DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the amendment filed on 7/15/2025.
Claims 1-2, 4-13, and 15-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
Domestic Benefit
The ADS filed 1/17/2023 claims the benefit of Provisional Application 63/300,523 (filed 1/18/2022). Provisional Application 63/300,523 fails to support any claim, either directly or through dependency, as presently drafted (see 112(a) new matter rejections below); therefore, all claims as presently drafted are granted an effective filing date of 1/17/2023.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112
Applicant argues that the claim language in question is inherently disclosed by the original disclosure, particularly by way of the content of Paragraph 0024 thereof. Examiner disagrees for multiple reasons.
As a preliminary matter, Examiner notes that Applicant’s description of the 112(a) new matter issue as “[t]he claim language referring to a ‘first degree of utilization’ and a ‘second degree of utilization’ in relation to reposition estimates and capacity utilization rates for vehicles” is misleading. This language appears to significantly minimize and simplify the functionality at issue, which is not just the first and second degrees of utilization, but the use of said degrees of utilization in the particular steps and processes in which they are claimed, as well as the asserted concept of “capacity utilization rates” which likewise finds no support in the original disclosure.
Regarding the substance of Applicant’s argument, Applicant provides little for Examiner to consider, certainly failing to meet the standards for establishing inherency set forth in at least MPEP 2163 and the subsections thereof (e.g., from In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745, 49 USPQ2d 1949, 1950-51 (Fed. Cir. 1999), “To establish inherency, the extrinsic evidence ‘must make clear that the missing descriptive matter is necessarily present in the thing described in the reference, and that it would be so recognized by persons of ordinary skill. Inherency, however, may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient”). Firstly, Examiner disputes Applicant’s description of the content of Paragraph 0024 as outlining a “detailed discussion on how reposition estimates are generated and used to improve vehicle utilization.” Examiner finds that the content of Paragraph 0024 cannot reasonably be called a “detailed discussion” of either of these asserted concepts, instead merely vaguely stating in relevant part that “A reposition estimate may be a cost of repositioning one or more vehicles among the transportation system's ecosystem of available vehicles” and vaguely asserting a goal of the present invention as “reducing dead legs and improv[ing] utilization of vehicles.” At no point in Paragraph 0024 or elsewhere is this purported improving of vehicle utilization ever discussed in greater detail than as an aspirational result of offering an upgrade to users (see, e.g., Paragraphs 0033, 0041, 0067). As this is merely an aspirational result of the system rather than a part of the disclosed process itself, it does not logically hold that the calculation and use of degrees of utilization, purportedly indicative of the entirely undisclosed concept of capacity utilization rates, is inherent here. While the original disclosure does provide slightly more disclosure in relation to the concept of reducing dead legs (e.g., the prediction of dead legs in Paragraph 0071, though the original disclosure is silent as to how this prediction is to be accomplished), this also in no way requires calculation of the entirely undisclosed degrees of utilization.
Indeed, the original disclosure itself, both in terms of Paragraph 0024’s description of what a “reposition estimate” is as well as the description of how this value can be calculated in the remainder of the original disclosure (e.g., Paragraphs 0063-0065) which never indicates any necessity to compute such degrees of utilization, refutes Applicant’s assertion here that the calculation and use of these degrees of utilization are inherently supported. As the determination of reposition estimates in no way requires a calculation of degrees of vehicle utilization, much less the use of such degrees as claimed, Applicant’s assertion here is without merit. See 112(a) rejections and discussions thereof in previous Office Actions as well, all of which remain applicable presently.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 101 analysis have been considered and are unpersuasive.
Applicant presents arguments ostensibly directed to Step 2A, Prong One, stressing the same abstract features asserted and discussed in the previous Remarks and the Non-Final Rejection of 1/17/2025. As a preliminary matter, Examiner notes that the present arguments solely argue against categorization of these particular limitations as mental processes, ignoring their separate categorization as also disclosing certain methods of organizing human activity and (in part) mathematical concepts. As such, even if these arguments were persuasive (which, to be clear, they are not – see below), the arguments would be at best incomplete and these limitations would continue to recite abstract ideas under Step 2A, Prong One.
These claim elements remain abstract for the same reasons explained therein. Contrary to Applicant’s assertion, “generating reposition estimates, identifying service categories based on utilization rates, and updating itineraries” are neither “technical processes” nor are “inherently computer-implemented and tied to technological improvements in transportation logistics through the reduction or elimination of ‘dead leg’ operations” (which, Examiner notes, is a concern of Steps 2A, Prong Two and 2B, rather than Prong One as presently argued).
In relation to Prong One, there is nothing inherently technological about any of these steps, nor the concept of degrees of utilization indicative of capacity utilization rates, nor the comparison thereof, nor the updating of an itinerary based on a user’s acceptance of an upgrade offer. Instead, these are all purely abstract concepts, performable in the same way to achieve the same results absent any of the computer elements by which these steps are vaguely claimed as being performed. This high-level computer implementation of a purely abstract sequence of steps is precisely the type of invention rejected as subject matter ineligible by the Supreme Court in the seminal Alice case.
In relation to Prong Two, where the assertion of an improvement to a technology actually belongs, the reduction of dead legs is not a technological concern or improvement, but rather, as has at this point in prosecution been explained ad nauseam, is a purely abstract concern which is not inherently tied to technology in any way. See previous Office Actions and additional discussion below for more information. Similarly, “transportation logistics” is an abstract field rather than a technology (as already explained in multiple previous Office Actions). As noted in MPEP 2106.05(a), “it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology.”
Returning to Applicant’s Prong One arguments, Applicant appears to argue that interpreting these steps as reciting abstract ideas constitutes a “broadest possible interpretation” (Applicant’s emphasis) rather than properly considering them under the broadest reasonable standard interpretation. As best as Examiner can guess from this entirely unexplained assertion, particularly based on the overall stress of the claimed computer implementation of these steps, Applicant appears to believe that the present high-level claiming of these steps as being carried out by computers prevents them from reciting abstract ideas. If this is the case, Applicant is mistaken. Indeed, in relation to the argued mental processes categorization, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) (entitled “A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process”), which Examiner notes has already been pointed out to Applicant in previous Office Actions, is entirely devoted to refuting this erroneous notion (to say nothing of the entire opinion of Alice). Such high-level computer implementation fails to prevent the recitation of the separate abstract categories of certain methods of organizing human activity and mathematical concepts as well (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) and various subsections thereof). Applicant may wish to review the myriad examples of such computer-implemented steps nonetheless reciting abstract ideas found in the MPEP and the Examples of the most recent Patent Examiner Guidance.
Regarding Applicant’s quoted language of Alice, Examiner first notes that, while the meaning and content appear identical, Applicant misquotes this language, which should have read as “[a]ll inventions at some level embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract ideas.” For at least the sake of clarity of the record, Examiner strongly encourages Applicant to ensure any language presented in quotation marks in the future is quoted precisely. Regarding the content of this language and Applicant’s again entirely unexplained conclusion based thereon, the limitations in question (as well as all others found to recite abstract ideas) do not merely involve judicial exceptions at some degree of abstraction, but instead these steps themselves directly recite abstract ideas. Examiner has demonstrated this for many limitations over the course of this application’s prosecution in response to previous Prong One arguments, e.g., demonstrating various claim limitations as reciting commercial activity, advertising, evaluations, mathematical calculations, etc. See previous Office Actions for more information. This is to say nothing of the previously advanced and refuted arguments regarding limitations which reciting a judicial exception vs. merely involving the exception, which relates to the same standard as the present argument. Applicant makes no attempt to refute the previously provided explanations made in relation thereto, and the present argument fails for the same reasons as previously explained.
Moving on to the arguments explicitly directed to Step 2A, Prong Two, Applicant asserts that “the claim language effectively integrates the alleged abstract idea into a practical application by employing a computerized system to enhance transportation logistics,” particularly by way of the limitations for generating reposition estimates, identifying a second service category, and updating the itinerary in response to user acceptance of the proffered update offer. This argument, and various asserted supporting rationale presented in relation thereto, fail for multiple reasons. Firstly, as has been previously explained, integration into a practical application under Prong Two (as well as embodiment of an inventive concept under Step 2B) may not stem from any recited abstract ideas. Abstract ideas cannot integrate themselves into a practical application, something which must instead be accomplished by way of any recited additional elements or the combination thereof. As each of these asserted steps recite abstract ideas, they are part of the abstract idea which must be integrated into a practical application. The only additional elements present in the asserted limitations are a machine learning model and a computer, which are merely used as tools to effectuate the recited abstract steps (judicially recognized as insufficient to integrate a claim into a practical application as explained in MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Secondly, Applicant asserts that these limitations “translate the alleged abstract concepts into tangible operational efficiencies.” This appears identical in intent to the assertion of an improvement to “transportation logistics” already addressed above, and fails for the same reasons. Improvements to “operational efficiencies” in the use of a fleet of commercial vehicles, whether “tangible” or otherwise, is a purely abstract concept rather than a technology. Claiming the performance of the claimed steps at a high level as being carried out by computer elements does nothing to make this otherwise. As noted above in relation to quoted language of MPEP 2106.05(a), improvements to abstract ideas do not constitute improvements to a technology within the meaning of the 101 subject matter eligibility analysis. Patent law, in its current state, does not protect claims to an asserted advance in the realm of abstract ideas “no matter how groundbreaking the advance.” See SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1170 (Fed. Cir. 2018). As with essentially identical previously presented Prong Two arguments asserting an improvement to a technology, the present argument continues to misapprehend the distinction between abstract ideas and technologies.
Applicant attempts to analogize the present invention to that of Example 47, Claim 3 of the July 2024 PEG Update, though in doing so Applicant misapprehends the explanation as to why that claim is found to be subject matter eligible. Regarding the use of an artificial neural network in that claim to determine at least one “detected anomaly,” and Applicant’s present analogizing of this functionality to the “use of a machine-learning architecture to determine acceptance likelihood scores…,” Examiner notes that the analysis present in Example 47, Claim 3 makes clear that this step recites an abstract idea. Similarly, Examiner has always treated the machine-learning-based determination of acceptance likelihood scores as also reciting abstract ideas, in keeping with said analysis of step (b) of Example 47, Claim 3. Regarding Applicant’s seeming analogy of the present invention’s “subsequent action involving the update of an itinerary in response to the acceptance likelihood score satisfying a corresponding acceptance likelihood threshold” (Applicant’s emphasis) to the subsequent actions taken in Example 47, Claim 3 in response to the detection of anomalies (specifically, Claim 3 recites such subsequent remedial actions as “(e) dropping the one or more malicious network packets in real time” and “(f) blocking future traffic from the source address”), Examiner disputes that these functions are analogous, specifically Examiner finds that the “subsequent action” taken in the present invention does not confer subject matter eligibility in the same way as these steps (e) and (f). Particularly, updating an itinerary as an abstract idea as explained multiple times both above and previously, and as also explained multiple times above and previously, abstract ideas may not integrate themselves into a practical application and improvements to abstract concepts do not constitute improvements to a technology. By contrast, steps (e) and (f) are explained in the analysis of Example 47, Claim 3 as non-abstract technological steps which “provide specific computer solutions that use the output from the ANN to provide security solutions to the detected anomalies,” providing “improved network security” (network security being a technology rather than an abstract concept). Rather, the asserted itinerary updating functionality of the present invention is analogous to the abstract “in response to” steps taken in Example 47, Claim 2, and fail to show integration into a practical application for the same reasons.
Novel/Non-Obvious Subject Matter
In the present Remarks, Applicant acknowledges the previous action’s findings of novel and non-obvious subject matter. Examiner reminds Applicant that this finding is based on claim elements rejected as new matter under 112(a) which must be removed. Depending on the form and content of future amendments which remove these new matter claim elements, art-based rejections may need to be revived in the future.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 12 contain variations on the following limitations: “generating, by the computer, a plurality of reposition estimates associated with at least one first degree of utilization indicative of capacity utilization rates for the plurality of vehicles…,” “identifying as a second service category for a second vehicle of the transportation service, by the computer, a potential service category having a reposition estimate associated with at least one second degree of utilization that is comparatively lower than the at least one first degree of utilization of the reposition estimates of the first service category for the first vehicle in the reservation request,” and “in response to receiving an indication from the client device that the available upgrade is selected, updating, by the computer, the itinerary in accordance with the available upgrade to indicate the second vehicle having the reposition estimate associated with the at least one second degree of utilization, thereby reducing the reposition cost associated with the dead leg operation of the second vehicle.” Each of these limitations, particularly in relation to the claimed degrees of utilization indicative of capacity utilization rates and the functions associated therewith, recite new matter. As discussed and explained in the Interview of 10/17/2024 in relation to similar though not identical language, these first and second degrees of utilization are explicitly claimed as separate and distinct values from the reposition estimates, and as such must be interpreted as separate and distinct values/concepts. As further discussed in said Interview and the Advisory Action of 10/31/2024, the content of Applicant’s cited Paragraphs 0023-0025 (particularly the vaguely recited goal of “improv[ing] utilization of vehicles” found in Paragraph 0024,” falls well short of disclosing degrees of utilization/capacity utilization rates at all, much less describes them sufficiently to meet 112(a) written description standards (e.g., an algorithm for determining such degrees). Additionally, the claimed functionality in relation to these degrees of utilization (ie: identifying a second service category by way of a comparison of these degrees of utilization, associating the second vehicle with a second degree of utilization in the upgrading of the itinerary) are never described in the original disclosure in relation to such degrees of utilization but rather in relation to the reposition estimates, which as explained above and previously, are explicitly claimed as separate values and thus cannot be interpreted as the same thing, or a mere re-wording as the present Remarks appear to imply (see, e.g., Paragraphs 0008-0009, 0053, 0067). Therefore, what is presently claimed shifts, further develops, and is different from what is present in the original disclosure, and as such is unsupported new matter. Examiner suggests that Applicant review the summary for the Interview of 10/17/2024, particularly the discussion of potential amendments which would not recite new matter, for suggestions regarding a potential future amendment to correct this issue. Claims 2, 4-11, 13, and 15-20 are rejected due to their dependence upon Claims 1 and 12 respectively.
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 1-2, 4-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Claims 1 and 12, the limitations of receiving, from a user, a reservation request for a transportation service including an itinerary indicating a first location, a second location, and a first service category for a first vehicle of a plurality of vehicles of the transportation service; generating a plurality of reposition estimates associated with at least one first degree of utilization indicative of capacity utilization rates for the plurality of vehicles of a plurality of service categories including the first service category for the first vehicle and one or more potential service categories based on executing a model in accordance with the itinerary, each reposition estimate indicating a cost for repositioning a vehicle to the first location of the itinerary and being determined based upon the first location of the itinerary, the second location of the itinerary, and a service category for the vehicle of the plurality of service categories for the plurality of vehicles; identifying as a second service category for a second vehicle of the transportation service, a potential service category having a reposition estimate associated with at least one second degree of utilization that is comparatively lower than the at least one first degree of utilization of the reposition estimates of the first service category for the first vehicle in the reservation request; generating an acceptance likelihood score that the user accepts the second service category for the second vehicle based on executing a second model using upgrade history data for the user stored in a database as input, the second model trained for generating the acceptance likelihood score using a plurality of training labels and training sets of travel data records corresponding to the plurality of training labels; responsive to determining that the acceptance likelihood score satisfies a corresponding acceptance likelihood threshold, transmitting a message to the user to present an upgrade notification for display indicating an available upgrade to the itinerary to include the second service category, the available upgrade associated with the second vehicle that has a reposition cost indicating dead leg operation of the second vehicle; and in response to receiving an indication from the client device that the available upgrade is selected, updating, by the computer, the itinerary in accordance with the available upgrade to indicate the second vehicle having the reposition estimate associated with the at least one second degree of utilization, thereby reducing the reposition cost associated with the dead leg operation of the second vehicle, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover certain methods of organizing human activity. For example, these limitations fall at least within the enumerated categories of commercial or legal interactions and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)).
Additionally, the limitations of receiving, from a user, a reservation request for a transportation service including an itinerary indicating a first location, a second location, and a first service category for a first vehicle of a plurality of vehicles of the transportation service; generating a plurality of reposition estimates associated with at least one first degree of utilization indicative of capacity utilization rates for the plurality of vehicles of a plurality of service categories including the first service category for the first vehicle and one or more potential service categories based on executing a model in accordance with the itinerary, each reposition estimate indicating a cost for repositioning a vehicle to the first location of the itinerary and being determined based upon the first location of the itinerary, the second location of the itinerary, and a service category for the vehicle of the plurality of service categories for the plurality of vehicles; identifying as a second service category for a second vehicle of the transportation service, a potential service category having a reposition estimate associated with at least one second degree of utilization that is comparatively lower than the at least one first degree of utilization of the reposition estimates of the first service category for the first vehicle in the reservation request; generating an acceptance likelihood score that the user accepts the second service category for the second vehicle based on executing a second model using upgrade history data for the user stored in a database as input, the second model trained for generating the acceptance likelihood score using a plurality of training labels and training sets of travel data records corresponding to the plurality of training labels; responsive to determining that the acceptance likelihood score satisfies a corresponding acceptance likelihood threshold, transmitting a message to the user to present an upgrade notification for display indicating an available upgrade to the itinerary to include the second service category, the available upgrade associated with the second vehicle that has a reposition cost indicating dead leg operation of the second vehicle; and in response to receiving an indication from the client device that the available upgrade is selected, updating, by the computer, the itinerary in accordance with the available upgrade to indicate the second vehicle having the reposition estimate associated with the at least one second degree of utilization, thereby reducing the reposition cost associated with the dead leg operation of the second vehicle, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes. For example, these limitations recite activity comprising observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Additionally, the limitations of generating a plurality of reposition estimates associated with at least one first degree of utilization indicative of capacity utilization rates for the plurality of vehicles of a plurality of service categories including the first service category for the first vehicle and one or more potential service categories based on executing a model in accordance with the itinerary, each reposition estimate indicating a cost for repositioning a vehicle to the first location of the itinerary and being determined based upon the first location of the itinerary, the second location of the itinerary, and a service category for the vehicle of the plurality of service categories for the plurality of vehicles; identifying as a second service category for a second vehicle of the transportation service, a potential service category having a reposition estimate associated with at least one second degree of utilization that is comparatively lower than the at least one first degree of utilization of the reposition estimates of the first service category for the first vehicle in the reservation request; generating an acceptance likelihood score that the user accepts the second service category for the second vehicle based on executing a second model using upgrade history data for the user stored in a database as input, the second model trained for generating the acceptance likelihood score using a plurality of training labels and training sets of travel data records corresponding to the plurality of training labels; and responsive to determining that the acceptance likelihood score satisfies a corresponding acceptance likelihood threshold, transmitting a message to the user to present an upgrade notification for display indicating an available upgrade to the itinerary to include the second service category, the available upgrade associated with the second vehicle that has a reposition cost indicating dead leg operation of the second vehicle, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mathematical concepts. For example, these limitations recite mathematical relationships and/or calculations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships, or managing interactions between people, it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper but for recitation of generic computer components, it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical relationships, mathematical formulae or equations, or mathematical calculations, it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a computer comprising one or more processors, a client device associated with a user which generates a graphical user interface, a plurality of vehicles, a demand reposition machine-learning architecture, a machine learning architecture, and a database. A computer comprising one or more processors, a client device associated with a user which generates a graphical user interface, a demand reposition machine-learning architecture, a machine learning architecture, and a database amount to no more than mere instructions to apply a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). A plurality of vehicles amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because they do not, individually or in combination, impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas. The claims are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply a judicial exception, and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use for the same reasons as discussed above in relation to integration into a practical application. These cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, when considering the additional elements alone and in combination, there is no inventive concept in the claims, and thus the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 2, 4-11, 13, and 15-20, describing various additional limitations to the method of Claim 1 and the system of Claim 12, amount to substantially the same unintegrated abstract idea as Claims 1 and 12 (upon which these claims depend, directly or indirectly) and are rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Claims 2 and 13 disclose determining, by the computer, an upgrade eligibility score for the user of the client device based upon the itinerary and one or more historic itineraries associated with the user stored in a database (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity, a mental process, and a mathematical concept); and determining, by the computer, that the upgrade eligibility score for the user satisfies a user eligibility threshold, wherein the computer transmits the upgrade notification based in part upon determining that the upgrade eligibility score for the user satisfies the user eligibility threshold (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity, a mental process, and a mathematical concept), which do not integrate the claims into a practical application.
Claims 4 and 15 disclose wherein determining, by the computer, the plurality of reposition estimates for the plurality of service categories includes: determining, by the computer, the reposition estimate of the first service category, based on first regional demands associated with the first service category (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity, a mental process, and a mathematical concept); determining, by the computer, the reposition estimate of one of the one or more potential service categories, based on second regional demands associated with the one of the one or more potential service categories (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity, a mental process, and a mathematical concept); and comparing, by the computer, the reposition estimate of the first service category and the reposition estimate of the one of the one or more potential service categories (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity, a mental process, and a mathematical concept), which do not integrate the claims into a practical application.
Claims 5 and 16 disclose wherein determining, by the computer, the plurality of reposition estimates for the plurality of service categories includes: determining, by the computer, whether the transportation service is scheduled within a predetermined number of dates (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity, a mental process, and a mathematical concept), which does not integrate the claims into a practical application.
Claims 6 and 17 disclose wherein, in response to determining that the transportation service is scheduled after the predetermined number of dates, determining, by the computer, the reposition estimate of the one of the one or more potential service categories includes: predicting, by the computer, the second regional demands for one or more flights in regions associated with the one of the one or more potential service categories based on prior flight records of the regions (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity, a mental process, and a mathematical concept); and determining, by the computer, the reposition estimate of the one of the one or more potential service categories based on the predicted second regional demands (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity, a mental process, and a mathematical concept), which do not integrate the claims into a practical application.
Claim 7 discloses wherein predicting, by the computer, the second regional demands for the one or more flights in the regions associated with the one of the one or more potential service categories based on the prior flight records of the regions is based on whether the transportation service is scheduled to occur during a particular day of a week, a particular week of a year, or during a holiday (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity, a mental process, and a mathematical concept), which does not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claims 8 and 18 disclose wherein, in response to determining that the transportation service is scheduled within the predetermined number of dates, determining, by the computer, the reposition estimate of the one of the one or more potential service categories includes: determining, by the computer, pending regional demands for one or more flights in regions associated with the one of the one or more potential service categories as the second regional demands (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process); determining, by the computer, a balance of the second regional demands (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity, a mental process, and a mathematical concept); and determining, by the computer, the reposition estimate of the one of the one or more potential service categories, based on the second regional demands (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity, a mental process, and a mathematical concept), which do not integrate the claims into a practical application.
Claims 9 and 19 disclose determining, by the computer, whether the user has rejected upgrade offers more than a threshold number of times within a time period (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity, a mental process, and a mathematical concept); and generating, by the computer, the upgrade notification, based at least on determining that the user has not rejected the upgrade offers more than the threshold number of times within the time period (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity, a mental process, and a mathematical concept), which do not integrate the claims into a practical application.
Claims 10 and 20 disclose generating, by the computer, the upgrade notification, based at least on determining that a first fare amount that the user would have paid for the second service category satisfies a threshold difference from a second fare amount of the second service category (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity), which does not integrate the claims into a practical application.
Claim 11 discloses determining, by the computer, the first fare amount that the user would have paid for the second service category, based on the travel history of the user (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity, a mental process, and a mathematical concept); determining, by the computer, the second fare amount of the second service category (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity, a mental process, and a mathematical concept); and comparing, by the computer, the first fare amount and the second fare amount (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity, a mental process, and a mathematical concept), which do not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Discussion of Prior Art Cited but Not Applied
For additional information on the state of the art regarding the claims of the present application, please see the following documents not applied in this Office Action (all of which are prior art to the present application):
PGPub 20100190510 – “Systems and Methods for Accessing Travel Services Using a Portable Electronic Device,” Maranhas et al, disclosing a system for determining and providing upgrade options to users
Luke, Determinants of Passenger Choice in the Domestic Airline Industry in South Africa, ProQuest Dissertations Publishing (2015), disclosing demand-based analysis of customer behavior as relates to flight options
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 MARK C CLARE whose telephone number is (571)272-8748. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30am-2:30pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey Zimmerman can be reached at (571) 272-4602. 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.
/MARK C CLARE/Examiner, Art Unit 3628 /MICHAEL P HARRINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628