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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending and examined herein per Applicant’s 12/24/2025 filing with the USPTO. Claims 1-4, 8-9, 11, 14, 16 and 19 are amended. No claims are withdrawn, canceled, or newly added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to drawings have been fully considered and are persuasive. The drawing objection of the previous Office action has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection of the previous Office action have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues: The claims are directed to a practical application of the abstract idea. In particular, independent claims 1, 11, and 20 recite or similarly recite, inter alia, “based on determining to schedule the battery of the AV to be charged at the user premises, sending instructions to the AV that dispatch the AV to the user premises to charge the battery of the AV.” Remarks p. 10-11.
Respectfully, the Office disagrees with Applicant’s position. The Office does not find sending instructions to be a practical application. Where in the act of sending data is a basic computer functions. Where the instructions are simply the results of the analysis and merely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information, without more (such as identifying a particular tool for presentation), is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(case citations omitted).
For all the reasons given above the rejection of the previous Office action is maintained as updated below.
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 (i.e. certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes) without practical application or significantly more when the elements are considered individually and as an ordered combination.
Step 1: Is the claimed invention to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, the claims fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject. Claims 1-10 are to a system (machine), claims 11-19 are to a method (process), and claim 20 is to a non-transitory computer-readable medium (manufacture).
Step 2A, prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law or nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claims are found to recite an abstract idea. Specifically, the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes. Where certain methods of organizing human activity include 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) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II). Where mental processes relates to concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
Claim 1 (as a representative claim) recites the following, where the limitations found to contain elements of the abstract idea are in bold italics:
1. A system comprising:
a memory storing instructions; and
one or more processors coupled to the memory, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
receive a request to register a user premises as a private service station that autonomous vehicles (AVs) in a fleet of AVs can use to receive one or more AV maintenance services, the request specifying an availability of the user premises for use as the private service station to provide the one or more AV maintenance services;
in response to the request, add the user premises to a network of service stations comprising a plurality of user premises registered as private service stations for use by the AVs in the fleet to receive AV maintenance services and a plurality of AV service facilities operated by one or more commercial businesses;
determine a reliability of a user associated with the user premises to perform a scheduled AV maintenance service based on whether the user has previously been unavailable to assist an AV in the Fleet after confirming availability at a schedule time;
determine a distance between an AV in the fleet and the user premises;
determine whether to schedule a battery of the AV to be charged at the user premises based on a charge level of the battery of the AV, the specified availability of the user premises, the distance between the AV and the user premises, and the determined reliability of the user; and
based on determining to schedule the battery of the AV to be charged at the user premises, sending instructions to the AV that dispatch the AV to the user premises to charge the battery of the AV.
The claims are directed towards incorporating a private service/charging location (premises) in a network of private service/charging locations (premises) based on a the user’s previous actions and then determining whether to schedule the service appointment or not given the known information. The claims are found to be a form of organizing a user’s activity using the computer as tool. The claimed invention is akin to creating a directory - tangible (phone book) or electronic (yelp) based on information known about the service provider and information provided by the user. These limitations are found to be a form of organizing human active – managing relationships.
Further the Office finds that but for the recitation of the generic computer processor component all of the steps claimed limitations can be done in the human mind, i.e. a user can manually determine distance between two points. Similarly the limitations of determine whether or not to schedule a service based on known constraints (e.g. reliability, charge level, location availability, and distance) are manual processes under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed limitations. These limitations are found to be a mental process.
Step 2A, prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the claimed invention does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Where a practical application is described as integrating the abstract idea by applying it, relying on it, or using the abstract idea in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on it such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize it, see October 2019: Subject Matter Eligibility at p. 11.
The identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recites the additional limitations see non-bold-italicized elements above. The “receive” and “sending” element are determined to be a step of data collection – insignificant extra solution activity.
Where 2106.05(g) MPEP states, “term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent.”
The Office finds that merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; adding insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception; or only generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea?
No, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and as part of the ordered combination. Further the instant specification disclose the computing components of the system as “Processor 710 can include any general-purpose processor and a hardware service or software service” (Spec. [118]).
Where 2106.05(d)(I)(2) of the MPEP states, “A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018). However, this does not mean that a prior art search is necessary to resolve this inquiry. Instead, examiners should rely on what the courts have recognized, or those in the art would recognize, as elements that are well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the relevant field when making the required determination. For example, in many instances, the specification of the application may indicate that additional elements are well-known or conventional. See, e.g., Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1317; 120 USPQ2d at 1359 ("The written description is particularly useful in determining what is well-known or conventional"); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (relying on specification’s description of additional elements as "well-known", "common" and "conventional"); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 614, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Specification described additional elements as "either performing basic computer functions such as sending and receiving data, or performing functions ‘known’ in the art.").”
These limitations do NOT offer an improvement to another technology or technical field; improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; 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; add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, or add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application; or other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Therefore, these additional limitations when considered individually or in combination do not provide an inventive concept that can transform the abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter.
The other independent claims recite similar limitations and are rejected for the same reasoning given above.
The dependent claims do not further limit the claimed invention in such a way as to direct the claimed invention to statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ducrou et al (US 10,482,421 B1) teaches attendant interaction prompts 1104 provide the attendant 140 with the ability to provide information such as the level of satisfaction the attendant 140 believes the user 128 experienced, a rating by the attendant 140 of the user 128, a rating by the attendant 140 as to whether the user 128 was amenable to work with, and so forth.
Bellini (US 2019/0392401 A1) teaches “SCHEDULE YOUR APPOINTMENT . . . . Before you schedule your appointment, we provide your mechanic's certifications, work history, ratings and reviews from other customers. Our mechanics are available 7 days a week from 7 am to 9 pm.
Fox (US 12,136,070 B1) teaches software application is accessible via the first or second communication devices to a user, who may participate in the online marketplace as either a service requester or a service provider, upon the user signing into a user account.
Hadad (US 2018/0107966 A1) teaches information comprises location of the plurality of automobile mechanic, fees charged by the plurality of automobile mechanics, and rating of the plurality of automobile mechanics. In one example, the user is enabled to select at least one automobile mechanic from the table.
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 FOLASHADE ANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-3331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 12:00 P.M. to 6:00 P.M. CST.
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, Rutao Wu can be reached at (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.
/FOLASHADE ANDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623