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 .
Response to Amendment
This Final office action is responsive to Applicant’s amendment filed on
July 2, 2026. In the amendment, claims 1, 10-13, 16 and 18 have been amended.
New claim 20 has been added. Claims 1-20 are pending and examined below.
Applicant’s Amendment has overcome the 35 USC 102 and 103 rejections. The rejections are hereby withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection filed on June 20, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants have amended the claims and asserted that “amended claim is not directed to "organizing human activity" because it does not merely automate a conventional human organizational task. Rather, it defines a novel, computer-implemented method for precisely modeling and optimizing vehicle supply that fundamentally changes how such a system operates (see e.g., paragraphs [0118]-[0120] of the application as filed). The optimization is performed by a specially configured computer system using technical models, not by a human applying conventional rules or making business decisions".
Applicants further assert on page 8 in the remarks that the 'ramp model' and 'fractional contribution' are not abstract mathematical relationships but specific technical constructs used to model the physical behavior and availability of vehicles in a real-world system. Applicants further support their assertion by stating that these specific models and their iterative application enable the system to achieve a level of precision in supply planning that was previously unattainable, leading to a tangible improvement in the efficiency and responsiveness of the rideshare management system This goes beyond routine data manipulation by introducing a novel, predictive modeling approach to account for nuanced operational realities, thereby improving the accuracy of supply predictions and the effectiveness of optimized shifts.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As per independent claims 1, and 10, applicant is to be noted that the steps or functions of "receive", and “determine”, involve mental processes and/or generic computer functions or generic data analysis. The function of "transmit" involves an insignificant post solution activity.
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.
From this, it is noted that the claims do not recite the judicial exceptions of either natural phenomena or laws of nature.
Here, the claimed concept falls into the category of functions of organizing human activities such as managing commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). The claim concept also falls into the category of a mental process such as concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion). The BRI of the claimed limitations describe functions of:
The claimed function functions can be seen as mental processes that can be performed by the human mind and/or via manual human activity with the aid of a generic computer.
This is also an example of concepts performed in the human mind as mental processes because the steps of create or creating, output or outputting mimic human thought processes of observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion, perhaps with paper and pencil, where the data interpretation is perceptible only in the human mind. See In re TLI Commc 'ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F .3d 607,611 (Fed. Cir. 2016); FairWamingIP, LLC v. Jatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093-1094 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Claims 1 and 10 unlike the claims found non-abstract in prior cases, use generic computer technology to perform data transmission, display, reception, and analysis and does not recite an improvement to a particular computer technology. See, e.g., McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F .3 d 1299, 1314-1315 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
(finding claims not abstract because they "focused on a specific asserted improvement in computer animation"). As such, claims 1-20 recite receive, determine, and transmit data, and not a technological implementation or application of that idea.
Applicant further argues on page 9 in the specification that “Applicant's claimed
invention is integrated into a practical application of a computer- implemented supply planning technique that produces executable scheduling outputs for a fleet-management platform under real-world constraints. In particular, claim 1, as amended, requires the system to transmit the optimized shifts for implementation by the rideshare management system. This transmission directly causes the system for managing a fleet of ridesharing vehicles to change its operational plan (see e.g., paragraphs [0054] and [0156] of the application as filed) according to complex, dynamically calculated factors such as the fractional contribution of shifts based on a ramp model, and to continue to operate efficiently by maximizing quality of service within a desired budget. This is a direct application of the claimed technical process to control and improve the operation of a real-world transportation system, moving beyond mere abstract calculation to concrete, real-world action”.
In response, the clams fail to recite additional elements which, when considered individually and in combination, amount to significantly more. Reconsideration of these elements identified as insignificant extra-solution activity as part of Step 2B does not change the analysis. The recitation of a communication interface and a processor into the claims does not generally alter the analysis at Mayo Step 2. It should be determined whether the claims do more than simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer." Alice, 57 3 U.S. at 225. They do not.
A function of “receive”, “determine” and “transmit” data by electronic means or hardware amounts to receiving, generating, and transmitting information over a network has been recognized by the courts as generic, routine, and conventional [computer activities that are performed only for their conventional uses]. (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), citing Symantec, 835 F.3d at 1321, 120 OSPQ2d at 1362 (Utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TL Communications LEC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, G 10, Ll 8 USPO2d 1744, 1748 (ed. Cir. 2016) Casing a telephone for image transmission); OFF Techs., fac. v. Amazon.com, fie., 788 B.Ad 1359, 1363, LiS USPO2d 1090, 1093 (ed, Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network}, buySAFE, fie. v. Google, Inc .. 768 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1996 (Pod, Cyr. 2014) (computer receives, generates and transmits data over a network).
Positively reciting a processor in a network as claimed does not change the analysis as these aspects are properly considered as additional elements which amount to instructions to apply it with a computer. Applicant is directed to In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig., 639 F.3d 1303, 13 16 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claimed "processor" is recited at a high level of generality such they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Applicant further asserted on page 10 in the remarks that the limitations in the pending claims include limitations that provide "significantly more" than the alleged abstract idea.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitations recited in the arguments regarding Step 2B are not "additional limitations," they are the limitations indicated as mental processing, the abstract idea. Therefore the "significantly more" argument for these limitations is moot. The additional limitations are heighted in bold in the 35 USC 101 analysis below, and those limitations are indeed, not significantly more. Receiving requests and data is merely receiving or transmitting data over a network. This is explicitly not significantly more, since merely receiving or transmitting data over a network is routine and conventional. See the detailed analysis below for more information.
Therefore, the 35 USC 101 rejection will be maintained.
Regarding the 35 USC 102 and 103 rejections, Applicant’s amendments have overcome the USC 102 and 103 rejections. The rejections are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC§ 101
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under Step 1 of 101 Analysis:
Claims 1-20 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claims 1-20 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A. Prong 1
Regarding Prong 1 of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claims 1, and 10 recite similar limitations. Claim 1 as a representative claim recites limitations that are an abstract idea highlighted in non-bold below.
a communications interface configured to:
receive a desired budget for the optimized supply planning over a future period of time; and
receive one or more shift constraints for the optimized supply planning;
and at least one processor configured to:
determine expected demand for the future period of time based on historical demand data;
determine quality of service as a function of a number of vehicles for each of a plurality of time bins based on the expected demand; and
determine a ramp model from a plurality of ramp models, the ramp model indicating a partial contribution to supply of a vehicle;
determine, for each of the plurality of time bins and for each shift, a fractional contribution of a structure of the shift to a number of available vehicles based on the determined ramp model;
determine optimized shifts for the rideshare management system that maximizes the quality of service based on the function in each of the plurality of time bins, the one or more shift constraints, the fractional contribution of the structure of the shift, the desired budget or any combination thereof; and
transmit the optimized shifts for implementation by the rideshare management system.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a "mental process" because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, the steps or functions of “receive”, "determine” and “send” in the context of this claim encompasses a person
ability to optimize shift scheduling around existing (e.g., manual) shifts data.
Dependent claims 2-9 and 11-10 depend directly or indirectly, from one of independent claims 1 and 10, respectively, and therefore include all the limitations of these claims. Therefore, Applicants respectfully request that the Examiner withdraw these rejections.
In the Applicant's specification, [0130] “receiving (e.g., via a rideshare management server 150 over a network 140, as described above in Fig. 1) a desired budgets”; [0132] “receiving one or more sets of predetermined shifts for the optimal supply planning, one or more supply plan objectives, one or more shift constraints”; [0133] "determining expected demand for a future period of time based on historical demand data)”; [0135] " determining quality of service (“QoS”) as a function of a number of vehicles for each of a plurality of time bins based on the expected demand"; [0119] "The ramp model can involve determining a ramp value for each time bin"; [0020] determine “the contribution is a fractional contribution to the number of available vehicles”; [0116] “determine optimized shifts for a plurality of vehicles in the rideshare management systems based on the determined required supply, one or more shift objectives, one or more shift constraints and one or more variables”; [ 0142 ] determine optimized shifts for the rideshare management system that maximizes the quality of services based on the function in each of the plurality of time bins. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a "practical application."
In the present case, beyond the noted abstract idea indicated in non-bold follows and the bolded portions continue to represent the " the additional limitations".
Representative claim 1 recites:
a communications interface configured to:
receive a desired budget for the optimized supply planning over a future period of time; and
receive one or more shift constraints for the optimized supply planning;
and at least one processor configured to:
determine expected demand for the future period of time based on historical demand data;
determine quality of service as a function of a number of vehicles for each of a plurality of time bins based on the expected demand; and
determine a ramp model from a plurality of ramp models, the ramp model indicating a partial contribution to supply of a vehicle;
determine, for each of the plurality of time bins and for each shift, a fractional contribution of a structure of the shift to a number of available vehicles based on the determined ramp model;
determine optimized shifts for the rideshare management system that maximizes the quality of service based on the function in each of the plurality of time bins, the one or more shift constraints, the fractional contribution of the structure of the shift, the desired budget or any combination thereof; and
transmit the optimized shifts for implementation by the rideshare management system.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above bold additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
The examiner submits that the bold limitations merely use a computer (processor, generic computer components) to perform an insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering. Further, the use of a generic computer component such as a processor to perform otherwise mental judgements is not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, 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, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). The underlined limitations above merely apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding independent claim 10, the recitation of the embodiment being a system does not change the analysis. As such, independent claim 10 is rejected under the same rationale as independent claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-9, and 11-20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, merely use generic computer components in their ordinary capacity to perform an otherwise mental process or judgement or data gathering, and do not amount to significantly more. Therefore, the dependent claims are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claims 1 and 20.
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Independent claims 1, and 10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action. Dependent claims 2-9 and 11-20 would be allowable as well if their respective independent claims 1, and 10 overcome the 35 USC 101 rejections.
The prior art of record fail to teach or suggest:
“determine a ramp model from a plurality of ramp models, the ramp model indicating a partial contribution to supply of a vehicle; determine, for each of the plurality of time bins and for each shift, a fractional contribution of a structure of the shift to a number of available vehicles based on the determined ramp model; determine optimized shifts for the rideshare management system that maximizes the quality of service based on the function in each of the plurality of time bins, the one or more shift constraints, the fractional contribution of the structure of the shift, the desired budget or any combination thereof” as recited in independent claims 1, and 10.
7. 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). Applicants are 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.
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. As per attached PTO 892 form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Romain Jeanty whose telephone number is (571)272-6732. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM to 5:30PM.
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 at 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.
/ROMAIN JEANTY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
