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 final Office Action in response to Applicant’s communications received on April 17, 2026. Claims 1-6, 8-18 and 20 have been amended.
Currently claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 10 and 16 are independent.
Response to Amendments.
Applicant’s amendments necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection in this Office Action.
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1-6, 8-18 and 20 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 April 17, 2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In the Remarks on page 21, Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection that the claim amendments recite improvements to the function of a technical field by improving efficiency and flexibility in integrating bundled session transportation request likelihoods in utilizing a dispatch exchange to match provider and requestor devices within a transportation matching system.
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 or technical field, and using these additional elements in the claim does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Further, nothing in the claim that recites an improvement to the function of a technical field by improving efficiency and flexibility, at best, the Specification describes that “The features disclosed herein further improve the processing speed and efficiency of the system by limiting unnecessary cancelations and by more efficiency spreading the processing tasks associated with matching transportation requests over time.” (See ¶ 27). However, improve the processing speed and efficiency is not an improvement to a 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 24, Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection that the currently amended independent claim 1 recites improvements in a computer system analogous to those within Enfish that led to the Enfish claims being found patent eligible. Like in Enfish, the current amended independent claim 1 “improve[s] the way the computer [system] stores and retrieves data in memory in combination with the specific data structure recited in the claim that demonstrated eligibility.” MPEP § 2106.05(a)(I).
In response to Applicant’s argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims here are unlike the claims in Enfish either. In Enfish, the claims at issue focused not on asserted advances in uses to which existing computer capabilities could be put, but on a specific improvement—a particular database technique—in how computers could carry out one of their basic functions of storage and retrieval of data. Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335–36; see Bascom, 2016 WL 3514158, at *5; cf. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2360 (noting basic storage function of generic computer). The present case is different: although the invention may improve the ways for transportation processing, which is not an improvement to the data structure or to the computer itself, the focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools. FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
In the Remarks on page 26, Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection that the claim amendments recite significantly more by generating a provider pool of provider device, a database collection of transportation application sessions, utilizing a dispatch exchange to generate matches, and generating an upfront dispatch.
In response to Applicant’s argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Step 2B is to determine whether any “inventive concept” which can transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. The “inventive concept” may arise in one or more of the individual claim limitations or in the ordered combination of the limitations. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. An “inventive concept” that transforms the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention must be significantly more than the abstract idea itself, and cannot simply be an instruction to implement or apply the abstract idea on a computer. Id. at 2358.
In the present case, 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, 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 more 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.
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, receiving a second set of user interface interactions with a second user interface, 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 a provider pool of provider devices based on interaction between the provider devices and the one or more servers, generating a database collection comprising one or more transportation application sessions of one or more requestor devices and a plurality of transportation requests received from a plurality of requestor devices, adding the bundled session information to the database collection, generating a session dispatch weight based on the bundled session transportation request likelihood, generating a set of matches between a first set of provider devices from the provider pool, weighting the bundled session information utilizing the session dispatch weight, comparing the bundled session information weighted by the session dispatch weight to the plurality of transportation request…, generating an upfront dispatch for the provider device based on the preliminary match between the provider device of the provider pool and the bundled session information from the database collection by: receiving the provider devices by adjusting ta reservation status of the provider devices to a reserved status, generating an upfront dispatch display including dispatch information associated with the upfront dispatch, training the trained session mixed model, generating a first transportation request likelihood, generating a second transportation request likelihood, generating the bundled session transportation request likelihood by combining the first transportation request likelihood and the second transportation request likelihood in response to determining that the second requestor computing device is within a threshold distance of the first requestor computing device, generating a first input vector from the first set of user interface interactions of the first requestor computing device, generating a second input vector from the second set of user interface interactions of the second requestor computing device, generating a bundled input vector by combining the first input vector and the second input vector, generating the bundled session transportation request likelihood based on the bundled input vector, selecting a level of dispatch information, generating the upfront dispatch display including the selected level of dispatch information, transmitting a predicted dispatch notification based on the bundled session transportation request likelihood, receiving a pre-acceptance notification, reserving the provider computing devices within the provider pool in response to receiving the pre-acceptance notification, receiving the pre-acceptance notification, receiving a transportation request, determining a predicted time until a transportation request is received, determining that the predicted time-to-request satisfies a time threshold, adding the bundled session information to the database, utilizing the dispatch exchange to generate the upfront dispatch”. Other than using the generic computer components, 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 second requestor computing device”, “a trained session mixed model”, 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 second requestor computing device”, “a global positioning system”, “a trained session mixed model”, 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). Further, training a generic model using actions performed by users based on historical information and interaction event in some unspecified way without any technical details of that process fails to reflect any apparent improvement to computers or other technology. Claim 2 does not recite any improve way to train a model by using machine learning and does not purport to improve machine learning using training data. See Intellectual Ventures, 792 F.3d at 1371. Again, automating an abstract process does not convert the abstract idea 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 second requestor computing device”, “a global positioning system”, “a trained session mixed model”, 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
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 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
Prosecution Insights