DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This communication is a first action on the merits. Claims 1-20, as originally filed, are pending and have been considered as follows.
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 .
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 a patent-ineligible abstract idea without significantly more and are merely requiring generic computer implementation, which fails to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. In view of the two-step test regarding determining subject matter eligibility, Examiner submits that the independent claim(s) 1, 11, and 20 recite(s) a non-transitory computer-readable medium, a computer-implemented method, and a computing device for programmatically providing information in connection with location-based services to service providers. Therefore, the claims as a whole are considered as being in a statutory category under Step 1 of the test.
Regarding Step 2A, prong 1, Examiner submits that the claims recite a judicial exception, specifically that of an abstract idea. The claimed invention is drawn to an abstract idea of programmatically providing information in connection with location-based services to service providers, by specifically “providing, on a display of the computing device, a first user interface, the first user interface including information about a first service of multiple services that are assigned to the driver, the information identifying a first location associated with the first service”; “based on a current location of the computing device being within a threshold distance or a threshold estimated travel time from the first location, providing, on the display, as part of a second user interface, one or more panels that include (i) information about each task of a set of tasks that the driver is to perform for the first service, and (ii) multiple selectable features that the driver can select in connection with the driver performing one or more tasks of the set of tasks, including a completion feature that the driver selects to indicate that the first service has been completed”; and “in response to receiving an input for the completion feature, providing, on the display as part of the first user interface, information about one or more tasks that the driver is to perform for a second service of the multiple services, the information identifying a location associated with the second service”. The limitations of at least “providing, on a display of the computing device, a first user interface…”, “…providing, on the display, as part of a second user interface, one or more panels that include (i) information about each task of a set of tasks that the driver is to perform for the first service, and (ii) multiple selectable features that the driver can select in connection with the driver performing one or more tasks of the set of tasks”; and “providing, on the display as part of the first user interface, information about one or more tasks that the driver is to perform for a second service of the multiple services…”, as drafted are drawn to a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, falls within the abstract idea grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (i.e. commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activity or behaviors; business relations; or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). That is, the claims are directed to the concept of programmatically providing information in connection with location-based services to service providers. If a claim limitation/invention, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be construed as describing advertising, marketing or sales activity or behaviors, business relations, or the managing of personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. In particular, the steps together are accomplishing programmatically providing information in connection with location-based services to service providers, which is related to the managing of personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, including at least social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2A, prong 2, Examiner submits that the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. Examiner submits that the claims at hand in fact do not include any recitation of additional elements in the claim beyond the judicial exception that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims describe an additional element drawn to a computing device but at a nominal level. To be considered statutory, the claims require an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. In this regard, Examiner submits that there are no such additional elements that improve the functioning of a computer to any other technology or technical field, apply or use a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment, apply the judicial exception with or by use of a particular machine, 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. In fact, the claims include language drawn to merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f); adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g); and/or generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2B drawn to determining if the claim recites additional elements amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception, Examiner submits that the claims only include the additional element of the computing device to perform the steps of the invention, which in fact does not include any recitation of additional elements that would constitute anything significantly more. The computing device in the claimed steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of computing or processing) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and amount(s) to no more than: (i) mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, and/or (ii) recitation of generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, the instant claims’ invocation of computers, and/or networks, and/or displays does not transform the claimed subject matter into patent-eligible applications. The claims at issue do not require any nonconventional computer, network, or display components, or even a “non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces,” but merely call for performance of the claimed information collection, analysis, and display functions “on a set of generic computer components” and display devices. Bascom, 2016 WL 3514158, at *6–7. Nothing in the claims, understood in light of the specification, requires anything other than off-the-shelf, conventional computer, network, and display technology for gathering, sending, and presenting the desired information. Such invocations of computers and networks that are not even arguably inventive are “insufficient to pass the test of an inventive concept in the application” of an abstract idea. buySAFE, 765 F.3d at 1353, 1355; see, e.g., Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324–25 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Internet Patents, 790 F.3d at 1348–49; Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347–48. Therefore, these claim limitations, either individually or as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself and do not transform the nature of the claim from the judicial exception into a patent-eligible application. The claims are not patent eligible. In order to overcome the pending rejection, Examiner suggests incorporating detail from the specification, particularly paragraphs [0014-0015], which describes more technical details of the system as related to the location-based services and what user interfaces are being displayed (i.e. “utilizing status information and/or location information in order to determine what content is to be displayed at what time…”).
Regarding claims 2-10 and 12-19, the dependent claims do not include any additional elements that constitute statutory matter. The dependent claims are directed to the same abstract idea as recited in the independent claims and have been found to either recite additional details that are part of the abstract idea itself (when analyzed under Step 2A Prong One), or include additional details that, when analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B, recite additional elements that fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A Prong Two) and fail to add significantly more to the abstract idea (Step 2B). Specifically, claims 2-4 and 12-14 describes details regarding the user interface display. Claims 5 and 15 describe additional displays relating to a third user interface. The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claims) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The dependent claims also recite steps that together with the independent claims are accomplishing the overall process of programmatically providing information in connection with location-based services to service providers, which falls within the abstract idea grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (i.e. commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activity or behaviors; business relations; or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). Accordingly, the dependent claims are drawn to an abstract idea.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1 (non-transitory computer-readable medium), 11 (computer-implemented method), and 20 (computing device) of the instant application are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 (non-transitory computer-readable medium), 11 (method), and 20 (computing device) of U.S. Patent No. 11,880,900 and claims 1 (computing device), 13 (non-transitory computer-readable medium), and 20 (method) of U.S. Patent No. 11,023,990. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are anticipated by the reference claims and are merely a slightly broader version of the ‘900 and ‘990 patent claims, where the differences are not patentably distinct:
Claim 1 of Instant Application 18/418,911
Claim 1 of US Patent 11,880,900 B2
Claim 13 of US Patent 11,023,990 B2
A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that,
when executed by one or more processors of a computing device, cause the
computing device to perform operations comprising:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a computing device, cause the computing device to:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a computing device, cause the computing device to:
providing, on a display of the computing device, a first user interface, the
first user interface including information about a first service of multiple services
that are assigned to the driver, the information identifying a first location
associated with the first service;
provide, on a display of the computing device, a task user interface that includes (i) information about a first task of a transport service that a driver is to perform in connection with operating a vehicle, and (ii) information about a first location associated with the first task;
subsequent to receiving the user input corresponding to the acceptance to provide the first location-based service, provide, on the display, a task user interface that includes (i) information about a first task of the first location-based service that a user of the computing device is to perform in connection with the user operating a vehicle, and (ii) information about the first location associated with the first task;
based on a current location of the computing device being within a threshold distance or a threshold estimated travel time from the first location,
providing, on the display, as part of a second user interface, one or more panels
that include (i) information about each task of a set of tasks that the driver is to
perform for the first service, and (ii) multiple selectable features that the driver
can select in connection with the driver performing one or more tasks of the set
of tasks, including a completion feature that the driver selects to indicate that
the first service has been completed; and
based on a current location of the computing device being within a threshold distance or a threshold estimated travel time from the first location and prior to completion of the first task, provide, on the display as part of the task user interface, a task panel that includes (i) information that is specific to the first task, (ii) one or more selectable sub-task features that the driver can select in connection with one or more corresponding sub-tasks, and (iii) a selectable feature that the driver selects to indicate that the first task has been completed;
in response to determining that the current location of the computing device is within the threshold distance or the threshold estimated travel time from the first location and prior to completion of the first task, automatically provide, as part of the task user interface, a task panel that includes (i) information that is specific to the first task, (ii) one or more sub-task features that the user can select as part of performing at least one sub-task associated with the first task at the first location, and (iii) a first selectable feature that the user can select to indicate that the first task has been completed;
in response to receiving an input for the completion feature,
receive, via the display, a user input corresponding to a selection of the selectable feature; and
receive, via the input mechanism of the computing device, a user input corresponding to a selection of the first selectable feature; and
providing, on
the display as part of the first user interface, information about one or more
tasks that the driver is to perform for a second service of the multiple services,
the information identifying a location associated with the second service.
provide, on the display as part of the task user interface, (i) information about a second task of the transport service that the driver is to perform, and (ii) information about a second location associated with the second task.
in response to receiving the user input corresponding to the selection of the first selectable feature, automatically provide, as part of the task user interface, (i) information about a second task of the first location-based service that the user is to perform, and (ii) information about a second location associated with the second task.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Camp et al. (US 2012/0323642 A1, herein Camp) teaches of a system and method for operating a service to arrange transport amongst parties through use of mobile devices.
Edelberg (US 2013/0073327 A1, herein Edelberg) teaches of an urban transportation system and method.
Sar et al. (US Patent 9,684,627 B1, herein Sar) teaches of determining a likelihood of completion of a task.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHLEY Y YOUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-5294. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays, Tuesdays, and Thursdays, 9:00a-3:00p, EST.
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, Beth Boswell can be reached at (571) 272-6737. 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.
/ASHLEY Y YOUNG/Examiner, Art Unit 3625
/BETH V BOSWELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3625