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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for National Stage under 35 U.S.C. 371 and foreign priority. The certified copies of parent Application PCT/SG2022/050250, filed on 04/27/2022, and parent Application SG10202104668R, filed on 05/05/2021, have been entered on 07/10/2023.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-10, and 12 were rejected in the Non-Final Office action mailed on 10/23/2025. Applicant’s amended claimset, entered on 01/21/2026, amended Claims 1, 4, 6-7, 9-10, and 12. Herein this Final Office Action, Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-10, and 12 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 01/21/2026, with respect to Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 for Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-10, and 12, have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
On Pages 7-9, Applicant submits arguments related to Step 2A: Prong One. Generally, Examiner notes that Step 2A, as a whole, asks whether the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea (i.e. judicial exception). MPEP 2106.III. Prong One first asks if the claim merely “recites” an abstract idea. MPEP 2106.04. Then, if the claim recites an abstract idea, Prong Two asks if they claim recites “additional elements” that integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application, by, for example, providing an improvement to technology or using a particular machine. MPEP 2106.04. Although under the Step 2A: Prong One heading, much of Applicant’s arguments relate to the question of whether the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea or whether the additional elements integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application (e.g. provide an improvement to technology). Examiner will respond to the substance of the arguments, even if the context or heading is mis-applied.
On Pages 7-8, Applicant argues that the amended claims applies computations in a “structured and integrated way that results in an improvement to vehicle dispatching systems. . . . This improves the functioning of vehicle routing and dispatch systems by enabling real-time generation of optimized routes through efficient grouping of bookings and caching of groupability values. By reducing repeated memory access and constraining the heuristic VRP solver to execute within a strict two-second limit, the method lowers computational overhead and ensures scalability for large number of bookings. Further, the iterative VRP solver leverages decoded pick-up and drop-off data packets to compute optimized routes, while ungroupable bookings are seamlessly appended without disrupting the generated optimized route. As a result, the method enhances processor performance, supports real-time responsiveness, and delivers final vehicle routes directly to driver devices for execution by re-routing to the final route, thereby improving overall dispatch accuracy and operational reliability.” Examiner does not agree.
MPEP 2106.05(a) states “In determining patent eligibility, examiners should consider whether the claim ‘purport(s) to improve the functioning of the computer itself’ or ‘any other technology or technical field.’”
MPEP 2106.05(a) states “[T]he claim must be evaluated to ensure the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement in technology. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1316, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (patent owner argued that the claimed email filtering system improved technology by shrinking the protection gap and mooting the volume problem, but the court disagreed because the claims themselves did not have any limitations that addressed these issues). That is, the claim must include the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement . . .”
As shown in the 112(b) section below, the “real-time” nature of the determining, “decoded pick-up and drop-off [data packets],” and “re-routing” of the driver are limitations that are rejected as being indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). As the claim is written, there are no limitations related to the storing or decoding of the groupable routes that are searched by the VRP solver in any specific type of memory. Therefore, the claim cannot provide an improved, more efficient, method of accessing that stored data. Additionally, the “responsiveness” of the generation of the final vehicle route, and the re-routing of the driver, are not embodied by the claims due to the indefiniteness of the claim limitations. Therefore, because the mechanism of the asserted improvement is not included in the claim, the claim cannot provide the asserted patent eligible improvement in dispatch and operation of the vehicles.
On Pages 8-9, Applicant argues “The claimed vehicle routing computer-implemented method adaptively generates optimized vehicle routes by pre-computing groupability values for booking combinations of only groupable bookings, caching the groupability values in cache memory to reduce repeated memory access, and applying a heuristic VRP solver only on groupable bookings within a strict two-second time limit. The VRP solver iteratively searches decoded pick-up and drop-off data packets of groupable bookings to generate an optimized initial route, while ungroupable bookings are appended seamlessly to the optimized route without requiring any re-computation. Therefore, the method provides real-time route generation that reduces computational overhead and ensures responsiveness for largescale dispatch systems. The final route requires accessing data from cache memory and data processing making independent claim 1 a process that is beyond mere organizing human activity or mathematical calculations. See Application, paragraphs [0009] and [0045]. This multi-step method operates in a structured, algorithmic manner within a computerized environment, solving a concrete technical problem: improving vehicle routing efficiency by reducing computational overhead and enabling real-time optimized route generation. Amended independent claim 1 recites an efficient computer-implemented method for generating optimized vehicle route by caching groupability values, applying a heuristic VRP solver under strict time limits and only on groupable bookings, and transmitting the final route to driver devices such that the transmission causes re-routing of the vehicles as per the final route. The claimed method is not directed to "certain methods of organizing human activity" or a mere mathematical concept, nor does it manage interpersonal relationships, social interactions, or behavioral rules. Instead, the claimed method steps are performed by a microprocessor, rooted in data processing that results in a technological improvement in vehicle dispatch and navigation technologies. The claimed method steps do not merely automate a human dispatcher's decision-making process by assigning vehicles to bookings. Rather, the steps introduce a novel computational framework for route optimization that accounts for real-time computational constraints and memory efficiency, thereby improving scalability, responsiveness, and accuracy in vehicle routing systems, and are not mere mathematical concepts nor certain methods of organizing human activity.” Examiner does not agree.
MPEP 2106.05(a) states “[T]he claim must be evaluated to ensure the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement in technology. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1316, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (patent owner argued that the claimed email filtering system improved technology by shrinking the protection gap and mooting the volume problem, but the court disagreed because the claims themselves did not have any limitations that addressed these issues). That is, the claim must include the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement . . .”
Examiner responds that, although the amended limitations related to “real-time” determining and “re-routing” a driver could have been intended to include a continual process that would require repeated access to the groupability value stored in the cache, these limitation are rejected as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Thus, the claim only require a single retrieval of groupability values from the cache. Therefore, the claimed “cache” is used just as any memory is used, to store a value and retrieve that value. Put another way, advantages of the cache are not integrated with the abstract idea.
MPEP 2106.05(a) states “If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology.”
Examiner responds that Specification ¶9 and ¶45 merely recite an improvement in a “conclusory manner,” i.e. asserting a technical advantage without sufficient technical explanation as to how that advantage is achieved. Examiner concedes that Applicant’s specification may recite a technical explanation. For Example, although not examined, Specification ¶23 indicates that the groupability value is reused in the search process. However, such aspect is not claimed or examined.
MPEP 2106.05(f).II states “However, 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.”
Examiner responds that the claims are not “rooted” in technology, but instead use the additional elements in their ordinary capacity (e.g. using memory to receive and store data). The claims do not demonstrate a complex multi-step algorithm that involves the additional elements beyond their use as generic computer components. As stated in the rejection section below, solving a “Vehicle Routing Problem” is a field of mathematics. The operation of pre-filtering inputs to the VRP Solver to reduce time need for the calculation, are advancements in the field of mathematics that could be implemented and realized, with, or without, a generic computer used in its ordinary capacity. Put plainly, merely executing simpler math on a computer does not necessitate a patent eligible improvement due to gained “efficiency” in computation. Additionally, the arrangement of the additional elements, taken as a whole does not rise to the level of a patent eligible “particular machine” under MPEP 2106.05(b) (See, e.g., Versata Development Group v. SAP America, 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (explaining that in order for a machine to add significantly more, it must "play a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed, rather than function solely as an obvious mechanism for permitting a solution to be achieved more quickly").).
Additionally, Examiner responds that the claims do not recite an improvement in a vehicle dispatching system by “real-time” route determination that re-routes a vehicle in “real-time,” based on the indefinite limitations rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and discussed in greater detail above.
On Page 9, Applicant submits that the claims are not “directed to” an abstract idea. Examiner does not agree as discussed in greater detail above.
On Pages 9-11, Applicant submits arguments related to Step 2A Prong Two. As stated above, responding to Applicant’s arguments related to Step 2A Prong One, Step 2A, as a whole, asks whether the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea (i.e. judicial exception), and Prong Two asks if they claim recites “additional elements” that integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application, by, for example, providing an improvement to technology or using a particular machine. MPEP 2106.04. Therefore, a determination that the additional elements integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application in Prong Two IS a determination that the claim is NOT directed to an abstract idea in Step 2A. Examiner will respond to the substance of the arguments, even if the context or heading is mis-applied.
On Pages 9-10, Applicant argues that the claims are analogous to PEG Example 40 Claim 1, which collects an analyzes network data to provide an improvement in network monitoring. Applicant argues, “Claim 1 of Example 40 not only collects data but utilizes the collected data to analyze the cause of abnormal condition for traffic volume on the network and hindrance of network performance. Similarly, amended independent claim 1 goes beyond mere organizing human activity and merely calculating cost ratios. Instead, the claimed method pre-computes groupability values for booking combinations, and caches the groupability values in cache memory to reduce repeated access. Further, the method applies a heuristic vehicle routing problem (VRP) solver under real-time constraints to groupable bookings to generate optimized routes and later appends un-groupable bookings to the optimized routes to produce a final vehicle route basis which a driver vehicle is rerouted.” Examiner does not agree.
Examiner responds that, as discussed above, the use of the “cache” in the claims does not include “repeated access” to the stored data as disclosed in Specification ¶23, but instead merely “stor[es]” data that is “retrieved.” Additionally, the claims make no limitation as to data stored in “non-cache” memory, which could demonstrate a particular configuration of to the data storage per MPEP 2106.05(b), although not examined.
Examiner responds that, as discussed above, the “real-time” and “re-routing” limitations were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite. The interpretation used for examination purposes herein does not include patent eligible subject matter.
Examiner responds that the instant claims are distinguishable from PEG 40 Claim 1 because PEG 40 Claim 1 recites a specific configuration of the “network appliance” between computing devices, and the “network appliance” collects specific types network data, analyzes the collected data, and then based on the analysis, collects additional data of a specific type, which provides a specific improvement in network monitoring. The recited abstract idea in the instant claims is, in part, a mathematical concept being executed by the computer, not the mental process of observing and evaluating computer network activity, as in PEG 40 Claim 1. Thus, Examiner’s determination that Applicant’s claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application are not in conflict with PEG 40 Claim 1 integrating the abstract idea into a practical application.
On Page 11, Applicant argues “Amended independent claim 1 reflects "an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field," and is not limited to a certain method of organizing human activities or mathematical concepts, nor does it apply generic computer components to abstract concepts. Instead, amended independent claim 1 recites a detailed workflow that leverages caching, iterative VRP solver execution, and communication interfaces to adaptively generate an optimized route within a two-second time limit to re-route a driver vehicle to re-route to the final route. This integration of caching and heuristic VRP solver execution enables a dispatch system or navigation engine to adapt to real-time computational constraints and large-scale booking volumes. Further, instead of simply identifying past traffic patterns or static routes, the claimed microprocessor generates optimized routes in real-time by executing a VRP solver based on precomputed groupability values. The generated routes provide accurate and efficient dispatch outcomes, actionable insights for large volume of bookings, and improved scalability because computational overheads are drastically reduced by re-using cached data to predict efficient routing patterns across a network. See Application, paragraphs [0009] and [0045].” Examiner does not agree.
MPEP 2106.05(f) states “When determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, examiners may consider the following: (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. . . . By way of example, in Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 121 USPQ2d 1940 (Fed. Cir. 2017), the steps in the claims described "the creation of a dynamic document based upon ‘management record types’ and ‘primary record types.’" 850 F.3d at 1339-40; 121 USPQ2d at 1945-46. The claims were found to be directed to the abstract idea of "collecting, displaying, and manipulating data." 850 F.3d at 1340; 121 USPQ2d at 1946. In addition to the abstract idea, the claims also recited the additional element of modifying the underlying XML document in response to modifications made in the dynamic document. 850 F.3d at 1342; 121 USPQ2d at 1947-48. Although the claims purported to modify the underlying XML document in response to modifications made in the dynamic document, nothing in the claims indicated what specific steps were undertaken other than merely using the abstract idea in the context of XML documents. The court thus held the claims ineligible, because the additional limitations provided only a result-oriented solution and lacked details as to how the computer performed the modifications, which was equivalent to the words "apply it". 850 F.3d at 1341-42; 121 USPQ2d at 1947-48 (citing Electric Power Group., 830 F.3d at 1356, 1356, USPQ2d at 1743-44 (cautioning against claims "so result focused, so functional, as to effectively cover any solution to an identified problem")).” (Emphasis added).
MPEP 2106.05(f) states “(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) . . . does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.” (Emphasis added).
MPEP 2106.05(f) states “(3) The particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. A claim having broad applicability across many fields of endeavor may not provide meaningful limitations that integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more. For instance, a claim that generically recites an effect of the judicial exception or claims every mode of accomplishing that effect, amounts to a claim that is merely adding the words "apply it" to the judicial exception. See Internet Patents Corporation v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (The recitation of maintaining the state of data in an online form without restriction on how the state is maintained and with no description of the mechanism for maintaining the state describes "the effect or result dissociated from any method by which maintaining the state is accomplished" and does not provide a meaningful limitation because it merely states that the abstract idea should be applied to achieve a desired result). See also O’Reilly v. Morse, 56 U.S. 62 (1854) (finding ineligible a claim for "the use of electromagnetism for transmitting signals at a distance"); The Telephone Cases, 126 U.S. 1, 209 (1888) (finding a method of "transmitting vocal or other sound telegraphically ... by causing electrical undulations, similar in form to the vibrations of the air accompanying the said vocal or other sounds," to be ineligible, because it "monopolize[d] a natural force" and "the right to avail of that law by any means whatever.").” (Emphasis added).
Examiner responds that the claims do not recite a detailed workflow of the operations of the additional elements. The majority of the details relate to the abstract idea that is merely being applied with the additional element in their ordinary capacity. The additional elements are used in their ordinary capacity to receive, store, and transmit data. As discussed above, the timing of some of the claimed operations, and how they interface with the additional elements, are determined to be indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Although discussed in greater detail in the rejection section below, it is unclear as to the scope of when the determination of the final route occurs (i.e. in “real-time”), and the scope of the re-routing of the vehicle (i.e. asserted “adaptive” generation). Thus, the claims do not recite a patent eligible improvement as the claims are analogous to the case law cited and Emphasized in MPEP 2106.05(f) above.
Additionally, Examiner responds that the claims do not include “re-us[e]” of cached data and Specification ¶9 and ¶45 merely assert a technical improvement in an ineligible “conclusory manner” per MPEP 2106.05(a).
On Page 11, Applicant submits that the claims include additional elements that integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application. Examiner does not agree as discussed in greater detail above.
On Pages 11-14, Applicant submits arguments related to Step 2B.
On Pages 11-12, Applicant argues that the rejection should be withdrawn in light of the BASCOM decision. In Step 2B, the additional elements should be considered “’. . . in combination, as well as individually, when determining whether a claim as a whole amounts to significantly more, as this may be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional elements.’” Applicant argues that “. . . the ‘additional elements’ add ‘a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application.’” Applicant concludes that “Independent claim 1 amounts to ‘significantly more’ at least because the ‘additional elements’ add ‘a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application.’ The elements claimed in amended independent claim 1 are not well-understood, routine or conventional in the field because nobody has, before this application, . . . The claimed additional elements qualify as ‘significantly more’ not only because they are not generic computer functions, but also because they add specific limitations that are unconventional. As the Federal Circuit elaborated in BASCOM, ‘[t]he inventive concept inquiry requires more than recognizing that each claim element, by itself, was known in the art ... An inventive concept can be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces.’” Examiner does not agree.
MPEP 2106.05.I.A states “Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include: i. Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)); . . .”
Examiner responds that the rejection was not based on a determination that the elements were “well-understood, routine, or convention” per MPEP 2106.05(d). As shown in MPEP 2106.05.I.A, there are multiple justifications that can be relied upon to determine that the elements do not provide “significantly more,” including MPEP 2106.05(f) (“apply it”), which Examiner relies upon, in part, in the determination that the claims do not provide significantly more in Step 2B.
Additionally, Examiner does look at the claims “as a whole” and the elements “in combination.” As discussed in greater detail in the rejection section below, the additional elements in combination describe generic computer components, e.g. microprocessor and memory, used in their ordinary capacity to execute calculations and store and transmit data.
On Page 13, Applicant argues, “Conventionally, vehicle routing systems attempt to solve the vehicle routing problem (VRP) by exhaustively computing optimized routes across all bookings, often relying on static heuristics or batch processing. Such systems typically treat all bookings uniformly, without distinguishing between those that can be efficiently grouped and those that cannot. The complexity of constraint validation in conventional VRP increases with the length of routes. In large-scale VRP, this leads to exponential growth in computation time, making heuristic algorithms unsuitable for real-time computation. As a result, conventional approaches suffer from excessive computational overhead, delays in route generation, and limited scalability when handling large volumes of bookings. See Application, paragraphs [0002] and [0021]. In contrast, amended independent claim 1 recites a non-conventional computer-implemented method executed by a microprocessor and memory that performs a series of structured, interdependent steps such as encoding bookings in data packets, estimating groupability values by calculating cost ratios, caching groupability values for reuse to reduce repeated memory access, and identifying groupable versus ungroupable bookings based on the cached values. The method then executes a heuristic VRP solver solely on the groupable bookings within a strict two-second time limit, performing iterative searches on decoded pick-up and drop-off locations to generate an optimized initial route. Ungroupable bookings are then seamlessly appended to the optimized initial route. Finally, the optimized route is transmitted via a communication interface to a driver device, such that the transmission results in re-routing the driver vehicle based on the final route. The calculation of cost ratio in isolation may appear as mathematical calculation. However, the mathematical calculations are tied to practical application that improves the functioning of a computer or a computer related technology. This unconventional arrangement of computational workflow, as emphasized in BASCOM, amounts to "significantly more" than an abstract idea of mental processes or a certain method of organizing human activities or mathematical concepts. It provides a specific technical solution that improves the functioning of dispatch servers and navigation systems by reducing computational overhead and enabling real time responsiveness in vehicle route generation, thus saving processing resources and improving operational reliability.” Examiner does not agree.
MPEP 2106.05(d) states “Another consideration when determining whether a claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception is whether the additional element(s) are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry.” (Emphasis added).
MPEP 2106.05(a).II states “To show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) for more information about mere instructions to apply an exception.”
Examiner responds that the pre-filtering of bookings used in the iterative search is a part of the abstract idea. The “well-understood, routine, conventional activities” analyzed in MPEP 2106.05(d) applies to the activities of the additional elements. Therefore, even if the mathematics used to solve the vehicle routing problem (i.e. calculating groupability value and then filtering booking used in iterative search) in the claims is novel, non-obvious, or unconventional, the use of the additional elements would not necessarily be determined to not be “well-understood, routine, conventional activities.”
Examiner responds that, as discussed above, and although Examiner concedes that the specification could include a technical improvement, the claimed use of the additional elements does not include a patent eligible “improvement” under MPEP 2106.05(a), but instead merely recite generic computer components used in their ordinary capacity to apply the abstract idea under MPEP 2106.05(f), without significantly more. The claims do not provide enough detail related to the operation of the computer components in applying the abstract idea on a computer for Examiner to conclude that the claims provide an unconventional arrangement of computational workflow.
Additionally, in light of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), the limitations regarding “re-rout[ing]” a vehicle, and “encod[ing]” / “decod[ing]” data, as interpreted herein, do not recite a patent eligible improvement.
On Pages 13-14, Applicant submits that the claims qualify as “significantly more,” and therefore are patent eligible. Examiner does not agree as discussed in greater detail above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1, the claim is rejected based on multiple justifications shown below.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein the heuristic VRP solver performs an iterative search on possible combinations of the decoded pick-up and drop-off locations of the booking to generate the optimized route;” (emphasis added) at the end of the third to last paragraph. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 recites “obtaining, a plurality of bookings, each booking of the plurality of bookings comprising a pick-up and a drop-off location encoded in a data packet;” in the second paragraph, but does not include any further limitation as to how, when, or if, the “pick-up” and “drop-off” “locations” become “decoded.” Thus, there is a lack of antecedent basis for “the decoded pick-up and drop-off locations,” and the claim is rejected as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Solely for examination purposes herein, in support of compact prosecution, this limitation is interpreted as reciting “wherein the heuristic VRP solver performs an iterative search on possible combinations of the pick-up and drop-off locations of the booking to generate the optimized route.”
Claim 1 recites the limitations “determining the initial vehicle route in real time by executing heuristic vehicle routing problem (VRP) solver solely on the groupable bookings within an allotted time limit of less than two (2) seconds, wherein the VRP solver determines an optimized route given the groupable bookings, wherein the heuristic VRP solver performs an iterative search on possible combinations of the decoded pick-up and drop-off locations of the booking to generate the optimized route;” (emphasis added) in the third to last paragraph. The scope of the limitation of “in real time” is unclear, and therefore indefinite, as there are multiple reasonable interpretations of the scope of this limitation. First, the limitation of determining the initial vehicle route “in real time” seems to be in conflict with the limitation that the determination is made by executing the VRP solver in “less than two (2) seconds.” It could be interpreted that the “real time” of the determination is in reference to the execution of the VRP Solver, i.e. as the solver proceeds through the allotted time limit, portions of the initial vehicle route are determined. It could be interpreted that the “real time” of the determination is in reference to the conclusion of VRP solver, i.e. upon conclusion of the VRP solver, the initial vehicle route is immediately determined. Second, the VRP solver is applied to the “groupable bookings.” It could be interpreted that the “real time” of the determination is in reference to (1) receiving a booking, (2) determining a booking is groupable, or (3) some decoding or other memory operation of information related to the bookings to be applied to the solver. Third, it could be interpreted that the “real time” of the determination is intended to demonstrate a continual nature of the determination, i.e. that the determination occurs constantly, and is updated at every epoch of the VRP solver. However, this interpretation would make the limitation of “prior to determining an initial vehicle route, estimating, for each combination of two bookings of the plurality of bookings, a groupability value by determining a cost ratio of the combination as a ratio of the cost of the combination to the sum of the cost of the two bookings taken separately,” (emphasis added) at third paragraph indefinite, as there would be no “prior” to this continuous determination. Thus, because of the multiple interpretations, Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite. Solely for examination purposes herein, in support of compact prosecution, this limitation is interpreted as reciting “determining the initial vehicle route by executing a heuristic vehicle routing problem (VRP) solver solely on the groupable bookings within an allotted time limit of less than two (2) seconds, wherein the VRP solver determines an optimized route given the groupable bookings, . . .”
Claim 1 recites the limitation “transmitting the final vehicle route via a communication interface to a driver device for execution of the final vehicle route, wherein the transmission results in re-routing of a driver vehicle based on the final vehicle route” (emphasis added) at the last paragraph. It is unclear how the “re-”routing of the driver is to be interpreted. First, if the “re-routing” is merely in reference “a” routing of the driver, this limitation would lack antecedent basis of “a routing” that is now “re-”routed, and would result in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Second, the “re-”routing may be intended to include a limitation that the previously claimed “initial vehicle route” is transmitted to the “driver device.” Thus, the transmission of the “final vehicle route” would result in a “re-routing” of the vehicle. However, this interpretation would still be unclear (and most likely unreasonable), as there are multiple instances that the transmission could occur, evidenced by the indefinite nature of “determining the initial vehicle route in real time . . .” discussed in the rejection above. Because the scope of the limitation is unclear, Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite. Solely for examination purposes herein, in support of compact prosecution, this limitation is interpreted as reciting “wherein the transmission results in routing of a driver vehicle based on the final vehicle route.”
Regarding independent Claims 6 and 12, these claims recite limitations that are substantially similar to the limitations rejected in Claim 1 above. Therefore, Claims 6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) based on a similar justification to Claim 1 discussed above.
Regarding dependent Claims 2, 4-5, 7, 9, and 10, these claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) via dependency.
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, 4-7, 9-10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-2 and 4-5 recite a method (i.e. a process), Claims 6-7 and 9-10 recite a system (i.e. a machine or manufacture), and Claim 12 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium (i.e. a machine or manufacture), and. Therefore, Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-10, and 12 all fall within the one of the four statutory categories of invention of 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 2A, Prong One
Independent Claim 1 recites the abstract idea of:
“. . . obtaining, a plurality of bookings, each booking of the plurality of bookings comprising a pick-up and a drop-off location . . .;
prior to determining an initial vehicle route, estimating, for each combination of two bookings of the plurality of bookings, a groupability value by determining a cost ratio of the combination as a ratio of the cost of the combination to the sum of the cost of the two bookings taken separately,
wherein a higher groupability value represents a lower cost ratio below a pre-determined threshold, and a lower groupability value represents a higher cost ratio above the pre-determined threshold;
storing the groupability values . . . for reuse during vehicle route determination;
identifying, based on the groupability value . . . , all bookings that are not groupable to any other booking of the plurality of bookings due to all associated cost ratios exceeding the pre-determined threshold, as ungroupable bookings;
identifying, based on the groupability value . . . , all bookings that are groupable to at least one other booking of the plurality of bookings due to at least one associated cost ratio below the pre- determined threshold, as groupable bookings;
determining the initial vehicle route in real time by executing heuristic a vehicle routing problem (VRP) solver solely on the groupable bookings within an allotted time limit of less than two (2) seconds, wherein the VRP solver determines an optimized route given the groupable bookings, wherein the heuristic VRP solver performs an iterative search on possible combinations of the . . . pick-up and drop-off locations of the booking to generate the optimized route;
adding the ungroupable bookings to the initial vehicle route as isolated pick-up and drop-off routes appended to the optimized route to produce a final vehicle route including a sequence of pick-up locations and drop-off locations; and
transmitting the final vehicle route . . . to a driver . . . for execution of the final vehicle route, wherein the transmission results in re-routing of a driver vehicle based on the final vehicle route.”
The limitations stated above are processes/ functions that under broadest reasonable interpretation covers (1) obtaining bookings, (2) estimating a groupability factor for each combination of bookings using cost ratios before determining an initial vehicle route, (3) storing the groupability values for later user, (4) identifying bookings as groupable or not groupable by applying a threshold to the cost ratios, (5) determining an route initial route using a VRP solver to optimize route given the groupable bookings within two seconds by iteratively searching pick-up and drop-off locations, (6) adding the ungroupable bookings as isolated pick-up and drop-off routes to create a final route, appending the optimized route, and (7) transmitting the final route to be executed resulting in the re-routing of the vehicle, all of which are managing personal behavior by following rules and interacting between people by communicating information (i.e. determining and executing a route is determining and following rules or instructions) and commercial or legal interactions (i.e. grouping bookings of a service to be provided based on a certain metric is “marketing or sales activities or behaviors”), which are certain methods of organizing human activity, an abstract idea, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)II and mathematical relationships (i.e. cost ratio and groupability value) and mathematical calculations (i.e. vehicle routing problem (VRP) solver including iterative search), which are mathematical concepts, an abstract idea, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)I. The mere the recitation of generic computer components (i.e., the “computer,” “microprocessor,” “memory,” “encod[ing]” / “decod[ing]” data, “cache,” “communication interface,” and “driver device”) implementing the identified abstract idea does not take the claim out of the certain methods of organizing human activity or mathematical concepts groupings. MPEP 2106.04(d). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people,” “commercial or legal interactions,” “mathematical relationships,” and “mathematical calculations,” but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls in the certain methods of organizing human activity or mathematical concepts groupings of abstract ideas. MPEP 2106.04. Therefore, Claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 as a whole amounts to: (i) merely invoking generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (or an equivalent) and (ii) generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The claim recites the additional elements of:
(i) “computer” implementing the method,
(ii) “microprocessor,”
(iii) “memory,”
(iv) “encod[ing]” / “decod[ing]” data,
(v) “cache” storing information,
(vi) “communication interface” transmitting data, and
(vii) “driver device.”
The additional elements of the (i) computer (Fig. 5 and ¶36 shows “computer 402.” ¶14 indicates that the computer may be “a server or cloud.”), (ii) “microprocessor” (Fig. 5 and ¶36 shows “microprocessor 410”), (iii) “memory” (Fig. 5 and ¶36 shows “memory 420”), (iv) “encod[ing]” / “decod[ing]” data (¶14 shows “Each booking of the plurality of bookings may include a pick-up and a drop- off location and may be encoded in a data packet.”), (v) cache (Fig. 5 and ¶40 shows “the memory 420 may include a groupability cache configured to store estimated groupabilities including the groupability for each combination of two bookings.”), (vi) “communication interface” (Fig. 5 and ¶36 shows “communication interface 430”), and (vii) driver device (Fig. 5 and ¶43 shows “one or more vehicles or drivers 470, 480, 490.”), are recited at a high-level of generality, such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination (Fig. 5 shows elements in combination), they amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The (i) “computer,” (ii) “microprocessor,” (iii) “memory,” (iv) “encod[ing]” / “decod[ing],” (v) “cache,” (vi) “communication interface,” and (vii) “driver device,” when viewed as whole/ordered combination (Fig. 5 and ¶36 shows elements in combination.), does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e. computer environment) (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination (Fig. 5 shows elements in combination), do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements amount to no more than: (i) “apply it” (or an equivalent) and (ii) generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and are not a practical application of the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., (i) merely invoking the generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and (ii) generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional elements of the (i) “computer,” (ii) “microprocessor,” (iii) “memory,” (iv) “encod[ing]” / “decod[ing],” (v) “cache,” (vi) “communication interface,” and (vii) “driver device,” do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination (Fig. 5 shows elements in combination), nothing in the claims adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Dependent Claims 2 and 4-5 recite the abstract idea of:
“. . . generating, for each booking, a cost ranking based on the cost ratio for each position in the initial vehicle route, and wherein the VRP solver updates the initial vehicle route based on the ranking” (Claim 2);
“determining a feasibility of the combination, wherein the combination is unfeasible if at least one constraint of a plurality of constraints is not met, and wherein the combination is feasible if all constraints of the plurality of constraints [[is]] are met; if the combination is unfeasible, the groupability value is set to represent that the combination is unfeasible, wherein determining an initial vehicle route ignores combinations that are unfeasible” (Claim 4); and
“. . . wherein the VRP solver has an allotted time limit to determine the initial vehicle route” (Claim 5).
Dependent Claims 2 and 4-5, have been given the full two-prong analysis including analyzing the further elements and limitations, both individually and in combination. When analyzed individually and in combination, these claims are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The further limitation of Claims 2 and 4-5 fail to establish claims that are not directed to an abstract idea because the further limitations include (1) generating a cost ranking, (2) storing information, (3) determining feasibility of a combination and setting the groupability value accordingly, and (4) solving math within an allotted time, which merely limit the scope of the abstract idea. The elements of Claims 2 and 4-5 fails to establish claims that are not directed to an abstract idea because the elements merely recite generic computer components similar to the generic computer components of Claim 1 and generally link the abstract idea to a particular technology or field of use (i.e. computer environment) just as in Claim 1. The organization of the further limitations of Claims 2 and 4-5 fail to integrate an abstract idea into a practical application just as discussed above for Claim 1. Additionally, performing the abstract idea of Claim 1 as recited in each of the further limitations of Claims 2 and 4-5, individually or in combination, does not (1) impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas, or (2) provide improvements to the functioning of computing systems or to another technology or technical field, just as discussed above regarding Claim 1. Therefore, Claims 2 and 4-5 amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea (1) using generic computer components—using the computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea, and (2) generally linked to a particular technology or field of use. Because the claims merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity in a particular field of use, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept, the elements and limitations of Claims 2 and 4-5 fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept, just as in Claim 1. Therefore, Claims 2 and 4-5 fails the Subject Matter Eligibility Test and are consequently rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 6-7 and 9-10 recites elements and limitations that are substantially similar to Claims 1-2 and 4-5 because Claims 6-7 and 9-10 claim a system that embodies the method of Claims 1-2 and 4-5. Therefore, Claims 6-7 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 just as Claims 1-2 and 4-5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as discussed above.
Claim 12 recites elements and limitations that are substantially similar to Claim 6. Therefore, Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 just as Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as discussed above.
Reasons for Withdrawal of Art Rejection
Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-10, and 12 are not rejected over the prior art of record for similar justification as in the prior office action. For clarity of record, the reasons of the prior office action, which remain in effect, are included below.
The Closest prior art of record is:
GB-2397683-A (“Olmi”);
US-20150206437-A1 (“Fowler”);
“Database Caching” (“AWS” Feb 13, 2021, https://web.archive.org/web/20210213122815/https://aws.amazon.com/caching/database-caching/);
KR-102091019-B1 (“Kim”);
US-20220036309-A1 (“Neumann”);
US-20030182052-A1 (“DeLorme”);
US-20110112759-A1 (“Bast”); and
CN-108921472-A (“Liu”).
The Following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for no art rejections:
Olmi shows iteratively assigning ride requests to vehicle plans for specific vehicles that satisfy the request requirements. The system utilizes a grouping algorithm to ensure that rides grouped together do not exceed a threshold level of additional travel time. An “efficiency ratio” (i.e. cost ratio) is calculated for each itinerary by comparing the direct (un-grouped) travel time versus the individual’s travel time in the group. However, this operation occurs after the optimized route, which can include an “isolated” ride, is created. Although this operation is performed interactive, an “isolated” ride for “Class B” rides (i.e. rides that have already been assigned to a vehicle’s travel plan), (1) is a part of the initial travel plan, and (2) could be later grouped with other rides based on the efficiency ratio criteria being satisfied by a subsequent ride request.
Fowler shows calculating a cost ratio between each passenger’s route taken “solo” versus as part of the shared vehicle. However, Fowler does not disclose adding rides that fail to meet the threshold as “isolated” rides to the travel plan.
AWS shows the advantages of cache memory. As the claims do not include storing certain data in cache memory and other data in non-cache memory, AWS could generally be applied to storing data in cache memory.
Kim shows efficient matching and performance of simultaneous rides. I concurrent ride may be accepted based on how much the vehicle must deviate from its current route to accommodate the new request. Each user has their own ratio threshold that must be satisfied, which signifies their tolerable transportation efficiency. If the new request does not satisfy each current rider’s threshold, the request is not accepted.
Neumann shows grouping delivery items to be transferred together to find an optimal path of transfer, and providing instructions on which orders to be grouped together.
DeLorme shows providing vehicle routing directions (i.e. sequence of destinations) that combine different points of interest. They system determines potential new waypoints (i.e. points of interest) that could be added to the user’s travel plan.
Bast shows planning optimal public transportation routes. Each transportation “line” has a fixed start point and a fixed end point. The system optimizes an optimal journey in response to user queries utilizing pre-processing.
Liu shows pre-processing orders into cluster based on similarity of locations. However, Liu does not include adding ungroupable orders as “isolated” routes to the final transportation plan.
Generally, the closest prior art teaches either (1) grouping passengers while not grouping others using a threshold (Olmi, Fowler, Kim, Neumann, and Lui), (2) calculating a groupability value based on a cost ratio (Olmi, Fowler, Kim, and DeLorme), (3) use of a cache for memory (AWS), and (4) a vehicle route including a mixture of group rides and isolated rides (Olmi, Fowler, and Bast).
With respect to independent Claim 1, representative of independent Claims 1, 6, and 12, the closest prior art, taken individually and in an ordered combination, does not explicitly or implicitly disclose the specific ordered combination of features that include:
“prior to determining an initial vehicle route, estimating, for each combination of two bookings of the plurality of bookings, a groupability value by determining a cost ratio of the combination as a ratio of the cost of the combination to the sum of the cost of the two bookings taken separately, . . . ;
identifying, based on the groupability value, all bookings that are not groupable to any other booking of the plurality of bookings due to all associated cost ratios exceeding the pre-determined threshold, as ungroupable bookings;
identifying, based on the groupability value, all bookings that are groupable to at least one other booking of the plurality of bookings due to at least one associated cost ratio below the pre- determined threshold, as groupable bookings;
determining [[an]] the initial vehicle route by applying a vehicle routing problem (VRP) solver solely on the groupable bookings . . . , wherein the VRP solver determines an optimized route given the groupable bookings;
adding the ungroupable bookings to the initial vehicle route as isolated pick-up and drop-off routes appended to the optimized route to produce a final vehicle route . . . ;
transmitting the final vehicle route to a driver device for execution of the final vehicle route.”
(Emphasis added).
The key points of distinction over the prior art are that the feature of the claims include that: the groupability value is “for each combination of two bookings” (e.g. for bookings A,B, C, and D there is a groupability value for A&B, A&C, A&D, B&C, B&D, and C&D), the identification of a single booking as being “groupable” or “ungroupable” is based on if any of the cost ratios associated with that booking (i.e. cost ratio’s for each pair of bookings that the single booking is associated with) satisfy a threshold, applying the VRP solver only to “groupable” bookings to create an “initial vehicle route,” adding the “ungroupable” bookings to the initial vehicle route as “isolated pick-up and drop-off routes” (i.e. while the vehicle is traveling between the pick-up and drop-off locations for an “ungroupable” booking, no other booking is being advanced) to create “a final vehicle route,” and the final vehicle route is transmitted to driver device “for execution of the final vehicle route” (i.e. “ungroupable” bookings are not held in a pool with hopes of later being groupable with subsequent bookings, but instead are executed as an isolated portion of the “final vehicle route”). These features, in combination, are novel and non-obvious over the prior art of record.
Dependent Claims 2 and 4-5 depend on Claim 1, and Dependent Claim 7 and 9-10 depends on Claim 6, and therefore are also held to be novel and non-obvious over the prior art via dependency.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is as follows:
“Caching Overview” (“AWS,” April 15, 2021, https://web.archive.org/web/20210415042728/https://aws.amazon.com/caching/) shows “The data in a cache is generally stored in fast access hardware such as RAM (Random-access memory) and may also be used in correlation with a software component. A cache's primary purpose is to increase data retrieval performance by reducing the need to access the underlying slower storage layer. Trading off capacity for speed, a cache typically stores a subset of data transiently, in contrast to databases whose data is usually complete and durable.”
“How to build a real-time vehicle route optimizer” (“Welch,” June 2017, https://opendoorlogistics.com/assets/pdfs/How-to-build-a-real-time-vehicle-route-optimiser.pdf) shows a real time VRP solver that leverages cache memory to achieve greater computational efficiency.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW PARKER GOODMAN whose telephone number is (571) 272-5698. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday from 9:30 AM ET to 6:00 PM ET. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey Zimmerman, can be reached at telephone number (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 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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR
system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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.
/MATTHEW PARKER GOODMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/JESSICA LEMIEUX/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626