DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Introduction
The following is a non-final Office Action in response to Applicant’s communications received on November 4, 2025. Claims 1, 10 and 16 have been amended.
Currently claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 10 and 16 are independent.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 submissions filed on November 4, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendments.
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 10 and 16 are NOT sufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection as set forth in the previous Office Action. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection to claims 1-20 has been maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on November 4, 2025 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In the Remarks on page 17, Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection that currently amended independent claim 1 contains patentable subject matter as it presents limitations that integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application by improving the function of a transportation matching system by reducing latency between provider computing devices and requestor computing devices.
In response to Applicant’s argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In order for a claim to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application, the additional claimed elements must, for example, improve the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)), apply the judicial exception with a particular machine (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)), affect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP § 2106.05(c)), or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(e)). See Revised 2019 Guidance. Here, beyond the abstract idea (i.e., identifying, generating), the additional elements of “one or more servers”, “a first requestor computing device”, “a second requestor computing device”, “a global positioning system”, and “one or more provider computing devices”, at best, may perform the generic computer functions including receiving, displaying, storing, and transmitting information over a network. Further, “utilizing the trained session mixed model” is no more than adding the words “apply it” or using “a particular machine” with an abstract idea, or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. The Supreme Court has repeatedly made clear that merely limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment does not render the claims any less abstract. See Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Thus, the additional elements of “one or more servers”, “a first requestor computing device”, “a second requestor computing device”, “a global positioning system”, “one or more provider computing devices” and the “trained session mixed model” do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are generic computer components used as tools/instructions to apply the abstract idea. Nothing in the claim elements reflect an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself or another technology, and using these additional elements in the claim does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
As pointed out in the interview held on October 23, 2025, “In order for a machine learning model to integrate the judicial exception, the claims must properly recite the steps, for example, training a machine learning model in some specified way with technical implementation details include an algorithm/function and training datasets; using the machine learning model to perform tasks based on the algorithm/function and parameters as needed; and retraining/updating the machine learning model with optimized/feedback data to improve the functionality of the machine learning model every time it is executed by the processor.”
Applicant’s claims are unlike the claims in Uniloc, which the Federal Circuit determined recited a technical improvement—reduced response time in transmitting data. In Uniloc, the claims at issue do not merely recite generalized steps to be performed on a computer using conventional computer activity. Instead, they are directed to “adding to each inquiry message prior to transmission an additional data field for polling at least one secondary station.” And this change in the manner of transmitting data results in reduced response time by peripheral devices which are part of the claimed system. See Uniloc USA, Inc. v. LG Elecs. USA, Inc., 957 F.3d at 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2020). In contrast, Applicant’s invention aims to solve an entrepreneurial problem—“a transportation matching system” . In the present case, a nonconventional computer is not require. The additional elements, as discussed above, when taken individually and as an ordered combination, do not add qualify to transform the abstract nature of the claims into a patent-eligible application. In particular, the recited “one or more servers”, “a first requestor computing device”, and “a second requestor computing device” are no more than any generic computer components for performing generic computer functions including receiving, displaying, and transmitting information over a network. The Specification describes that a transportation matching system for transportation dispatching the provider “X” to the request “A”, and the provider “Y” to the request “B”. Thus, the transportation matching system reduces wait time for both requestors associated with the transportation requests “A” and “B”. Additionally, the transportation matching system reduces drive time associated with the providers “X” and “Y”. Thus, the transportation matching system 102 provides a faster and more efficient transportation solution. (See ¶ 38). However, improvement to transportation service by reducing wait time (latency) for both service requestors and providing faster and more efficient transportation service is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself or another technology or technical field. The Federal Circuit has indicated that mere automation of manual processes or increasing the speed of a process where these purported improvements come solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer are not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality. FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
In the Remarks on page 21, Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection that the combination of limitations recited in currently amended claim 1, as a whole, integrate any alleged judicial exception into a practical application. Indeed, the currently amended independent claim 1 recites utilization of “a trained session mixed model…to generate “a bundled session transportation request likelihood and a predicted time-to-request.”.
In response to Applicant’s argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed above, “utilizing the trained session mixed model” is no more than adding the words “apply it” or using “a particular machine” with an abstract idea, or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. The Supreme Court has repeatedly made clear that merely limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment does not render the claims any less abstract. See Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Thus, the additional elements of “one or more servers”, “a first requestor computing device”, “a second requestor computing device”, “a global positioning system”, “one or more provider computing devices” and the “trained session mixed model” do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are generic computer components used as tools/instructions to apply the abstract idea. Nothing in the claim elements reflect an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself or another technology, and using these additional elements in the claim does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, the utilization of a “global positioning system” is similar to utilizing a “trained session mixed model” as discussed above. The Supreme court has repeatedly made clear that merely limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment does not render the claims any less abstract. Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
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.
As per Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, it is to determine whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
In this case, claims 1-9 are directed to a method for managing ride matching service, which falls within the statutory category of a process; claims 10-15 are directed to a transportation matching system comprising at least one processor and at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, which falls within the statutory category of a machine; claim 16-20 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions, which falls within the statutory category of a product. Thus, Step-1 is satisfied.
In Step 2A of the subject matter eligibility analysis, it is to “determine whether the claim at issue is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon). Under this step, a two-prong inquiry will be performed to determine if the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 Guidance), then determine if the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 Guidance), 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 54-55 (January 7, 2019).
In Prong One, it is to determine if the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 Guidance, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon).
Taking the method as representative, the claims recite the limitations of “receiving a first set of user interface interactions, generating a first transaction request likelihood corresponding to the first requestor computing device, receiving a second set of user interface interactions with a second user interface, generating a second transportation request likelihood corresponding to the second requestor, determining that the second requestor computing device is within a threshold distance of the first requestor computing device, generating bundled session information from the first set of user interface interaction, generating a bundled session transportation request likelihood based on the first set of user interface interactions and the second of user interface interactions, generating [] an upfront dispatch of one or more provider, generating a first and a second transportation request likelihood…, selecting a level of dispatch information from a plurality of levels of dispatch information based on determining that the bundled session transportation request likelihood…, reserving the one or more provider computing devices from a pool of provider devices by adjusting the status of the one or more provider computing devices, generating an upfront dispatch display…, transmitting a predicted dispatch notification…, and receiving a pre-acceptance notification, providing an upfront dispatch indication for displaying, determining a predicted time until a transportation request is received, generating the upfront dispatch in response to determining that the predicted time satisfies a time threshold”. None of the limitations recites technological implementation details for any of these steps, but instead recite only results desired by any and all possible means. The limitations, as drafted, are directed to methods that allow user to manage transportation service including receiving user interface interactions, receiving transportation requests, generating an upfront dispatch of one or more provider, and transmitting a predicted dispatch notification to one or more provider computing devices, which fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity invoked with commercial interactions and managing interactions between people. The mere nominal recitation of “by one or more servers”, “a first requestor computing device”, “a global positioning system”, “a second requestor computing device”, and “one or more provider computing devices” do not take the claims out of the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping because these additional elements are no more than generic computer components for performing generic computer functions including receiving, manipulating, and transmitting information over a network. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea, and the analysis is proceeding to Prong Two.
In Prong Two, it is to determine if the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception.
Beyond the abstract idea, the claims recite the additional elements of “one or more servers”, “a first requestor computing device”, “a global positioning system”, “a second requestor computing device”, and “one or more provider computing devices”. The Specification describes the transportation matching system 102 including the requestor computing devices 118a, 118b, and 118c, and the provider computing devices 122a, 122b, and 122c.” (see ¶ 28), and “The transportation matching system 1002 may also include suitable components such as “network interfaces, security mechanisms, load balancers, failover servers, management-and-network-operations consoles, other suitable components, or any suitable combination thereof.”(See ¶ 117). When given the broadest reasonable interpretation and in light of the Specification, these additional elements are no more than generic computer components. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than adding the words “apply it” or using “a particular machine” with an abstract idea, or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Thus, merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2358-59, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014). Again, automating an abstract process does not convert it into a practical application. See Credit Acceptance v. Westlake Servs., 859 F.3d 1044, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Our prior cases have made clear that mere automation of manual processes using generic computers does not constitute a patentable improvement in computer technology.”) However, simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, nothing in the claims that reflects an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself or another technological field, effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effect designed to monopolize the exception. Therefore, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea, the analysis is proceeding to Step 2B.
In Step 2B of Alice, it is "a search for an ‘inventive concept’—i.e., an element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept’ itself.’” Id. (alternation in original) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1294 (2012)).
The claims as described in Prong Two above, nothing in the claims that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B.
The claims recite the additional elements of “one or more servers”, “a first requestor computing device”, “a global positioning system”, “a second requestor computing device”, and “one or more provider computing devices”. The Specification describes the transportation matching system 102 including the requestor computing devices, and the provider computing devices” (see ¶ 28), and “The transportation matching system 1002 may also include suitable components such as “network interfaces, security mechanisms, load balancers, failover servers, management-and-network-operations consoles, other suitable components, or any suitable combination thereof.”(See ¶ 117). When given the broadest reasonable interpretation and in light of the Specification, these additional elements are no more than generic computer components. These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and merely invoked as tools for performing generic computer functions including receiving, manipulating and transmitting information over a network between the one or mor servers and the first/sec requestor computing device, and the provider computing devices. However, generic computers for receiving, displaying, and transmitting information over a network have been recognized by the courts as merely well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of generic computers. See MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II)(Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); Collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1351-52, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1740 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Thus, simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer for performing generic computer functions do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c), (e-f) & (h)).
For the foregoing reasons, claims 1-9 cover subject matter that is judicially-excepted from patent eligibility under § 101 as discussed above, the other claims 10-15 and 16-20 parallel claims 1-9—similarly cover claimed subject matter that is judicially excepted from patent eligibility under § 101.
Therefore, the claims as a whole, viewed individually and as a combination, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAN G CHOY whose telephone number is (571)270-7038. The examiner can normally be reached on 5/4/9 compressed work schedule.
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, Jerry O’Connor can be reached on (571) 272-6787. 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.
/PAN G CHOY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624