DETAILED ACTION
This FINAL office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed February 18, 2026. Applicant’s February 18th amendment amended claims 1, 3, 10, 12, 20. Currently Claims 1-18, 20 and 21 are pending. Claims 1, 10 and 20 are the independent claims.
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 .
Response to Amendment
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 1-18, 20 and 21 in the previous office action are maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 18, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues that the claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the
similar to Enfish (e.g. improves functioning of a computer, computations are not abstract but are instead applied in a structured and integrated way that results in improvements to computer-related technology; Remarks: Pages 10, 11); the claims are not directed to an abstract idea/cannot be performed in human mind (e.g. human cannot replicate coordinated, real-time computations; Remarks: Last Paragraph, Page 11: Page 12); the claims solve technical problem (e.g. how to maintain real-time data integrity and synchronization across distributed geohash/time buckets while updating allocation parameters; Remarks: Paragraph 2, Page 12); the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (e.g. enabling real-time surge model selection; Remarks: Paragraph 2, Page 12; Page 14); the claims are similar to SME 40 (e.g. claims provide structured computational workflow, transforms abstract computations into coordinate, machine enforced state management operations that improve computer based service balancing, Remarks: Pages 13, 14); and the claims are similar to Bascom/recite significantly more than the abstract idea (e.g. non-conventional computational steps that involving applying weights....; Remarks: Pages 16, 17).
In response to Applicant’s argument that the claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101, as the claims are similar Enfish as the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
On May 12, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) in Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp. held that the claimed database software designed as a "self-referential" table is patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because it is not directed to an abstract idea.
The claims of the patents at issue in this case describe the steps of configuring a computer memory in accordance with a self-referential table, in both method claims and system claims that invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(t). The court asked whether the focus of the claims is on the specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities (i.e., the self-referential table for a computer database), or instead on a process that qualifies as an "abstract idea" for which computers are invoked merely as a tool. To make the determination of whether these claims are directed to an improvement in existing computer technology, the court looked to the teachings of the specification. Specifically, the court identified the specification's teachings that the claimed invention achieves other benefits over conventional databases, such as increased flexibility, faster search times, and smaller memory requirements.
In sharp contrast, the instant application is directed to a system and method for transportation planning. More specifically, the claims are directed to selecting first and second surge engine models (e.g. how to allocate transportation-related services in a geographical area). At best the disclosed invention is directed to a system and method for improving the supply-demand balance for transport-related services by optimizing service balance between service users and service providers across a geographical region by dynamically adjusting surge engine models to prevent over/under surging (i.e. prevent over allocation/assigning/distribution of transportation providers); and/or manages surge engine model selection controlling allocation of transport-related services.
Analyzing, modeling, and planning the allocation of transportation service providers (e.g. ride share, taxis, etc.) in a geographical area is a well-known economic practice. More specifically, the claims are directed to ‘automatically’ selecting a surge model (mathematical model) to control the allocation (intended use, nothing is actually controlled) of transportation related services and updating the database with retrievable allocation parameters for transportation services (which are not retrieved) and therefore is directed to an economic practice as well as directed to a mental process capable of being performed by a human or using pen and paper.
While the claims may represent an improvement to the fundamental economic process of transportation planning (e.g. surge model selection), the claims in no way either claimed or disclosed provide a technical solution to a technical problem; improve any of the underlying technology; solve a problem necessarily rooted in computers or computer networks, etc.); or improve another technical field.
Business (people) having been modeling, analyzing, planning how to allocate, distribute, assign, deploy transportation related services in a geographical region based on transportation supply and demand well prior to the advent of computers. At best the claims are directed to improvements in the abstract idea itself (e.g. improved surge planning for transportation relates services in a geographical area).
As for the limitations directed to using a database store information merely recites a generic computer performing generic computer functions. The purpose of a database is to store and generate data. Utilizing a database for its express purpose does not constitute improving the database or the computer. As discussed below, the claims are similar to ideas found to be abstract, wherein upon examination of the claims as a whole and in terms of each claim’s limitations reveals that the claims are not directed to improving computer performance and do not recite any such benefit. The claims are directed to transportation planning/management and merely use a computer (database coupled to system) to improve the performance of the reporting and not the performance of a computer.
It is noted that Claims 10-18 fail to recite any technological components/elements and therefore cannot possibly provide improve the functioning of a computer as argued.
As the court made clear in Uniloc USA, Inc. v. LG Electronics USA, Appeal No. 19-1835 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 30, 2020), the Federal Circuit reaffirmed that software inventions are patentable in the U.S. with a bright-line statement: “Our precedent is clear that software can make patent-eligible improvements to computer technology, and related claims are eligible as long as they are directed to non-abstract improvements to the functionality of a computer or network platform itself.”
Nothing in Applicant’s disclosure or arguments supports Applicants argument fail to provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or a technical field. Neither Applicant’s disclosure nor Applicant’s argument discuss at any level of detail how the claims themselves reflects the argued improvements (e.g. computations are not abstract but are instead applied in a structured and integrated way that results in improvements to computer-related technology). See MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1) (provided below).
Further nowhere in Applicant’s specification does Applicant discuss or imply that the thrust of the invention, much alone a side-effect, is directed to improving the performance of the computer in sharp contrast to the recent court findings in the Enfish decision.
Accordingly, the claims are not similar to Enfish and do not disclose or recite an improvement in the functioning of a computer and are therefore not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the claims cannot be performed by the human mind, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Initially it is noted that claims 10-18 fail to positively recite in the body of the claims who or what entity performs the various method steps, as such the claims, given their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover the performance of the method steps by a human or via pen and paper.
As for claims 1-9, 20 and 21, these claims are directed to a mental processing practically capable of being performed in the human mind via observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion. Representative claim 1: The step of receive information identifying a defined geographical area and time period may be performed in the human mind using observation of data and is also directed to insignificant pre-solution activity (data input). The step of generate one or more data records may be performed practically by a human mind via evaluation (first/second demand data; first metric data, first/second supply data, second metric data, generate score data). The step of apply to the first/second ratios a weight to product a first/second weighted ratio may be practically performed in the human mind via evaluation and is also directed to a mathematical operation/concept). The step of compare the score indicator to a second score indicator generated by a second surge engine model is directed to a well-known mathematical operation (comparison) as well as may be performed by a human mind via evaluation and judgement. The step of automatically select in real-time based on the comparison one of the first or second surge engine model may be performed by a human mind via evaluation and judgement. The step of update the database with allocation parameters may be performed in the human mind by observation and is also directed to insignificant post-solution activity (data output).
Examiner that the step directed to automatically select in real-time, based on the comparison, one of the first surge engine model and the second surge engine model to control allocation of the transport-related services, recites a wished-for use of the automatic selection of the first or second surge engine model (i.e. non-functional descriptive material, not given patentable weight). The claims do not positively recite, nor does applicant’s disclosure support, utilizing the selected engine surge model to control the allocation of transportation services.
Examiner notes that updating the database step, specifically “the allocation-state entry being retrievable for use in subsequently controlling allocation of the transport-related services at the defined geographical area” has not been patentable weight. This limitation is directed to insignificant post solution activity (i.e. data output, updating database data). This limitation recites a wished-for use of the data (allocation-state entry). The allocation state entry may or may not actually be retrieved – the claims merely recite that the data is retrievable. The claims do not require or cover controlling allocation of transportation related services as argued. The claims do not positively recite, nor does applicant’s disclosure support, controlling allocation of the transport-related services at the defined geographical area.
Other than the recitation of a processing apparatus, processor, memory, storage medium storing instructions, and database nothing in the claimed steps precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind (Claims 1-9, 20, 21). Claims 10-18 fail to positively recite in the body of the claims who or what performs the method steps, accordingly the claims have been interpreted as being performed by a human or via pen and paper (i.e. cannot not argue the claims improve a technology when no technological elements are claimed). The claims do not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The limitations directed to a processing apparatus, processor, memory, storage medium storing instructions, and database are each recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further the mere nominal recitation of a generic computer (i.e., processing apparatus, processor, memory, storage medium storing instructions, and database (each used for their well-understood, conventional and routine purpose) does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. The claims use “conventional or generic technology in a nascent but well-known environment” to implement the abstract idea of modeling/analyzing transportation related services demand/supply by ‘automatically’ selecting a surge engine model (mathematical concept/operation). In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Pat. Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 612 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The recited technology (processor, memory, etc.), are used as a “conduit for the abstract idea,” not to provide a technological solution to a specific technological problem. Id.; see also id. at 611–13 (holding claims reciting the use of a cellular telephone and a network server to classify an image and store the image based on its classification to be abstract because the patent did “not describe a new telephone, a new server, or a new physical combination of the two” and did not address “how to combine a camera with a cellular telephone, how to transmit images via a cellular network, or even how to append classification information to that data”).
Nothing in Applicant’s disclosures suggests that the Applicant intended to accomplish any of the steps recited in the claims through anything other than well understood technology used in a routine and conventional manner. Therefore, the claims lack an inventive concept. See also, e.g., Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1355 (holding claims lacked inventive concept where “[n]othing in the claims, understood in light of the specification, requires anything other than off-the-shelf, conventional computer, network, and display technology for gathering, sending, and presenting the desired information”); Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1348 (holding claims lacked an inventive concept where the claims recited the use of “existing scanning and processing technology”).
Reevaluating the steps of receive information identifying a defined geographical area/time period and updating the database with allocation parameters which is considered insignificant extra solution activity, these limitations are mere data gathering and storage/output recited at a high level of generality and amount to nothing more than receiving and storing data which are both well-understood, routine and conventional activities. The limitations remain insignificant extra solution activity even upon reconsideration. Even when considered in combination the additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra solution activity which cannot provide an inventive concept.
With regards to the representing information (data) identifying a defined geographical area represented by a geohash, a geohash is merely a well-known, convention and routine technique for identifying (labeling) via mathematical operation to define geographical areas (e.g. converting longitude and latitude into test string). Commonly referred to as a geocode. A person (human mind) and/or via pen and paper is more than capable of receiving a geohash identifying a geographical area (i.e. observation) and processing that data (e.g. judgement, evaluation).
As for receiving and processing data (e.g. real-time demand/supply data) a person is more than capable of receiving and processing real-time data. There is nothing in real-time data that is inherently incapable of being performed by the human mind. Further, utilizing a generic computer to performing generic functions of receiving and processing real-time data is old, conventional and routine.
As for the recited database configured to store one or more data records, a person is more than capable of storing data wherein a ‘database’ is nothing more than an organized collection of structure data. Further utilizing a database to store data is old, conventional and routine.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the claims solve technical problem, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
As discussed above the claims are directed to the well-known business practice of transportation planning and do not disclose nor claim a technical solution to a technical problem.
As for Applicant’s argument that the claims solve a technical problem related to how to maintain real-time data integrity and synchronization across distributed geohash/time buckets while updating allocation parameters, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims do not recite nor does Applicant’s disclosure disclose or discuss at any level of detail data integrity or data synchronization much alone disclose or discuss a technical solution to the argued maintain real-time data integrity and synchronization across distributed geohash/time buckets. None of the argued improvements/solutions (large-scale transport service data, continuously updating database, synchronized/structured updates in the database, concurrent processing across threads, prevents stale or inconsistent allocations, data integrity and synchronization across distributed geohash/time buckets ) are recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims.
With regards to Applicant’s argument that the claims operated in a structured, algorithmic manner within a computerized environment to solve a concrete ‘technical’ problem in transport-related services (Specification: Page 3, Lines 2-5, 19-25; Page 12, Line 24 – Page 13, Line 2), the examiner respectfully disagrees. Optimizing a transportation service balance (supply/demand) in a geographical region is a business problem and at best the recited claims provided a business solution to this conventional/routine business problem that may be an improvement over conventional business practice. At best the argued improvement is an improvement in the abstract itself. See at least Specification Page 1, Lines 18-24; invention is directed to mechanism for selecting a surge pricing “The goal of the surge engine is to manage demand at a given level of supply, so as to clear the market.” (i.e. manage supply/demand for transportation services).
Regarding Applicant’s argument that the claims configure a computer (not claims 10-18) to dynamically compute ratios from real-time data represented by a geohash and stored in a database enabling automated surge engine model selection in real-time (i.e. a technical implementation), this is merely using a generic computer to perform generic functions (data processing, mathematical calculations) for which computers are well-suited, conventional and routinely used for.
As for Applicant’s arguments that the claims improve supply-demand balance for transport-related services, this improvement is at best improvements in the abstract idea itself and not in any of the underlying technology or another technical field (e.g. a business solution to a business problem).
As for Applicant’s argument that the claims apply in a structured and integrated way the results in an improvement in computer-related technology, examiner notes that nowhere in Applicant’s disclosure or Applicant’s remarks is there any specific disclosure and specific improvements in any of the underlying technological elements in claims 1-9, 20 and 21.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that the claims configure a computer (not claims 10-18) to dynamically compute ratios from real-time data represented by a geohash and stored in a database enabling automated surge engine model selection in real-time (i.e. a technical implementation), this is merely using a generic computer to perform generic functions (data processing, mathematical calculations) for which computers are well-suited, conventional and routinely used for.
With regards to Applicant’s argument that the claims operated in a structured, algorithmic manner within a computerized environment to solve a concrete ‘technical’ problem in transport-related services: optimizing service balance between service users and service provides across a large geographical region by dynamically adjusting surge engine model to prevent over/under surging (Specification: Page 3, Lines 2-5, 19-25; Page 12, Line 24 – Page 13, Line 2), the examiner respectfully disagrees. Initially, optimizing a transportation service balance (supply/demand) in a geographical region is a business problem and at best the recited claims provided a business solution to this conventional/routine business problem that may be an improvement over conventional business practice.
As for Applicant’s argument that Page 3 of Applicant’s disclosure (below, emphasis) provides sufficient details to support Applicant’s assertion that the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer and/or discloses a technical solution to a technical problem, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Page 3 asserts that an optimized balance between over and under surging may/can potentially affect processing load of the system – specifically under-surging (excess providers) may result in providers not accepting jobs forcing the system to allocation jobs to other providers while users may cancel bookings and may try to re-book – wherein such actions MAY add to the processing burden or network traffic an MAAY potentially slow processing power/time. This is merely a broad assertion that IF/WHEN the there is a balance between service users and service providers there MAY be more/less use of the system. Initially it is noted that nothing in the claims ensures/guarantees a balance (i.e. no under/over surging), the claims merely attempt to select a surge engine model which may or may not balance the number of service providers and service users (i.e. may or may not prevent over/under surging, wished for result). Further the claims, do not actually implement the selected surge engine model (i.e. no service providers are actually allocated) nor are there any claim limitations directed to service users cancelling/rebooking services or service users not choosing to proceed with bookings or service providers not accepting jobs or the system continually having to allocate jobs to different providers when providers do not wish to accept jobs or the like. Specification Page 3, like the remainder of Applicant’s specification, discloses a hoped-for benefit of the system and does not actually provide a specific discussion of what the technical problem is and/or what the technical solution would be.
“Implementation of the techniques disclosed herein may provide significant technical advantages. Optimising or determining the supply-demand balance for transport- related services, which may lead to a balance between over-surging and under- surging, can potentially affect the processing load of the system or processing apparatus. An over-supply, where there are more or excessive service providers available compared to service users for the transport-related services, may lead to under-surging. When this happens, the service providers may not wish to accept the jobs and the system has to continually allocate the jobs to different service providers. At the same time, the service users may become frustrated with the longer wait for service providers to accept the jobs, which, in turn, may cause the service users to cancel the bookings already made and then try to re-book. All these may add to the system processing burden and network traffic, which may potentially result in a slower processing power and/or processing time. On the other hand, an under-supply, where there are insufficient service providers available compared to service users for the transport-related services, may lead to over-surging. When this happens, some service users may choose not to proceed with bookings for the transport-related services, resulting in less jobs being allocated to the service providers. This may lead to less network traffic and under-utilisation of the processing power of the system. As such, by determining the supply-demand balance, the techniques disclosed herein may lead to optimisation of the processing power and/or processing time of the system or processing apparatus. Optimisation of the processing power may lead to the system processing threads being executed more efficiently and quickly such that there may be fewer processing threads left open or active in parallel, thereby reducing the overall processing burden on the system at any one time.”
Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
The examiner agrees with Applicant’s characterization of the claimed invention as enabling real-time surge model selection, however selecting a surge engine model and subsequently updating allocation parameters in a database are directed to a well-known business process (transportation planning), wherein the claims fail to recite an improvement in any of the underlying technology, an improvement to another technical field, an improvement in the functioning of a computer and/or providing a technical solution to a technical problem as discussed in detail above.
More specifically, as argued by the Applicant and as made clear Specification Page 1, Lines 18-24; invention is directed to mechanism for selecting a surge pricing “The goal of the surge engine is to manage demand at a given level of supply, so as to clear the market.” (i.e. manage supply/demand for transportation services). While the claims may represent an improvement to the business process of modeling supply and demand for transportation related services, they in no way either claimed or disclosed represent a practical application, provide a technical solution to a technical problem or improve another technology or technical field. As discussion on Page 2, Lines 19-23, the improvement lies in measuring the ‘performance’ of the selected surge model such that the selected model does not over/under surge.
Under the see MPEP § 2106.05, the claims are evaluated to determine if additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see Manual of Patent Examining Procedure ("MPEP") §§ 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)- (h)). A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application applies, relies on, or uses the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.
For example, limitations that are indicative of "integration into a practical application" include:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP § 2106.05(a);
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP § 2106.05(b);
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP § 2106.05(c); and
Applying or using 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 more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP § 2106.05(e).
In contrast, limitations that are not indicative of "integration into a practical application" include:
Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP § 2106.05(±);
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception- see MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use - see MPEP 2106.05(h).
In view of the MPEP § 2106.05, one must consider whether there are additional elements set forth in the claims that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The identified additional non-abstract elements recited in the independent claims are the generic computer system, processor, computer readable medium having instructions, device, computer program product, user interface, and online system. These generic computer hardware merely performs generic computer functions of receiving, processing and storing data and represent a purely conventional implementation of applicant’s transportation planning in the general field of business planning and do not represent significantly more than the abstract idea. See at least MPEP § 2106.05(a) ("Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or to Any Other Technology or Technical Field").
These recited additional elements are merely generic computer components. The claims do present any other issues as set forth in the MPEP § 2106.05 regarding a determination of whether the additional generic elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Rather, the claims merely use instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
The claims do not recite improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, the claims to do apply the abstract idea with a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (e.g. data remains data even after processing; MPEP 2106.05(c)), the claims no not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the user of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e. a generic computer) such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(e)). The recited generic computing elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Thus, under Step 2A, Prong Two (MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c) and (e)- (h)), the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
There is a fundamental difference between computer functionality improvements, on the one hand, and uses of existing computers as tools to perform a particular task, on the other — a distinction that the Federal Circuit applied in Enfish, in rejecting a § 101 challenge at the first stage of the Mayo/Alice framework because the claims at issue focused on a specific type of data structure, i.e., a self-referential table, designed to improve the way a computer stores and retrieves data in memory, and not merely on asserted advances in uses to which existing computer capabilities could be put. See Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335-36. Here the claims simply use a computer as a tool and nothing more.
For the reasons outlined above, that the claims recite a method of organizing human activity, i.e., an abstract idea, and that the additional element recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea (i.e., processing apparatus, processor and memory) is no more than a generic computer component used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As such, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223-24 (“[Wholly generic computer implementation is not generally the sort of ‘additional featur[e]’ that provides any ‘practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea] itself.’” (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77)).
Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step Two of the Mayo/Alice Framework (Step 2B)
Having determined under step one of the Mayo/Alice framework that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, we next consider under Step 2B of the Guidance, the second step of the Mayo/Alice framework, whether the claims include additional elements or a combination of elements that provides an “inventive concept,” i.e., whether an additional element or combination of elements adds specific limitations beyond the judicial exception that are not “well-understood, routine, conventional activity” in the field (which is indicative that an inventive concept is present) or simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05.
Under step two of the Mayo/Alice framework, the elements of each claim are considered both individually and “as an ordered combination” to determine whether the additional elements, i.e., the elements other than the abstract idea itself, “transform the nature of the claim” into a patent-eligible application. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 217 (citation omitted); see Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73 (requiring that “a process that focuses upon the use of a natural law also contain other elements or a combination of elements, sometimes referred to as an ‘inventive concept,’ sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the natural law itself’ (emphasis added) (citation omitted)).
Here the only additional element recited in the claims beyond the abstract idea is a processing apparatus, processor and memory (Claims 1-9, 20 and 21 only) ” i.e., generic computer component. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). Applicant has not identified any additional elements recited in the claim that, individually or in combination, provides significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the claims are similar to Subject Matter Eligibility Example 40, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
In Example 40, the invention is directed to a system for varying the amount of network data collected based on monitored events in the network. That is, the system will only collect NetFlow protocol data and export a NetFlow record when abnormal network conditions are detected. When an abnormal condition is present, the system begins collecting NetFlow protocol data, which can later be used for analyzing the abnormal condition. During this time, the network appliance continues to monitor the network conditions (i.e., comparing collected network data to the predetermined quality threshold) and when the abnormal condition no longer exists, NetFlow protocol data is no longer collected. The claim as a whole was found to be directed to a particular improvement in collecting network traffic data. Specifically, the method limits collection of additional Netflow protocol data to when the initially collected data reflects an abnormal condition, which avoids excess traffic volume on the network and hindrance of network performance. This provides a specific improvement over prior systems, resulting in improved network monitoring. The claim as a whole integrates the mental process into a practical application. Thus, the claim is eligible because it is not directed to the recited judicial exception.
In sharp contrast to the instant application which merely selects a surge engine model (mathematical model of the demand/supply for transportation related services) and updates allocation parameters in a database. The claims do not recite a network much alone improving a network by reducing traffic on the network caused by the collection/monitoring of network events, as claimed in SME 40.
As discussed above in detail, neither Applicant’s specification nor claims recite or disclose specific improvements to the underlying technology (e.g. processor, memory, database, etc.). Nor do they disclose effecting an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Instead, the claims at issue amount to nothing significantly more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea of transportation planning (surge engine model selection, data updating) via a generic processor. "Under our precedents, that is not 'enough' to transform an abstract idea into a patent--eligible invention." See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., 134 S.Ct. at 2360. Further the invention, in example 40, establishes an "inventive concept" for resolving an Internet-centric problem wherein the instant application does not recite the internet nor is it directed to solving an internet centric problem.
As for Applicant’s argument that the claims recite non-conventional ‘computational’ steps, examiner notes the method steps are directed to the abstract idea and at best the non-conventional steps represent an improvement in the abstract idea itself.
As for Applicant’s argument that the claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the claims are similar to Bascom Global Internet vs. AT&T Mobility (2016), the examiner respectfully disagrees.
In Bascom the court found that the combination of additionally elements specifically the installation of a filtering tool at a specific location remote from the end-users with customizable filtering features specific to each user wherein the filtering tool at the ISP was able to identify individual accounts that communicate with the ISP server and to associate a request for internet content with a specific individual account were held to be meaningful limitations because the confined the idea of content filtering to a particular, practical application of the abstract idea.
In sharp contrast to the instant application which is directed to using well-known, conventional and routine business process of transportation planning. The claims fail to recite customizable filtering, fail to recite a computer network/Internet, fail to recite a remote computer or the like. The instant application is in no way even remotely related to filtering Internet content by Internet Service Providers as is the case in Bascom.
Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
In response to Applicant’s arguments that the claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the claims recite significantly more than an abstract idea, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claims are directed to a well-known business practice – transportation planning – specifically ‘automatically’ selecting a surge engine model (mathematical model) for transportation related services based on a score (performance metric) and updating allocation parameters in a database.
When reviewing an invention to determine the claims recite significantly more than an abstract idea one must consider whether there are additional elements set forth in the claims recite additional elements beyond what is conventional and routine and therefore provide an inventive concept. The identified additional non-abstract elements recited in the independent claims are processing apparatus, processor, memory, storage medium storing instructions, and database nothing in the claimed steps precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind (Claims 1-9, 20). Claims 10-18 fail to positively recite in the body of the claims who or what performs the method steps, accordingly the claims have been interpreted as being performed by a human or via pen and paper. These generic computer hardware merely performs generic computer functions of receiving and processing data and represent a purely conventional implementation of applicant’s supply/demand modeling in the general field of business analytics and do not represent significantly more than the abstract idea. See at least MPEP § 2106.05(a) ("Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or to Any Other Technology or Technical Field").
These recited additional elements are merely generic computer components. The claims do present any other issues as set forth in the MPEP § 2106.04 regarding a determination of whether the additional generic elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Rather, the claims merely use instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
The claims do not recite improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, the claims to do apply the abstract idea with a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (e.g. data remains data even after processing; MPEP 2106.05(c)), the claims no not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the user of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e. a generic computer) such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(e)). The recited generic computing elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims use “conventional or generic technology in a nascent but well-known environment” to implement the abstract idea of modeling supply and demand for transportation related services. In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Pat. Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 612 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The recited technology (processor, memories, etc.), are used as a “conduit for the abstract idea,” not to provide a technological solution to a specific technological problem. Id.; see also id. at 611–13 (holding claims reciting the use of a cellular telephone and a network server to classify an image and store the image based on its classification to be abstract because the patent did “not describe a new telephone, a new server, or a new physical combination of the two” and did not address “how to combine a camera with a cellular telephone, how to transmit images via a cellular network, or even how to append classification information to that data”).
Nothing in Applicant’s disclosures suggests that the Applicant intended to accomplish any of the steps recited in the claims through anything other than well understood technology used in a routine and conventional manner. Therefore, the claims lack an inventive concept. See also, e.g., Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1355 (holding claims lacked inventive concept where “[n]othing in the claims, understood in light of the specification, requires anything other than off-the-shelf, conventional computer, network, and display technology for gathering, sending, and presenting the desired information”); Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1348 (holding claims lacked an inventive concept where the claims recited the use of “existing scanning and processing technology”).
Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
In response to applicant's argument that the claimed invention provide technical benefits/improvements, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., large-scale transport service data, continuously updating database, synchronized/structured updates in the database, concurrent processing across threads, prevents stale or inconsistent allocations, data integrity and synchronization across distributed geohash/time buckets) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
With regards to Applicant’s the recitation of a first machine learning model in dependent claim 21, examiner suggest Applicant review the recent 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence (2024 AI SME Update) in the Federal Register on July 17, 2024 (https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/07/17/2024-15377/2024-guidance-update-on-patent-subject-matter-eligibility-including-on-artificial-intelligence) and the three new Subject Matter Eligibility Examples 47-49 (https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2024-AI-SMEUpdateExamples47-49.pdf).
Further it is suggested Applicant review the recent Ex Parte Desjardins, Appeal No. 2024-000567 (PTAB September 26, 2025, Appeals Review Panel Decision) (precedential) decision as well as MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1). In particular while the Desjardins decision cautions against overbroad application of 35 U.S.C. 101 to artificial intelligence inventions, such inventions not categorically excluded from patentability, the thrust of the decision made clear that improvements to an AI model itself can be sufficient for the purpose of patent eligibility, even when the claims recite, on their face, an ostensibly “abstract idea.” Specifically, the Appeals Review Panel found that the claims under review provided a technical improvement in the functioning of machine learning models by enabling continual learning, reducing storage requirements, and preserving performance across tasks. In particular, the decision emphasized that the claimed invention addresses a technical problem ("catastrophic forgetting") and improves the operation of AI systems, not just through generic computer implementation but by a specific training strategy. To support this determination, the Appeals Review Panel looked to the specification which, on its own, disclosed how the invention would improve functioning of an AI model--in particular, the specification explained how the proposed invention would use less “storage capacity” and lead to “reduced system complexity." These improvements, which the Appeals Review Panel found were incorporated into the claims as a whole, constituted an “improvement to how the machine learning model itself operates”.
Nowhere in Applicant’s disclosure is there any discussion of any level of improving how machine learning, such as is recited in dependent claim 21, is improved in any way nor is there any disclosure at any level of detail that the utilization of a generic first machine learning model to generate a score improves the functioning of a computer or other technology.
MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1)
In short, first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or a technical field. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but only in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine that the claim improves technology or a technical field. Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology or a technical field, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement, i.e., That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. The claim itself does not need to explicitly recite the improvement described in the specification (e.g., “thereby increasing the bandwidth of the channel”). See, e.g., Ex Parte Desjardins, Appeal No. 2024-000567 (PTAB September 26, 2025, Appeals Review Panel Decision) (precedential), in which the specification identified the improvement to machine learning technology by explaining how the machine learning model is trained to learn new tasks while protecting knowledge about previous tasks to overcome the problem of “catastrophic forgetting,” and that the claims reflected the improvement identified in the specification. Indeed, enumerated improvements identified in the Desjardins specification included disclosures of the effective learning of new tasks in succession in connection with specifically protecting knowledge concerning previously accomplished tasks; allowing the system to reduce use of storage capacity; and the enablement of reduced complexity in the system. Such improvements were tantamount to how the machine learning model itself would function in operation and therefore not subsumed in the identified mathematical calculation.
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 1-18, 20 and 21 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.
Regarding independent Claims 1, 10 and 20, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of transportation planning. This is a process (i.e. a series of steps) which (Statutory Category – Yes –process).
The claims recite a judicial exception, a method for organizing human activity, transportation planning (Judicial Exception – Yes – organizing human activity). Specifically, the claims are directed analyzing/modeling transportation related services supply and demand, specifically ‘automatically’ selecting a surge engine model related to the supply and demand of transport related services at a defined geographical area and time period, wherein transportation planning is a fundamental economic practice. Further all of the step(s) of “receive”, “generate”, “apply”, “generate”, “compare”, “automatically select” and “update” recite functions of the transportation planning are also directed to an abstract idea that falls into the abstract idea. The steps of generate in one or more data records of first demand data, second demand data, first metric data, first supply data, second supply data, second metric and score data, apply a first weight to the first ration…, compare the score indicator to a second score indictor are also directed to an abstract idea because they are a mathematical concept. The intended purpose of independent claims 1, 10 and 20 appears to be manage supply and demand for transportation services (Specification Page 1, Lines 18-24; invention is directed to mechanism for selecting a surge pricing “The goal of the surge engine is to manage demand at a given level of supply, so as to clear the market.”) by ‘automatically’ selecting a surge engine model (demand/supply mathematical model) for transportation related services in a defined geographical area and time period and updating allocation parameters in a database. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea – fundamental economic practice. The exceptions are the additional limitations of generic computer elements: processing apparatus, processor and memory (Claims 1-9, 20 and 21 only; Claims 10-18 fail to recite any technology or other technological elements/components).
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong One, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong Two. Considering whether the additional elements set forth in the claim integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.04), the previously identified non-abstract elements directed to generic computing components include: processing apparatus, processor, memory, storage medium storing instructions, and database. These generic computing components are merely used to receive and process data as described extensively in Applicant’s specification (Figure 1). Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Moreover, when viewed as a whole with such additional elements considered as an ordered combination, the claim modified by adding a generic computer would be nothing more than a purely conventional computerized implementation of applicant's transportation planning in the general field of market analysis and would not provide significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Note McRo, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc. (837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016)), guides: "[t]he abstract idea exception prevents patenting a result where 'it matters not by what process or machinery the result is accomplished."' 837 F.3d at 1312 (quoting O'Reilly v. Morse, 56 U.S. 62, 113 (1854)) (emphasis added). The claims are not directed to a particular machine nor do they recite a particular transformation (MPEP § 2106.05(b)).
Additionally, the claims do not recite any specific claim limitations that would provide a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Rather, the claims merely use instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Thus, under Step 2A, Prong Two (MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c) and (e)- (h)), Claims 1-18, 20 and 21 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Regarding the use of the generic (known, conventional) recited processing apparatus, processor, memory, storage medium storing instructions, and database," the Supreme Court has held "the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Alice, 573 U.S. 208, 223. Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims as a whole do not recite more than what was well-known, routine and conventional in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)). In light of the foregoing, that each of the claims, considered as a whole, is directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application and does not include an inventive concept.
Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Additionally, the claims recite a judicial exception, a mental processes, which can be performed in the human mind or via pen and paper (Judicial Exception – Yes – mental process).
The claimed step of generate dynamically in one or more data records, apply a first weight to a first ratio, compare the score indicator to a second score indicator and select based on the comparison one of the first or second surge engine model all describe the abstract idea. These limitations as drafted are directed to a process that under its reasonable interpretation covers performance of the steps in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer components. Other than the recitation of a processing apparatus, processor, memory, storage medium storing instructions, and database nothing in the claimed steps precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. Claims 10-18 fail to recite who or what entity performs the method steps and fail to recite any technology or technological elements/components of any kind. The claims do not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the step(s) receive data records first demand data, second demand data, first metric data, first supply data, second supply data, second metric and score data are directed to insignificant pre-solution activity (i.e. data gathering). The step of updating the database with allocation parameters is directed to insignificant post-solution activity (i.e. data output).
The step directed to automatically select in real-time, based on the comparison, one of the first surge engine model and the second surge engine model to control allocation of the transport-related services, recites a wished-for use of the automatic selection of the first or second surge engine model has not been given patentable weight (i.e. recites non-functional descriptive material, intended use).
The recited “the allocation-state entry being retrievable for use in subsequently controlling allocation of the transport-related services at the defined geographical area” limitation has not been patentable weight. This limitation is directed to insignificant post solution activity (i.e. data output, updating database data). This limitation recites a wished-for use of the data (allocation-state entry). The allocation state entry may or may not actually be retrieved – the claims merely recite that the data is retrievable.
The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor/processing apparatus (Claim 1 only) does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process. (Judicial Exception recited – Yes – mental process).
The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The processing apparatus, processor, memory, storage medium storing instructions, and database are recited at a high level of generality merely performs generic computer functions of receiving and processing data. The generic processor merely applies the abstract idea using generic computer components. The elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not recite improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, the claims to do apply the abstract idea with a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (e.g. data remains data even after processing; MPEP 2106.05(c)), the claims no not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the user of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e. a generic computer) such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(e)). The recited generic computing elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. (Integrated into a Practical Application – No).
As discussed above the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than a mere instruction to apply the abstract idea using generic computing components, wherein mere instructions to apply an judicial exception using generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. For the receive information identifying a defined geographical area/time period and the steps/data first demand data, second demand data, first metric data, first supply data, second supply data, second metric and score data that were considered extra-solution activity, this has been re-evaluated and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. Applications specification does not provide any indication that the computer/processor is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component, and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is ineligible (Provide Inventive Concept – No).
The claims are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding dependent claims 2-9, 11-18 and 21, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of transportation planning and merely further limit the abstract idea claimed in independent claims 1, 10 and 20.
Claims 2 and 11 further limit the abstract idea by limiting the time period to a time period during which service users made request for fares (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 3 and 12 further limit the abstract idea by generating the score based on the weighted rations (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea, mathematical concept). Claims 4 and 13 further limit the abstract idea by determining the score using a formula (weighted first ratio + weighted second ration) (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea, mathematical concept). Claims 5 and 14 further limit the abstract idea by applying a third weight to the score and generating a weighted score (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea, mathematical concept). Claims 6 and 15 further limit the abstract idea by generating additional one or more records – user count of non-booking service users, third provider number count that are not utilized and a third weight (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 7 and 16 further limit the abstract idea by apply a fourth weight, apply a fifth weight and generating one or more data records based on the weighted first user number count and weighted minimum count (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea, mathematical concept). Claims 8 and 17 further limit the abstract idea by generating one or more data records, weighted score indicator and aggregate score indicator (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 9 and 18 further limit the abstract idea by determining the aggregate scoring using the formula (sum of weight score indicator divided by the sum of third weight) (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea; mathematical concept).
With regards to Claim 21, the recited first machine learning model to generate an 'optimized' score, the examiner notes that the first machine learning model is not trained (neither claimed nor disclosed), accordingly examiner interpreted any training, if any, to be external/outside of the scope of the invention (i.e. the first machine learning model is merely a static model/equation to generate a score (number)). The first machine learning model is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic first machine learning model on a generic computer/processing apparatus, also recited at a high level of generality. The first machine learning model is used to generally apply the abstract idea without limiting how the first machine learning model functions. The first machine learning model is described at a high level such that it amounts to using a generic computer/processing apparatus with a generic first machine learning model to apply the abstract idea. These limitations only recite outcomes/results of the steps without any details about how the outcomes are accomplished.
None of the limitations considered as an ordered combination provide eligibility because taken as a whole the claims simply instruct the practitioner to apply the abstract idea to a generic computer.
Further regarding Claims 1-18, 20 and 21, Applicant’s specification discloses that the claimed elements directed to a processing apparatus, processor, memory, storage medium storing instructions, and database at best merely comprise generic computer hardware which is commercially available (Figure 1). More specifically Applicant’s claimed features directed to a system do not represent custom or specific computer hardware circuits, instead the terms merely refers to commercially available software and/or hardware. Thus, as to the system recited, "the system claims are no different from the method claims in substance. The method claims recite the abstract idea implemented on a generic computer; the system claims recite a handful of generic computer components configured to implement the same idea." See Alice Corp. Pry. Ltd., 134 S.Ct. at 2360.
Accordingly, the claims merely recite manipulating data utilizing generic computer hardware (e.g. memory, processor, etc.). Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further the lack of detail of the claimed embodiment in Applicant’s disclosure is an indication that the claims are directed to an abstract idea and not a specific improvement to a machine.
Applicant has not demonstrated that a special purpose machine/computer is required to carry out the claimed invention. A special purpose machine is now evaluated as part of the significantly more analysis established by the Alice decision and current 35 U.S.C. 101 guidelines. It involves/requires more than a machine only broadly applying the abstract idea and/or performing conventional functions.
Applicant’s specification discloses that the claimed elements directed to a system, processor, interface, component and memory merely comprise generic computer hardware which is commercially available (Specification: Figure 1). More specifically Applicant’s claimed features directed to a system and components do not represent custom or specific computer hardware circuits, instead the term system merely refers to commercially available software and/or hardware. Thus, as to the system recited, "the system claims are no different from the method claims in substance. The method claims recite the abstract idea implemented on a generic computer; the system claims recite a handful of generic computer components configured to implement the same idea." See Alice Corp. Pry. Ltd., 134 S.Ct. at 2360.
Accordingly given the broadest reasonable interpretation and in light of the specification the claims are interpreted to include the process steps being performed by a human mind or via pen and paper. The claim limitations which recite a memory, processor, interface or similar generic computer structures which at best recite generic, well-known hardware. However, the recited generic hardware simply performs generic computer function of storing, accessing, displaying or processing data. Generic computers performing generic, well known computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further the recited memories are part of every conventional general-purpose computer.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Binkiewicz et al., U.S. Patent Publication No. 10832268 discloses a system and method for transportation related services in a geographical area including accounting for/modeling surge.
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 SCOTT L JARRETT whose telephone number is (571)272-7033. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 6am-4:30PM.
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, Beth Boswell can be reached at (571) 272-6737. 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.
SCOTT L. JARRETT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3625
/SCOTT L JARRETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625