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 .
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.
Status of the Application
The following is a Final Office Action in response to Examiner's communication of 08/14/2025, Applicant, on 02/13/2026.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 5, 13, and 17 are currently amended.
Claims 4 and 20 are cancelled.
Claim 21 is new.
Claims 1-3, 5-19, and 21 are currently pending following this response.
New matter
No new matter has been added to the amended claims.
Response to Arguments - 35 USC § 112
The arguments have been fully considered and they are persuasive.
Accordingly, the Examiner withdraws the 35 USC § 112 rejection in the present office action.
Response to Arguments - 35 USC § 101
The arguments have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
In Example 42 the combination of additional elements in the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Specifically, the combination of additional elements recites a specific improvement over the prior art systems by allowing remote users to share information in real time in a standardized format regardless of the format in which the information was input by the user. On the other hand, although the present claims allow storing data in a standardized format but they are silent about allowing remote users to share information in real time in a standardized format regardless of the format in which the information was input by the user. As a result, Example 42 is distinguished from the present claims. The present claims still recite an abstract idea without significant additional elements.
Adjusting asset availability in real time may be viewed as a method of organizing human activity or a mental process that could, in theory, be performed by humans, not a true technological innovation. Adjusting is a result of a search done by an ordinary processor performing ordinary computer functions. Thus, there is no technical improvements of any kind in the present claims.
The Supreme Court in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International clarified that merely requiring generic computer implementation or applying an abstract idea to a particular technological environment is not enough to make it patent-eligible.
Adjust the availably of assets in real-time (at the acceptance time), which, in turn, affects allocations for future tasks are viewed as business improvements rather than technical improvements. Advantages argued by Applicant such as “the use of an acceptance time of a task for a location can quickly result in a listing of all candidate asset allocations within that market at the acceptance time. This results in an accurate depiction of the market at the acceptance time, and thus the corresponding market rates can be determined with a high degree of accuracy” do not have any technical details about quicker computer processing time to be considered technical improvements over the prior arts. Further, “collection of data over time to reconstruct a particular market at an acceptance time in the past requires significant data analysis efforts, often entailing computer modeling and error minimization” is not due to an improvement to the computer itself to be considered significantly more. Reducing data collection time that results reducing processing time is not a change to the computer itself (arguments pages 13-14). Court often view faster processing through computer automation as an inherent result of using a computer, rather than a patentable technological improvement.
In addition, reducing processing time required for the construction of task comparisons as argued, need to be technically supported in the claims to be considered technical improvement.
In conclusion, the Examiner maintains the rejections of the pending claims under 35 USC § 101 in the present office action.
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 1-3, 5-19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, claims 1-3, 5-19, and 21 are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements to integrate the claims into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 1-3, 5-19, and 21 are directed to a process, machine, or manufacture (Step 1), however the claims are directed to the abstract idea of associating assets to tasks based on location and time.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the frameworks, claim 1 recites an abstract idea. Claim 1 includes limitations for “A method, the method comprising: periodically receiving data from a plurality of providers, rate data for assets of each of the providers, the rate data for each asset time stamped to indicate a corresponding time that the rate data for the asset for specific times, wherein the rate data for at least some of the assets is time varying and changes for each time stamp, and the rate data for each asset are received in response to the rate data changing at the corresponding time indicated by the time stamp; periodically receiving from the plurality of providers, geolocation parameter data for a particular time and specified for assets of the providers that are specified as a first asset type; converting the received data into a standardized format for storage and storing the rate data in the standardized format; receiving data indicating a task that is accepted at an acceptance time and contracted to be performed at a first location by a first provider, the acceptance time being a time that occurred at a time specified by the time stamp data; determining and for the task, a set of assets of the first provider that are allocated to perform the task, wherein at least one of the assets is of the first asset type allocated based on the geolocation parameter data specified for the asset; after the acceptance time, determining and for the first asset type, a set of first assets of the first asset type, each of which has geolocation parameter data specified for the first asset at the acceptance time, and each of which is associated with respective second providers; selecting and from the set of first assets, a proper subset of first assets, wherein: the geolocation parameter data for each of the first assets in the proper subset of first assets is satisfied by the first location at the acceptance time; and the geolocation parameter data for each of the first assets not in the proper subset of first assets is not satisfied by the first location at the acceptance time; for each respective second provider associated with a first asset in the proper subset of first assets, generating and based on the rate data stored in the standardized format, a candidate task allocation for the task that were available for acceptance at the acceptance time but that were not selected at the acceptance time, the candidate task allocation comprising: the first asset in the proper subset of first assets and associated with the respective second provider; one or more other assets, each of the one or more other assets being of an asset type that is different from the first asset type and associated with the respective second provider; generating a task comparison that includes a task summary for the task that that is accepted and, for each respective second provider, a task summary for the task based on the candidate task allocation for each respective second provider, the task summary including the rate data for the first asset and the one or more other assets that are time stamped to indicate a time that the rate data are applicable for the acceptance time; and storing the task comparison in a data store; receiving, from a third party and after a completion time of the task that occurs after the acceptance time, a request for the task comparison; and providing the stored task comparison to the third party.”
The limitations above recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. More particularly, the limitations above recite certain methods of organizing human activity associated with managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people because the claimed elements describe a process for associating assets to tasks based on location and time. As a result, claim 1 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
Claims 13 and 21 recite substantially similar limitations to those presented with respect to claim 1. As a result, claims 13 and 21 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1. Similarly, claims 2-3, 5-12, and 14-19 recite certain methods of organizing human activity associated with managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people because the claimed elements describe a process for associating assets to tasks based on location and time. As a result, claims 2-3, 5-12, and 14-19 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea. The additional elements of claim 1 include “performed by data processing apparatus”, “at a data processing apparatus”, “converting the received data into a standardized format for storage and storing, by the data processing apparatus, the rate data in the standardized format”, and “wherein: the data processing apparatus is separate from the first provider and each of the second providers”. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the steps of “receiving” do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because “receiving” is an insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the recited computer elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claim 1 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
As noted above, claims 13 and 21 recite substantially similar limitations to those recited with respect to claim 1. Although claim 13 further recites “A system, comprising: a data processing apparatus; and a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instruction” and claim 21 further recites “A non-transitory computer readable medium storing instruction executable by a data processing apparatus”, when considered in view of the claim as a whole, the recited computer elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claims 13 and 21 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
Claims 2-3, 5-12, and 14-19 do not include any additional elements beyond those recited by independent claims 1, 13, and 21. As a result, claims 2-3, 5-12, and 14-19 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
With respect to Step 2B of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. As noted above, claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea. The additional elements of claim 1 include “performed by data processing apparatus”, “at a data processing apparatus”, “converting the received data into a standardized format for storage and storing, by the data processing apparatus, the rate data in the standardized format”, and “wherein: the data processing apparatus is separate from the first provider and each of the second providers”. The steps of “receiving” do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because “receiving” is well-understood, routine, and conventional computer function in view of MPEP 2106.05(d)(ll). The recited computer elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claim 1 does not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
As noted above, claims 13 and 21 recite substantially similar limitations to those recited with respect to claim 1. Although claim 13 further recites “A system, comprising: a data processing apparatus; and a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instruction” and claim 21 further recites “A non-transitory computer readable medium storing instruction executable by a data processing apparatus”, the recited computer elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claims 13 and 21 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claims 2-3, 5-12, and 14-19 do not include any additional elements beyond those recited by independent claims 1, 13, and 21. As a result, claims 2-3, 5-12, and 14-19 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1-3, 5-19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendments and arguments dated 02/13/2026 necessitated the updating of the 35 USC § 101 rejection of the pending claims presented in the present 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).
Any inquiry concerning this communication from the Examiner should be directed to Abdallah El-Hagehassan whose contact information is (571) 272-0819 and Abdallah.el-hagehassan@uspto.gov The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday- Friday 8 am to 5 pm.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Rutao Wu can be reached on (571) 272-6045. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the patent application information retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information of published applications may be obtained from either private PAIR or public PAIR. Status information of unpublished applications is available through private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any questions on access to the private PAIR system, contact the electronic business center (EBC) at (866) 271-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO customer service representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (in US or Canada) or (571) 272-1000.
/ABDALLAH A EL-HAGE HASSAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623