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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This Office Action is in response to the communication filed on November 28, 2022, which paper has been placed of record in the file.
2. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted February 9, 2023, August 10, 2023, March 14, 2024, June 6, 2024, February 13, 2025, May 22, 2025, and August 27, 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding independent claim 15, which is analyzing as the following:
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites a system for transportation matching. Thus, the claim is to a machine, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
The claim recites a system for transportation matching The claim recites the steps: providing a deviation angle control element for selectively designating threshold deviation angles for a target destination; based on user interaction with the deviation angle control element, identifying a threshold deviation angle; determining a directional filter for selecting transportation requests…, and providing a transportation match probability indicator based on the directional filter, under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the Specification, falls within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they cover performance of commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, business relations. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Moreover, the claim recites the steps of: providing a deviation angle control element for selectively designating threshold deviation angles…; identifying a threshold deviation angle; determining a directional filter for selecting transportation requests…, and providing a transportation match probability indicator…, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the Specification, covers performance of the limitations in the mind, can be practically performed by human in their mind or with pen/paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a computer/processor/automatically”, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. The mere nominal recitation of generic computing devices does not take the claim limitation out of the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas. Thus, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claim recites the additional elements of “providing, for display via a user interface of the provider device”, “for a target destination selected by the provider device”, and “providing, for display via the user interface”, which are mere data gathering and outputting recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering, transmitting, and outputting, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering, transmitting and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05. Moreover, these additional elements do not provide any improvement to the technology, improvement to the functioning of the computer, improvement to the user interface and the provider device, they are just merely used as general means for collecting and displaying data. It is similar to other concepts that have been identified by the courts Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48; Collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Further, the steps of “providing, for display via the user interface of the provider device, a deviation angle control element for selectively designating threshold deviation angles…; identifying a threshold deviation angle; determining a directional filter for selecting transportation requests…; and providing, for display via the user interface, a transportation match probability indicator…”, are recited as being performed by the processor. The processor is recited at a high level of generality. In the limitations “providing, for display via the user interface of the provider device, a deviation angle control element for selectively designating threshold deviation angles…; and providing, for display via the user interface, a transportation match probability indicator…”, the processor is used as a tool to perform the generic computer function of gathering and outputting data. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In limitations “identifying a threshold deviation angle; and determining a directional filter for selecting transportation requests…”, the processor is used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional elements recite generic computer components the processor, the computer-readable storage medium, and software programming instructions that are recited a high-level of generality that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the additional elements evaluated individually and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they comprise or include limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application such as adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere 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(f).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
The additional elements “providing, for display via a user interface of the provider device”, “for a target destination selected by the provider device”, and “providing, for display via the user interface” were found to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two, because they were determined to be insignificant limitations as necessary data gathering and outputting. However, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05, subsection I.A. At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the additional elements of “providing, for display via a user interface of the provider device”, “for a target destination selected by the provider device”, and “providing, for display via the user interface” are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to gathering and displaying data over a network and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely genetic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the recitation of the processor and a computer-readable storage medium to perform limitations “providing a deviation angle control element for selectively designating threshold deviation angles…; identifying a threshold deviation angle; determining a directional filter for selecting transportation requests…, and providing a transportation match probability indicator…”, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO).
Regarding independent claims 1 and 9, Alice Corp. establishes that the same analysis should be used for all categories of claims. Therefore, independent claim 1 directed to a method, independent claim 9 directed to a medium, are also rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 for substantially the same reasons as independent system claim 15.
Regarding dependent claims 2-8, 10-14, and 16-20, the dependent claims do not impart patent eligibility to the abstract idea of the independent claim. The dependent claims rather further narrow the abstract idea and the narrower scope does not change the outcome of the two-part Mayo test. Narrowing the scope of the claims is not enough to impart eligibility as it is still interpreted as an abstract idea, a narrower abstract idea.
Regarding dependent claims 2, 10, and 16, the claims simply refine the abstract idea by further reciting: determining that a transportation request satisfied the direction filter; and based on determining..., selecting the provider device to service the transportation request, that fall under the category of Organizing Human activity and Mental process groupings of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 15. Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claims 3, 11, and 17, the claims simply refine the abstract idea by further reciting: determining , based on the threshold deviation angle, a destination progress threshold…; and determining that the transportation request satisfied the direction filter by determining that the transportation request satisfied the destination progress threshold, that fall under the category of Organizing Human activity and Mental process groupings of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 15. Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claims 4, 12, and 18, the claims simply refine the abstract idea by further reciting: determining, utilizing a prediction model, a transportation match probability…; and generating the transportation match probability indicator…, that fall under the category of Organizing Human activity, Mental process, and Mathematical Concepts (a prediction model) groupings of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 15. Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claims 5, 13, and 19, the claims recite the additional elements providing, for display via the user interface, a default threshold deviation angle, which are mere data gathering and outputting recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and outputting, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claims. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05 (See claim 15 above). Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claim 6, the claim simply refines the abstract idea by further reciting: selecting the default threshold deviation angle based on a number of current provider devices in an area local to the provider device location…, that fall under the category of Organizing Human activity and Mental process groupings of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 15. Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claims 7, 14, and 20, the claims simply refine the abstract idea by further reciting: determining a threshold deviation angle range…; and limiting the deviation angle control element to the threshold deviation angle range, that fall under the category of Organizing Human activity and Mental process groupings of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 15. Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claims 8 and 20, the claims simply refine the abstract idea by further reciting: selecting the minimum threshold deviation angle…, that fall under the category of Organizing Human activity and Mental process groupings of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 15. Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Therefore, none of the dependent claims alone or as an ordered combination add limitations that qualify as significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, claims 1-20 are not draw to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
7. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chew et al. (hereinafter Chew, US 2021/0256576).
Regarding to claim 1, Chew discloses a computer-implemented method comprising:
providing, for display via a user interface of a provider device, a deviation angle control element for selectively designating threshold deviation angles for a target destination selected by the provider device (para [0088], the geotemporal destination system 104 enables the provider device 112 to set the threshold deviation angle 406. In particular, the geotemporal destination system 104 provides a threshold deviation angle option to the provider device 112 for display within a user interface. To elaborate, the geotemporal destination system 104 provides an interactive slider element or an interactive threshold deviation angle element (e.g., as shown in FIG. 4A) for display on the provider device 112. The geotemporal destination system 104 further receives an indication of a size or magnitude for the threshold deviation angle 406 based on user input setting the slider or the deviation angle element and generates the threshold deviation angle 406 accordingly);
based on user interaction with the deviation angle control element, identifying a threshold deviation angle (para [0051], FIG. 2, the geotemporal destination system 104 identifies a plurality of transportation requests 210a-210n. In addition, the geotemporal destination system determines a threshold deviation angle 208 relative to a direction 206 between the provider device and the target destination 204a. Furthermore, for one or more of the transportation requests 210a-210n, the geotemporal destination system determines an estimated arrival time for the target destination upon servicing the transportation request);
determining a directional filter for selecting transportation requests for the provider device based on the target destination, a provider device location, and the threshold deviation angle (para [0065], the geotemporal destination system 104 determines a direction from a provider device location to a target destination. From the determined direction, the geotemporal destination system 104 determines a threshold deviation angle based on various factors such as provider preferences, a provider device location, a target destination, and/or a time of day. Based on the threshold deviation angle, the geotemporal destination system 104 determines whether or not to select the provider device 112 to service a particular transportation request. Indeed, the geotemporal destination system 104 determines deviation angles for individual transportation requests by determining directions from the provider device location to locations associated with respective transportation requests and determining angles between the direction from the provider device location to the target destination and the directions from the provider device location to the respective locations associated with the transportation requests. For deviation angles that are within the threshold deviation angle, the geotemporal destination system 104 determines that the provider device 112 can service the corresponding transportation request); and
providing, for display via the user interface, a transportation match probability indicator based on the directional filter (para [0130], the geotemporal destination system 104 can generate and provide a user interface for display on the provider device 112. In particular, the geotemporal destination system 104 can generate and provide a destination mode interface in response to receiving an indication from the provider device 112 to utilize the destination transportation matching mode. FIG. 7 illustrates a destination mode interface 700 displayed on the provider device 112 in accordance with one or more embodiments).
Regarding to claim 2, Chew discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining that a transportation request satisfies the directional filter (para [0069], FIG. 3, the geotemporal destination system 104 further performs an act 320 to select the provider device to service a transportation request. More specifically, the geotemporal destination system 104 identifies a transportation request (from among the transportation requests received as a result of the act 302) that satisfies a directional filter, an arrival time filter, and/or a progress threshold); and
based on determining that the transportation request satisfies the directional filter, selecting the provider device to service the transportation request (para [0069], Based on a consideration of one or more of these factors, the geotemporal destination system 104 thus selects the provider device 112 to service the identified transportation request).
Regarding to claim 3, Chew discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 2, further comprising:
determining, based on the threshold deviation angle, a destination progress threshold reflecting a reduction in travel to the target destination for the provider device due to servicing the transportation request (para [0068], the geotemporal destination system 104 utilizes a progress threshold and determines whether the reduction in travel to the target destination due to servicing a transportation request satisfies the progress threshold. For example, the geotemporal destination system 104 utilizes a progress threshold as a ratio of travel time or distance where any transportation request that is to be provided to the provider device 112 must enable the provider device 112 to travel three minutes (or distance units) closer to the target destination for every ten minutes (or distance units) of overall travel while servicing the transportation request); and
determining that the transportation request satisfies the directional filter by determining that the transportation request satisfies the destination progress threshold (para [0069], FIG. 3, the geotemporal destination system 104 further performs an act 320 to select the provider device to service a transportation request. More specifically, the geotemporal destination system 104 identifies a transportation request (from among the transportation requests received as a result of the act 302) that satisfies a directional filter, an arrival time filter, and/or a progress threshold).
Regarding to claim 4, Chew discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining, utilizing a prediction model, a transportation match probability based on the threshold deviation angle (para [0090], the geotemporal destination system 104 utilizes one or more machine learning models (e.g., neural networks) to learn preferences associated with the provider device 112 and build a predictive model to indicate transportation requests that satisfy a threshold probability that the provider device 112 will service them); and
generating the transportation match probability indicator based on the transportation match probability (para [0053], the geotemporal destination system 104 analyzes the transportation requests 210b and 210c and determines that both satisfy the threshold deviation angle 208 and the target arrival time. Accordingly, the geotemporal destination system 104 provides visual indicators of the transportation requests 210b and 210c for display at the provider device 104).
Regarding to claim 5, Chew discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising providing, for display via the user interface, a default threshold deviation angle (para [0101], the geotemporal destination system 104 provides a threshold deviation angle (e.g., the threshold deviation angle 414) for display on the provider device 112. In particular, the geotemporal destination system 104 causes the provider device 112 to present a portrayal or a visual representation of the threshold deviation angle 414 within a graphical map interface (e.g., with lines as shown in FIG. 4B), thereby representing areas from which the provider device 112 may receive transportation requests);
Regarding to claim 6, Chew discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 5, further comprising selecting the default threshold deviation angle based on a number of current provider devices in an area local to the provider device location and a number of current requester devices in the area (para [0096], Based on determining that the provider device 112 services the transportation request associated with the location 408c, the geotemporal destination system 104 adjusts or modifies the threshold deviation angle 406 to increase its size for subsequent sessions of the destination mode. Indeed, because the geotemporal destination system 104 determines that the provider device 112 indicated a tendency to service transportation requests with a particular margin (e.g., 3 degrees or 5 degrees) of the threshold deviation angle 406, the geotemporal destination system 104 determines to increase the threshold deviation angle 406 by the margin).
Regarding to claim 7, Chew discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining a threshold deviation angle range comprising a minimum threshold deviation angle (para [0101], For instance, the geotemporal destination system 104 causes the provider device 112 to display a cone visual representation of the threshold deviation angle 114 (e.g., a cone shape reflected by lines illustrating a range of the threshold deviation angle)); and
limiting the deviation angle control element to the threshold deviation angle range (para [0101], Thus, the provider device 112 displays the threshold deviation angle 414 to indicate, in real time, the areas that do and do not satisfy a directional filter).
Regarding to claim 8, Chew discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 7, further comprising selecting the minimum threshold deviation angle based on a number of current requester devices in an area local to the provider device location (para [0084], the geotemporal destination system 104 determines that prime time hours (e.g., 5 pm to 7 pm) generally have large numbers of transportation requests. Thus, the geotemporal destination system 104 generates the threshold deviation angle 406 to be tighter or smaller (e.g., to have a smaller magnitude) so that the directional filter identifies transportation requests in a smaller area more in line with the direction 403).
Claims 9-14 are written in medium and contain the same limitations found in claims 1-8 above, therefore, are rejected by the same rationale.
Regarding to claims 15-20, Chew discloses a system comprising:
at least on processor (figure 16, Processor 1602); and
at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (figure 16, Storage 1606) storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to perform the method as found in claims 1-8 above, therefore, are rejected by the same rationale.
Conclusion
8. Claims 1-20 are rejected.
9. The prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Ramasamy et al. (US 2025/0224239) disclose a computer system accesses service data and sensor data for a plurality of requests for a transportation service associated with a place, with the service data comprising pick-up data indicating a pick-up location and drop-off data indicating a drop-off location, and the sensor data comprising satellite signals indicating a pick-up path or a drop-off path, with the satellite signals each having a corresponding signal strength.
Holland et al. (US 2021/0304078) disclose methods and systems that efficiently determine and present real-time (or near-real time) trending destination locations in a graphical user interface of a requester device based on transportation requests or other transportation data tracked for a geographic region.
Chouinard et al. (US 2020/0012971) disclose method includes matching transportation requests (e.g., made to a dynamic transportation matching system) to one or more transportation providers via transfer points.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to examiner NGA B NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-6796. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7AM-5PM.
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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (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 USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NGA B NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625 March 5, 2026