a pick-up or drop off location can include displaying a map, outputting audio, displaying a list of directions”; and at least [0130] “ridesharing management server can transmit a route (e.g., route shaped on a map) direction information and/or navigation instructions to the driver device associated with the assigned vehicle.” The term “in real-time” is not sufficient to not be considered a mental process. Human thought occurs in real time, and humans can multitask. The recitation of the vehicle fleet comprising over 100 vehicles does not take the limitations out of the mental processing area. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A system for managing a fleet of ridesharing vehicles, the system comprising:
a communications interface configured to receive requests for shared rides from a plurality of users;
at least one processor configured to:
receive, via the communications interface, a first request for a shared ride from a first user, the first request including information related to a first pick-up location of the first user, a first desired destination of the first user, and a priority of the first user;
determine, in real-time, a first estimated drop-off time of the first user based on the first pickup-up location, the first desired destination;
calculate, in real-time, a mandatory drop-off time for the first user based on the priority;
assign, in real-time, a rideshare vehicle of a fleet of ridesharing vehicles that can transport the first user to the first desired destination to minimize a difference between the mandatory drop-off time and the estimated drop-off time, wherein the fleet of ridesharing vehicles is more than 100 vehicles;
direct, in real-time, the ridesharing vehicle to pick up the first user;
receive, via the communications interface, a second request for a shared ride from a second user, the second request including information related to a second pick-up location of the second user, a second desired destination of the second user, and a second priority of the second user;
assign, in real-time, the rideshare vehicle to the second user;
determine, in real-time, a second estimated drop off time of the second user based on the second pick- up location and the second desired destination;
calculate, in real-time, a second mandatory drop-off time for the second user based on the second priority; and
calculate, in real-time, a first penalty for the first user based on:
i) the medical condition of the first user
ii) a first updated estimated arrival of the first user that is the drop-off time of the first user if the second user is dropped off at the second desired destination before dropping the first user off at the first desired destination, and
iii) the mandatory drop-off time of the first user;
calculate, in real-time, a second penalty for the second user based on:
i) the medical condition of the second user
ii) a second updated estimated arrival of the second user that is the drop-off time of the second user if the first user is dropped off at the first desired destination before dropping the second user off at the second desired destination, and
iii) the mandatory drop-off time of the second user;
determine, in real-time, a drop off order between the first user and the second user based on the first penalty and the second penalty;
set, in real-time, a route for the rideshare vehicle based on the drop off order; and
redirect, in real-time, the ridesharing vehicle according to the route.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above underlined additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
The examiner submits that the underlined limitations merely use a computer (processor, generic computer components) to perform an insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering. Further, the use of a generic computer component such as a processor to perform otherwise mental judgements is not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). The underlined limitations above merely apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a processor or generic computer components to perform the otherwise mental judgements amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using generic computer components. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Further the additional limitations are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, merely use generic computer components in their ordinary capacity to perform an otherwise mental process or judgement, and do not amount to significantly more. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding independent claims 10 and 19, the recitation of the embodiment being a method or non-transitory computer program product does not change the analysis. As such, independent claims 10 and 19 are rejected under the same rationale as independent claim 1.
Dependent claim(s) 2-5, 7-9, 11-14, 16-18, and 61-63 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, merely use generic computer components in their ordinary capacity to perform an otherwise mental process or judgement or data gathering, and do not amount to significantly more. Therefore, the dependent claims are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 10, and 19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action. Dependent claims 2-5, 7-9, 11-14, and 16-18 would be allowable as well if their respective independent claims 1, 10, and 19 overcome the 35 USC 101 rejections.
The closest prior art of record is Rakah, Marczuk, Urano, Kamata, Shimodaira, and Lord et al. (US 20150324717 A1), hereafter Lord.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Primary reference Rakah teaches a rideshare management system with a plurality of users including users occupying the same vehicle. Rakah teaches the receiving of a second request from a second user ([0010]), including a second pick-up location and second desired location of the second user ([0010]), assigning the vehicle to the second user ([0010]), determining the estimated drop off time of the second user based on the pick-up and destination locations ([0085]), and setting a route for the vehicle based on the drop-off order ([0459 and FIGs 13A-F]).
Next prior art reference Marczuk teaches a system for controlling the operation of a fleet of autonomous vehicles receiving ride requests from a plurality of users which includes similar information as Rakah, but further includes priority information for each user. Marczuk teaches a second request of a second user with a second priority of the second user ([0228]).
Next reference Urano teaches an autonomous driving system with a plurality of users occupying said vehicle, each user having a scheduled destination and priority level. The vehicle navigates to scheduled destinations based on the priority and the estimated time of arrival. Urano teaches a second mandatory drop-off time for the second user based on the second priority ([0202]).
The next prior art reference Kamata teaches a traffic control apparatus that receives a projected time of arrival of a vehicle at a destination and, if so, judges if there is a simultaneously arriving vehicle with the same desired drop-off position at the destination as the one vehicle and with the projected time of arrival at the destination in the same time frame from among the plurality of vehicles and, if there is a simultaneously arriving vehicle, determines vehicle stopping priorities at the desired drop-off position between the one vehicle and the simultaneously arriving vehicle based on information relating to the passengers in the one vehicle and the simultaneously arriving vehicle to be dropped off at the destination. The priority can include a medical condition such as pregnancy, illness, age, or disability. Kamata fails to teach a penalty based on said medical condition.
The next prior art reference Shimodaira teaches a vehicle management system with a plurality of users requesting rides. Shimodaira teaches based on a desired condition of each user sharing a ride on a vehicle, a first route for the vehicle to travel and a first required time for the vehicle to arrive at a destination on the first route, when a delay time with respect to the first required time exceeds a predetermined time while the vehicle is traveling along the first route, setting an alternative boarding location for a boarding location or an alternative deboarding location for a deboarding location based on the desired condition of each user, calculating a second route including the alternative boarding location or the alternative deboarding location and a second required time for the vehicle to arrive at a destination on the second route, and notifying the users of at least the alternative boarding location or the alternative deboarding location and the second required time.
The next prior art reference Lord teaches receiving a request for transport of a first end user; selecting, in response to the received request, a transportation vehicle unit that is currently en route to or is currently transporting a second end user for transporting the first end user, the selection of the transportation vehicle unit being based, at least in part, on ascertaining that the transportation vehicle unit is able to accommodate transport of the first end user while transporting the second end user; and transmitting one or more directives that direct the selected transportation vehicle unit to transport the first end user. Lord teaches a discount or premium fee for users when accepting another request for a user to be dropped off while the vehicle is transporting a first or second user, which results in a later drop-off time for the first or second user ([0177, 0197, and 0198]).
Regarding claims 1, 10, and 19, the prior art taken either individually or in combination with the other prior art of record fails to disclose, suggest, teach, or render obvious the invention as a whole:
receive, via the communications interface, a second request for a shared ride from a second user, the second request including information related to a second pick-up location of the second user, a second desired destination of the second user, and a second priority of the second user assign the rideshare vehicle to the second user;
determine, in real-time, a second estimated drop off time of the second user based on the second pick- up location and the second desired destination;
calculate, in real-time, a second mandatory drop-off time for the second user based on the second priority; and
calculate, in real-time, a first penalty for the first user based on: i) the medical condition of the first user ii) a first updated estimated arrival of the first user that is the drop-off time of the first user if the second user is dropped off at the second desired destination before dropping the first user off at the first desired destination, and iii) the mandatory drop-off time of the first user;
calculate, in real-time, a second penalty for the second user based on: i) the medical condition of the second user ii) a second updated estimated arrival of the second user that is the drop-off time of the second user if the first user is dropped off at the first desired destination before dropping the second user off at the second desired destination, and iii) the mandatory drop-off time of the second user;
determine, in real-time, a drop off order between the first user and the second user based on the first penalty and the second penalty;
set, in real-time, a route for the rideshare vehicle based on the drop off order
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK R HEIM whose telephone number is (571)270-0120. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6 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, Fadey Jabr can be reached at 571-272-1516. 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.
/M.R.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668