DETAILED ACTION
This Final Office Action is in response to Applicant's amendments and arguments filed on September 17, 2025. Applicant has amended claims 1, 10-11. Currently, claims 1-15 are pending. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendments
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of claims 1-15 are maintained in light of applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 10-11.
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 1-15 are withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 10-11.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks submitted on 9/17/25 have been considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues on p. 11 of the remarks that the 101 rejection is improper. Examiner disagrees. Applicant argues on p. 13 of the remarks that the amendments address specific technical challenges in vehicle dispatch systems. Examiner notes the claims are improving an abstract idea related to matching vehicle allocations as opposed to an improvement to a technology or the computer itself. Applicant further argues the claims implements novel data management architecture. Examiner notes such architecture is a tool for implementing the abstract idea. Applicant further argues the claims show reducing burdens; however, examiner notes this is part of just using a computer and not an improvement to the computer but a result of using generic computing technology. Applicant argues on p. 14 of the remarks that the claims are integrated into practical application. Applicant argues the claims are a technological solution and makes comparison to different court decisions. Examiner notes the claims in those decisions are different than applicant’s claims and that the claims are not an improvement to a technology but rather an improvement to the abstract idea. Applicant further argues on p. 16 of the remarks that the claims recite features that are significantly more than the abstract idea. Examiner disagrees. The additional elements are generic computing components and functionality for a conventional vehicle allocation system and is applying the abstract idea logic for a more specific type of matching algorithm in vehicle allocation. Therefore, the 101 rejections are 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 1-15 are clearly drawn to at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (method, device and system). Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1 and 10-11 recite the abstract idea of acquiring a vehicle allocation request, the vehicle allocation request including a vehicle allocation condition and support availability data indicating whether consent to a predetermined support is possible and support availability indicating whether consent toa predetermined support is possible, wherein the predetermined support includes specific physical assistance for a second user boarding or alighting the vehicle including the vehicle including manual boarding/alighting aid and personal belonging handling, confirmed through a pre-reservation consent protocol and generating, prior to vehicle reservation completion, a vehicle allocation plan candidate of a vehicle for a first user that satisfies the vehicle allocation condition and is paired with the support availability data, thereby enabling proactive support capability verification and acquiring the predetermined support required by the second user and determining whether the vehicle allocation plan candidate satisfies both the predetermined support consented to by the first user and required by the second user, based on the support availability data and calculating an evaluation value for each vehicle allocation plan candidate indicating conformance to the vehicle allocation conditions of the first user and the second user wherein the evaluation value calculation integrates both standard allocation factors and support relationship factors to optimize assistance burden distribution and selecting, in descending order of the evaluation value, the vehicle allocation plan candidate to be implemented and reducing burdens of either the first user or the second user requiring support based on highest evaluation value and presenting the selected vehicle allocation plan to the first user and the second user. The claims are directed to matching allocation of vehicle requests which is a type of carpooling management. Under prong 1 of Step 2A, these claims are considered abstract because the claims are certain methods of organizing human activity such as managing relations or interactions between people. The claims are a type of organizing human activity because the claims show managing of the vehicle requests between users of vehicles and determining a plan of a support for such a relationship. Under prong 2 of Step 2A, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims (the judicial exception and any additional elements individually or in combination such as a device including a communication and a controller, an operation terminal, a system, a server that includes a communication unit and a controller and wherein the controller executes processing to update or modify the vehicle allocation plan candidate based on position information of vehicles or user terminals obtained from position detection sensors and vehicle status information obtained via the communication unit, wherein the controller displays support content required by the second user on an operation terminal equipped with a touch panel display, and accepts the support availability data based on input operations by the first user, and wherein the evaluation value is calculated based on an algorithm that processes allocation conditions, support availability data, and position information using a controller including a CPU) are not an improvement to a computer or a technology, the claims do not apply the judicial exception with a particular machine, the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing nor do the claims apply 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 claims as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. These limitations at best are merely implementing an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements individually or in combination such as a device including a communication and a controller, an operation terminal, a system, a server that includes a communication unit and a controller and wherein the controller executes processing to update or modify the vehicle allocation plan candidate based on position information of vehicles or user terminals obtained from position detection sensors and vehicle status information obtained via the communication unit, wherein the controller displays support content required by the second user on an operation terminal equipped with a touch panel display, and accepts the support availability data based on input operations by the first user, and wherein the evaluation value is calculated based on an algorithm that processes allocation conditions, support availability data, and position information using a controller including a CPU (as evidenced by p. 3-6, 8-9 and Fig. 1 of applicant’s own specification) are well understood, routine and conventional in the field. Dependent claims 2-9, 12-15 also do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements either individually or in combination are merely an extension of the abstract idea itself by further showing transmitting a support request for the first user to consent to the predetermined support before completing a reservation of the vehicle to be allocated based on the vehicle allocation request of the first user and the predetermined support includes assistance to the second user when the second user boards or alights the vehicle to be allocated based on the vehicle allocation request of the first user and the predetermined support includes transfer of right regarding the vehicle to be allocated based on the vehicle allocation request of the first user from the first user to the second user and wherein the right includes at least one of a right reserved b the first user to occupy a seat of the vehicle and a right reserved by the first user to occupy a space of the vehicle and wherein the predetermined support includes generating a vehicle allocation plan that prioritizes the second user over the first user and generating the vehicle allocation plan that prioritizes a seat reservation by the second user over a seat reservation by the first user and generating the vehicle allocation plan that prioritizes a seat reservation by the second user over a seat reservation by the first user and generating the vehicle allocation plan that prioritizes boarding or alighting of the second user over boarding alighting of the first user and wherein the second user includes at least one of passengers who are equal to or older than a predetermined age, passengers who are equal to or younger than the predetermined age, passengers of a predetermined gender, and passengers who require a predetermined care and setting the vehicle allocation plan candidate determined to exist as the vehicle allocation plan in a case where the second user agrees with the vehicle allocation plan candidate determined to exist and recording the vehicle allocation plan candidate and the support availability data in association with each other and transmitting a user information of the second user to the first user in a case where the vehicle allocation plan is linked to both the vehicle allocation request from the first user and the vehicle allocation request from the second user and transmitting a user information of the first user to the second user in a case where the vehicle allocation plan is linked to both the vehicle allocation request from the first user and the vehicle allocation request from the second user. Dependent claims 2, 14-15 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements individually or in combination such as an operation terminal (as evidenced by p. 3-6, 8-9 and Fig. 1 of applicant’s own specification) are well understood, routine and conventional in the field.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-15 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2020/0271468 A1
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 SUJAY KONERU whose telephone number is (571)270-3409. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30 AM to 5 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, Patricia Munson can be reached on 571- 270-5396. 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.
/SUJAY KONERU/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624