DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/12/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This is in reply to the claim amendments and remarks of the RCE filed 6/12/2026.
Claims 1, 13, and 18 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 Amendments
The previously pending 35 USC 103 rejections have been withdrawn in response to Applicant’s claim amendments. Please see below for reasoning.
Applicant’s amendments have been fully considered, but do not overcome the previously pending 35 USC 101 rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the limitations of claims 1-20, Applicant argues that the claims are patent eligible under 35 USC 101 because the pending claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner has already set forth a prima facie case under 35 USC 101. The Examiner has clearly pointed out the limitations directed towards the abstract idea, what the additional elements are and why they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and why the additional elements and remaining limitations do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The Examiner asserts that automatically transmitting a display request to a human does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The Applicant’s claims are merely using a general-purpose computer to implement the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106) and merely add the words apply it with the judicial exception. Applicant does not properly identify the additional elements. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the computer is improved. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner notes that the recited hardware merely amount to general purpose computer hardware that is being used to implement the abstract idea (e.g. applies the weighted value to preferentially weight one or more prediction models comprising the determined difference below a threshold). Applicant does not properly identify the additional elements. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
The Examiner further notes that feedback is merely human input into the determinations, which further narrows the abstract idea. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible under 2B. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant does not properly identify the additional elements. The Examiner again asserts that running calculations on a general-purpose computer and outputting the results automatically does not improve the functioning of the computer, but rather merely uses the computer as a tool for implementing the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05). The automatic transmission of the dispatch request is merely displaying data for a human user to interpret and does not amount to significantly more. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter;
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
In the instant case (Step 1), claims 1-12 are directed toward a process, claims 18-20 are directed toward a product, and claims 13-17 are directed toward a system; which are statutory categories of invention.
Additionally (Step 2A Prong One), the independent claims are directed toward a roadside assistance provider selection system comprising: a processing device in communication with a network and receiving a roadside assistance request from a mobile device, the roadside assistance request comprising at least a geographic location; and a non-transitory database for a plurality of roadside assistance providers each associated with a corresponding service area; wherein the processing device executes one or more instructions that cause the processing device to perform the operations of: determining, based on the geographic location, a subset of roadside assistance providers associated with a service area corresponding to the roadside assistance request; calculating an estimated distance for each of the subset of roadside assistance providers based on the geographic location; receiving, based on the estimated distance for each of the subset of roadside assistance providers, one or more predicted values from a plurality of prediction models, wherein each of the one or more predicted values corresponds to an aspect of providing the requested roadside assistance and associated with each of the subset of roadside assistance providers; ranking the subset of roadside assistance providers based at least on one of the one or more predicted values from the plurality of prediction models; selecting, based on the ranked subset of roadside assistance providers, a roadside assistance provider to provide the requested roadside assistance in response to the roadside assistance request; transmitting a dispatch request comprising the roadside assistance request upon selection of the roadside assistance provider, wherein the processing device triggers dispatch of a roadside assistance vehicle associated with the selected roadside assistance provider by automatically transmitting the dispatch request to a system of the selected roadside assistance provider, wherein the system initiates deployment of the roadside assistance vehicle upon receipt of the dispatch request; monitoring a dispatch status of the roadside assistance vehicle and receiving feedback information comprising an actual value of the selected roadside assistance provider corresponding to the one or more predicted values; and adjusting, based on a comparison of the feedback information to the one or more predicted values, a weighted value assigned to each of the plurality of prediction models, wherein adjusting the weighted value comprises determining a difference between the actual value and a corresponding predicted value of the one or more predicted values and updating the weighted value based on the determined difference; and applying, the adjusted weighted values to preferentially weight the one or more prediction models of the plurality of prediction models comprising the determined difference below a threshold, wherein the processing device selects the one or more weighted prediction models for subsequent roadside assistance requests in the service area (Organizing Human Activity and Mental Processes), which are considered to be abstract ideas (See MPEP 2106). The steps/functions disclosed above and in the independent claims are directed toward the abstract idea of Organizing Human Activity because the claimed limitations are analyzing predicted values to rank roadside assistance providers based on prediction models and received feedback by applying weighted values to the prediction models to dispatch service providers to service provider requests, which is managing how humans interact for the commercial purpose of providing roadside assistance. The steps/functions disclosed above and in the independent claims are directed toward the abstract idea of Mental Processes because the claimed limitations are analyzing predicted values to rank roadside assistance providers based on prediction models and received feedback by applying weighted values to the prediction models to dispatch service providers to service provider requests, which can be done in the human mind.
Dependent claims 2-12, 14-17, and 19-20 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, where any additional elements introduced are discussed below.
Step 2A Prong Two: In this application, even if not directed toward the abstract idea, the independent claims additionally recite “a roadside assistance provider selection system comprising: a processing device in communication with a network; from a mobile device; and a non-transitory database for a plurality of roadside assistance providers; wherein the processing device executes one or more instructions that cause the processing device to perform the operations of: wherein the processing device triggers; to a system (claim 13)”; “by a computing device; at the computing device; by the computing device; wherein the computing device triggers; to a system (claim 1)”; “One or more tangible non-transitory computer-readable storage media storing computer-executable instructions for performing a computer process on a server of a network, the computer process comprising; by the server; at the server; wherein the server triggers to a system (claim 18)”, which are additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See MPEP 2106) and are recited at such a high level of generality. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements in the claims do no more than use the computer components as a tool. There is no change to the computer or other technology that is recited in the claim, and thus the claims do not improve computer functionality or other technology.
In addition, dependent claims 2-12, 14-17, and 19-20 further narrow the abstract idea and dependent claims 2-3, 10-12, and 17 additionally recite “vehicle (claims 2-3, 11, and 17)”; “a user of a communication device (claim 10)”; “a computing device associated with the one or more third-party entities (claim 12)”; “a user of the mobile device (claim 17)” which do not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See MPEP 2106) because it is recited at such a high level of generality.
Step 2B: When analyzing the additional element(s) and/or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se the claim limitations amount(s) to no more than: a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment and merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer (See MPEP 2106). Further, method; System; and Product Independent claims 1, 13, and 18 recite “a roadside assistance provider selection system comprising: a processing device in communication with a network; from a mobile device; and a non-transitory database for a plurality of roadside assistance providers; wherein the processing device executes one or more instructions that cause the processing device to perform the operations of: wherein the processing device triggers; to a system (claim 13)”; “by a computing device; at the computing device; by the computing device; wherein the computing device triggers; to a system (claim 1)”; “One or more tangible non-transitory computer-readable storage media storing computer-executable instructions for performing a computer process on a server of a network, the computer process comprising; by the server; at the server; wherein the server triggers to a system (claim 18)”; however, these elements merely facilitate the claimed functions at a high level of generality and they perform conventional functions and are considered to be general purpose computer components which is supported by Applicant’s specification in Paragraphs 0071-0076 and Figures 1 and 8. The Applicant’s claimed additional elements are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a general purpose computer and generally link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. When viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
In addition, claims 2-12, 14-17, and 19-20 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims. The Examiner notes that the dependent claims merely further define the data being analyzed and how the data is being analyzed. Similarly, claims 2-3, 10-12, and 17 additionally recite “vehicle (claims 2-3, 11, and 17)”; “a user of a communication device (claim 10)”; “a computing device associated with the one or more third-party entities (claim 12)”; “a user of the mobile device (claim 17)” which do not account for additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the claimed structure merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer and does not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (See MPEP 2106). The additional limitations of the independent and dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The examiner has considered the dependent claims in a full analysis including the additional limitations individually and in combination as analyzed in the independent claim(s). Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Allowable over 35 USC 103
Claims 1-20 are allowable over the prior art, but remain rejected under §101 for the reasons set forth above. Independent claims 1, 13, and 18 disclose a system, product, and method for analyzing predicted values to rank roadside assistance providers based on prediction models and received feedback by applying weighted values to the prediction models and then adjusting the weighted values based on a determined difference between the actual value and the predicted value to identify the best prediction model, which is then used to dispatch service providers to service provider requests.
Regarding a possible 103 rejection: The closest prior art of record is:
Gupta et al. (US 2023/0186250 A1) – which discloses vehicle service recommendation system (See citations from previous OA’s).
Balu et al. (US 2020/0184591 A1) – which discloses analyzing roadside assistance service vehicles in real time for dispatch reasons (See citations from previous OA’s).
Lee (US 11,507,988 B1) – which discloses providing a dynamic pricing system (See citations from previous OA’s).
The prior art of record neither teaches nor suggests all particulars of the limitations as recited in claims 1, 13, and 18, such as analyzing predicted values to rank roadside assistance providers based on prediction models and received feedback by applying weighted values to the prediction models and then adjusting the weighted values based on a determined difference between the actual value and the predicted value to identify the best prediction model, which is then used to dispatch service providers to service provider requests. While individual features may be known per se, there is no teaching or suggestion absent applicants’ own disclosure to combine these features other than with impermissible hindsight and the combination/arrangement of features are not found in analogous art, where the determined difference being compared to a threshold for selecting a model in combination with the other roadside assistance calculations for dispatching the service provider is not taught by the prior art. Specifically the claimed “a roadside assistance provider selection system comprising: a processing device in communication with a network and receiving a roadside assistance request from a mobile device, the roadside assistance request comprising at least a geographic location; and a non-transitory database for a plurality of roadside assistance providers each associated with a corresponding service area; wherein the processing device executes one or more instructions that cause the processing device to perform the operations of: determining, based on the geographic location, a subset of roadside assistance providers associated with a service area corresponding to the roadside assistance request; calculating an estimated distance for each of the subset of roadside assistance providers based on the geographic location; receiving, based on the estimated distance for each of the subset of roadside assistance providers, one or more predicted values from a plurality of prediction models, wherein each of the one or more predicted values corresponds to an aspect of providing the requested roadside assistance and associated with each of the subset of roadside assistance providers; ranking the subset of roadside assistance providers based at least on one of the one or more predicted values from the plurality of prediction models; selecting, based on the ranked subset of roadside assistance providers, a roadside assistance provider to provide the requested roadside assistance in response to the roadside assistance request; transmitting a dispatch request comprising the roadside assistance request upon selection of the roadside assistance provider, wherein the processing device triggers dispatch of a roadside assistance vehicle associated with the selected roadside assistance provider by automatically transmitting the dispatch request to a system of the selected roadside assistance provider, wherein the system initiates deployment of the roadside assistance vehicle upon receipt of the dispatch request; monitoring a dispatch status of the roadside assistance vehicle and receiving feedback information comprising an actual value of the selected roadside assistance provider corresponding to the one or more predicted values; and adjusting, based on a comparison of the feedback information to the one or more predicted values, a weighted value assigned to each of the plurality of prediction models, wherein adjusting the weighted value comprises determining a difference between the actual value and a corresponding predicted value of the one or more predicted values and updating the weighted value based on the determined difference; and applying, the adjusted weighted values to preferentially weight the one or more prediction models of the plurality of prediction models comprising the determined difference below a threshold, wherein the processing device selects the one or more weighted prediction models for subsequent roadside assistance requests in the service area (as required by independent claims 1, 13, and 18)”, thus rendering claims 1, 13, 18 and their dependent claims as allowable over the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, but not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure is listed on the attached PTO-892 and should be taken into account / considered by the Applicant upon reviewing this office action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW D HENRY whose telephone number is (571)270-0504. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 9AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, BRIAN EPSTEIN can be reached on (571)-270-5389. 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.
/MATTHEW D HENRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights