DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Notice to Applicant
2. The following is a Final Office action. In response to Examiner’s Non-Final Action of 09/24/2025, Applicant, on 12/11/2025, amended Claims 1-5, 7-9 and 17. Claims 6, 10-16 and 18-20 are as originally or previously presented.
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application and have been rejected below.
Response to Amendment
3. Applicant’s amendments and arguments are acknowledged.
4. New 35 USC §112 rejection of Claims added in light of Applicant's amendments.
5. The prior 35 USC §101 rejection of Claims maintained despite Applicant's amendments and arguments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
7. Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
8. Independent Claims 1, 9 and 17 include the limitation: "automatically rescinding one or more digital incentive notifications from one or more provider mobile computing devices by causing the one or more provider mobile computing devices to remove the one or more digital incentive notifications from display via respective user interfaces of the one or more provider mobile computing devices" at lines 23, 26 and 25 respectively.
This limitation has no support in the original disclosure. The Specification recites (at paragraph 39, with respect to Figure 13): "In 1310, the incentive is rescinded from some drivers. In some embodiments, the incentive is only rescinded from drivers that have not yet responded positively.". However, this does not support "automatically rescinding one or more digital incentive notifications from one or more provider mobile computing devices by causing the one or more provider mobile computing devices to remove the one or more digital incentive notifications from display via respective user interfaces of the one or more provider mobile computing devices".
Applicant has not pointed out where the new (or amended) claim is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of the claim limitation “automatically rescinding one or more digital incentive notifications from one or more provider mobile computing devices by causing the one or more provider mobile computing devices to remove the one or more digital incentive notifications from display via respective user interfaces of the one or more provider mobile computing devices” in the application as filed.
Applicant is advised to point out in the original disclosure where the claimed subject matter appears (see MPEP 2163.06).
9. Claims 2-8, 10-16 and 18-20 also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a). These Claims depend from Claims 1, 9 and 17, inherit the same deficiencies, and do not cure those deficiencies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
10. 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.
11. Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because, although they are drawn to statutory categories of method (process), system (machine), or medium (manufacture), they are also directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
12. At Step 2A Prong One of the subject matter eligibility analysis, Claim 1 recites A .. method comprising: receiving .. an indication of an expected event corresponding to a target region; analyzing a historical event [repository] to select a plurality of similar historical events that satisfy a similarity threshold relative to the expected event; combining historical event data from the historical event [repository] for the plurality of similar historical events to generate an expected number of requests from requestor[s] .. for driver[s] .. corresponding to the expected event; selecting, based on the expected number of requests from requestor[s] .. for driver[s] .. corresponding to the expected event and an incentive yield data model, a number of .. incentive notifications; transmitting .. the number of .. incentive notifications; based on monitoring user interactions with the number of .. incentive notifications .., modifying the number of .. incentive notifications transmitted .. by: determining, based on the user interactions with the number of .. incentive notifications, that a number of responding provider[s] .. of the plurality of provider[s] .. meets a threshold number of responses; and based on determining that the number of responding provider[s] .. meets the threshold number of responses, .. rescinding one or more .. incentive notifications from one or more provider[s] .. of the plurality of provider[s] .. while retaining a set of .. incentive notifications for the number of responding provider[s] ..; monitoring .. a number of driver[s] .. during the expected event to determine a driver yield; and updating the incentive yield data model based on the number of driver[s] .. during the expected event reflected in the driver yield, which is an abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, including fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), because providing a transportation service based on expected need is a commercial or business interaction, and providing incentive notifications to drivers based on the expected number of requests is a business strategy for mitigating risk; it is also an abstract idea of Mental Processes - concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), because using historical data for similar events to generate an expected number of requests corresponding to the expected event, using an incentive yield model to determine the number of incentive notifications to be sent to drivers, and updating the incentive yield data model based on the driver yield for the event is a process that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed in the mind, since it involves evaluation, judgement or observation. Claims 9 and 17 recite the same abstract idea.
At Step 2A Prong Two of the analysis for the independent Claims, the judicial exception (abstract idea) is not integrated into a practical application because the Claims, including additional elements such as computer-implemented, via an input interface of a driver dispatch server system, database, mobile devices, digital, via an output interface of the driver dispatch server system for display via user interfaces of a plurality of provider mobile computing devices, mobile computing devices, automatically, causing the one or more provider mobile computing devices to remove the one or more digital incentive notifications from display via respective user interfaces of the one or more provider mobile computing devices, via the input interface of the driver dispatch server system, at least one processor; and a non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising instructions, executed by the at least one processor, via an input interface of the system, via an output interface of the system, individually, and in combination, when viewed as a whole, are not an improvement to a computer or a technology, the Claims do not apply the judicial exception with a particular machine, and the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as in the instant Claims, is not indicative of integration into a practical application - see MPEP 2106.05(h); adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as in the instant Claims, is also not indicative of integration into a practical application - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
At Step 2B of the analysis, the independent Claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (abstract idea), because these additional elements such as those listed above, individually or in combination, do not recite anything that is beyond conventional and routine use of computers (as evidenced by paragraph 26 of the Specification in the instant Application and court decisions such as buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) discussed at 2106.05(d) of the MPEP), do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, nor do they apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular field of use or technological environment. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as in the instant Claims, is not indicative of an inventive concept ("significantly more") - see MPEP 2106.05(h); adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as in the instant Claims, is also not indicative of an inventive concept ("significantly more") - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
At Step 2A Prong One, dependent Claims 2-8, 10-16 and 18-20 incorporate (and therefore recite) the abstract idea noted in the independent claims and further recite extensions of that abstract idea.
At Step 2A Prong Two, dependent Claims 2-8, 10-16 and 18-20 do not include any additional elements beyond those included in the list above with respect to the independent Claims from which they depend. These dependent Claims therefore do not integrate the judicial exception (abstract idea) into a practical application for the same reasons as stated above at Step 2A Prong Two for the independent Claims.
At Step 2B, dependent Claims 2-8, 10-16 and 18-20 do not include any additional elements beyond those included in the list above with respect to the independent Claims from which they depend. These dependent Claims therefore do not recite anything that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as stated above at Step 2B for the independent Claims.
Therefore, Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-eligible subject matter. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573__ U.S. 2014.
Response to Arguments
13. Applicant's arguments filed 12/11/2025 have been fully considered, but are found not persuasive with regard to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection.
14. Applicant argues (at pp. 15-16) that, at Step 2A Prong Two of the Subject Matter Eligibility analysis, the amended claims integrate any abstract idea into a practical application because the claims “recite improvements to the functioning of a computer by "automatically rescinding one or more digital incentive notifications from one or more provider mobile computing devices" ..”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained in detail at paragraph 12 above in this Office Action, the Claims recite an abstract idea (falling under the abstract idea groupings of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and also of Mental Processes) at Step 2A Prong One. At Step 2A Prong Two, the mere use of a computer system (including doing so automatically by following the steps of an algorithm) as a tool to implement the abstract idea is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application - see MPEP 2106.05(f); the Claims are therefore directed to the judicial exception, and are thus ineligible for patent under 35 U.S.C. 101. Furthermore, “the closed-loop updating of the incentive yield model based on observed driver yield” is part of the abstract idea, not a technological aspect of the claim language.
15. Applicant also argues (at pp. 16-18) that, at Step 2B of the subject matter analysis, the claims “automatically rescind incentives .. These concrete actions change the operational state of the distributed computing environment and directly regulate driver supply in the physical world”, for example, and that the claims “recite limitations that are not well-understood, routine, or conventional activity in the field”, and therefore amount to significantly more than the alleged judicial exception.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained at paragraph 12 above in this office action, the additional (computer) elements in the claim language, individually or in combination, do not recite anything that is beyond conventional and routine use of computers (as evidenced by paragraph 26 of the Specification in the instant Application and court decisions such as buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) discussed at 2106.05(d) of the MPEP), and the claims therefore do not recite “significantly more” than the judicial exception at Step 2B of the subject matter analysis.
Furthermore, with regard to Applicant’s argument that the claims do not monopolize a judicial exception, it is noted at MPEP 2106.04(I) that “The Court has held that a claim may not preempt abstract ideas, laws of nature, or natural phenomena, even if the judicial exception is narrow ..”.
Conclusion
16. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
17. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARJIT S BAINS whose telephone number is (571) 270-0317. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am-6:00pm.
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, Wu Rutao can be reached on (571)272-6045. 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.
/SARJIT S BAINS/Examiner, Art Unit 3623 /RUTAO WU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3623