DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The following is a Final Office action in response to the response received 2/19/2026. Claims 1, 7, 10, and 15-16, have been amended. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
Information Disclosure Statements received 1/30/2026 have been reviewed and considered.
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 Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and associated arguments, filed 2/19/2026, regarding the rejection of claims 7 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The associated rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments and associated arguments, filed 2/19/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. §101 have been considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the limitations are not directed to an abstract idea (integrated into a practical application and/or significantly more than the abstract idea itself) because they “amount to a system that surfaces elements on an interactive map to allow a provider device to determine accurate and sufficient information without requiring the provider device to glean information while comparing transportation requests through multiple interfaces.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. As recited, the claims recite the display of an interactive digital map comprising selectable elements, but does not require the elements be presented simultaneously or preclude the need for interaction with an element to see each of the selectable elements (zoom in/out, swipe between elements positioned at the bottom of the map, etc.). In response to Applicant’s arguments directed to Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L., v. LG Electronics, Inc., (Fed. Cir. 2018), the claimed invention under consideration disclosed a specific manner of displaying a limited set of information to the user, that specifies a particular manner by which a summary window must be accessed and requires that the device applications exist in a particular state. The instant claims, however, utilize conventional user interface methods to display generic information on a well-known interactive interface. Examiner suggests Applicant amend the claims to more specifically characterize the construct of the interface, such as specific placement of the selectable elements on the interactive map, the design of the selectable element, consideration for map zoom level, etc. based on disclosure in the specification.
Applicant’s amendments and associated arguments, filed 2/19/2026, with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been considered and are persuasive. The associated rejection of the claims has been withdrawn.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test entails considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Claims 1-20 are directed to a method (process), a system (machine or manufacture), and a non-transitory medium (manufacture), respectively. As such, the claims are directed to statutory categories of invention.
If the claim recites a statutory category of invention, the claim requires further analysis in Step 2A. Step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
Claim 1 recites abstract limitations, including those identified in bold below:
A method comprising: receiving, at a transportation matching system, a set of transportation requests from requestor devices; selecting between a multi-request transportation model that selects a plurality of transportation requests to provide to a provider computing device and a single-request transportation model that selects a single transportation request to provide to the provider computing device based on elapsed times corresponding to the set of transportation requests; utilizing the multi-request transportation model to select the plurality of transportation requests from the set of transportation requests to provide to the provider computing device by comparing transportation routes for the set of transportation requests to a location of the provider computing device; providing, for display on the provider computing device, an interactive digital map comprising selectable elements, the selectable elements indicating the plurality of transportation requests with each selectable element including information corresponding to a respective transportation request of the plurality of transportation requests; and in response to receiving a selection of a selectable element of the selectable elements, transmitting navigation instructions to the provider computing device to a pickup location of a transportation request corresponding to the selectable element.
Claims 10 and 16 recite analogous abstract limitations.
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, represents a process for managing relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, such as rideshare coordination) and are therefore a method of organizing human activity. More specifically, other than the recitation of the system computing elements, nothing in the claim element precludes the abstract steps recited above from practically being performed by a human. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
If the claim recites a judicial exception in step 2A Prong One , the claim requires further analysis in step 2A Prong Two. In step 2A Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
Claim 1 recites additional elements, including those identified underlined below:
A method comprising: receiving, at a transportation matching system, a set of transportation requests from requestor devices; selecting between a multi-request transportation model that selects a plurality of transportation requests to provide to a provider computing device and a single-request transportation model that selects a single transportation request to provide to the provider computing device based on elapsed times corresponding to the set of transportation requests; utilizing the multi-request transportation model to select the plurality of transportation requests from the set of transportation requests to provide to the provider computing device by comparing transportation routes for the set of transportation requests to a location of the provider computing device; providing, for display on the provider computing device, an interactive digital map comprising selectable elements, the selectable elements indicating the plurality of transportation requests with each selectable element including information corresponding to a respective transportation request of the plurality of transportation requests; and in response to receiving a selection of a selectable element of the selectable elements, transmitting navigation instructions to the provider computing device to a pickup location of a transportation request corresponding to the selectable element.
Claim 10 recites additional elements, including those identified underlined below:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by at least one processor…
Claim 16 recites additional elements, including those identified underlined below:
A system comprising: at least one processor; and at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to…
The data processing functions of the transportation matching system, non-transitory computer readable medium and system comprising at least one processor and a non-transitory medium are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The functions of receiving and transmitting data by the transportation matching system, requestor device and the provider computing device amount to extra-solution activity.
The functions of displaying information by the provider computing device also amount to extra-solution activity.
Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
If the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application in step 2A Prong Two, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception, and requires further analysis under Step 2B to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).
As indicated above, the data processing functions of the recited computing elements amount to mere instructions to apply the exception. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).
As indicated above, the functions of receiving and transmitting data by the transportation matching system, requestor device and the provider computing device amount to extra-solution activity. The Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs. and buySAFE court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere receiving or transmitting data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
As indicated above, the functions of displaying information by the provider computing device also amount to extra-solution activity. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. In addition, Forlenza (US 20060229806) discloses common selectable elements of an interactive map (see Fig. 3, [0023]).
Furthermore, the specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the aforementioned additional elements as it describes them as well-understood or routine or conventional (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, or in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. §112(a).
Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
The various limitations of dependent claims 2-9, 11-15 and 17-20 merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations (the selection of providers for receiving requests based on various models/variables, etc.), without introducing any further additional elements (only re-reciting the elements addressed with respect to the independent claims above, such as sending/receiving information between devices, displaying selectable elements for receiving input, etc.). For the reasons described above with respect to claims 1, 10 and 16, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 currently stand rejected under 35 USC 101 but would be allowable should these rejections be overcome.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Previously applied prior art, Brinig (US 20180159921), generally discloses [0010][0045] the receipt of multiple requests, [00290] [0031] [0047] the ability to select between single and multi-request models, the matching candidate providers based on route and provider location, [0057] where the service provider location is based on provider’s device location, [0020] each provider may receive a plurality of requests, [0020] displaying a plurality of requests to accept, of which the requests are shown and accepted through a provider app [0056]-[0057], and [0016] navigation instructions after acceptance, [0041] showing mapping information is transmitted.
Previously applied prior art, Fong (US 20200126175), [0092] shows the system using an exclusive single-request model (FIG. 5 illustrates an exemplary environment 500 in which the transportation matching system 102 provides a scheduled transportation request, with temporary exclusive access, to a transportation provider after selecting the transportation provider from a dataset of transportation providers) until, as per [0097], [0118] the system uses a multi-request model after a threshold amount of time has passed, and as per [0103] Fig. 6C, the matching system can provide and display multiple available transportation requests to a provider.
Newly identified prior art, Guo (US 20160138928) and Cao (US 20160364679), generally discloses real-time carpool matching where service providers receive multiple requests simultaneously.
While the aforementioned references disclose each of the elements of the invention, the combination of references does not fully capture the structure and interplay of the elements as recited in the claims. Therefore, upon review of the evidence at hand, it is hereby concluded that the evidence obtained and made of record, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, nor renders obvious all the features of applicant’s invention as the features amount to more than a predictable use of elements in the prior art.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABBY J FLYNN whose telephone number is (571)272-9855. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30-5:00.
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, James Trammell can be reached at (571) 272-6712. 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.
/ABBY J FLYNN/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights