DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to the applicant’s filing on October 2, 2023. Claims 1 – 20 are pending and examined 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, 4 – 9, 11 – 15 and 17 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because
the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The following rejection is based on the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. (See 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019).
Does claim 1 fall into one of the statutory categories? Yes. The preamble of claim 1 recites a computer-implemented method, and the body of the claim positively recites a series of method steps. Therefore, claim 1 is directed to a process.
Does claim fall into one of four of the statutory categories? Yes. The preamble of claim recite a system. The body of claim recites at least one physical element that forms part of the claimed system. Therefore, claim is directed to an apparatus.
Does claim 15 fall into one of the statutory categories? Yes. The preamble of claim 15 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, causes a computing device to execute a series of steps. Because the non-transitory computer-readable medium is operatively coupled to a computing device, claim 15 is directed to an apparatus.
Step 2A – Prong 1
Do claims 1, 4 – 9, 11 – 15 and 17 – 20 recite a judicial exception? Yes. Claims 1, 4 – 9, 11 – 15 and 17 – 20 recite the limitations of
determining, by the one or more servers, a plurality of digital transportation routes to the destination; generating, for the plurality of digital transportation routes to the destination, a plurality of shared ride probabilities indicating likelihoods of receiving an additional shared ride request along the plurality of digital transportation routes within a limit of deviation; and selecting, by the one or more servers, a digital transportation route from the plurality of digital transportation routes based on the plurality of shared ride probabilities (Claims 1, 9 and 15);
generating the modified digital transportation route by: determining an additional pickup location within an additional threshold deviation of the pick-up location; and determining a first digital transportation route to the pick-up location and a second digital transportation route to the additional pickup location within the additional threshold deviation of the pick-up location (Claims 4, 11 and 17);
selecting the modified digital transportation route by comparing the first digital transportation route to the pick-up location and the second digital transportation route to the additional pickup location within the additional threshold deviation of the pick-up location (Claims 5, 12 and 18);
identifying a first segment of the particular digital transportation route and a second segment of the particular digital transportation route; generating a first partial shared ride probability for the first segment of the particular digital transportation route; and generating a second partial shared ride probability for the second segment of the particular digital transportation route (Claims 6, 13 and 19);
generating the shared ride probability for the particular digital transportation route by combining the first partial shared ride probability and the second partial shared ride probability (Claims 7,14 and 20);
generating a first predicted time of travel for the first segment and second predicted time of travel for the second segment; and combining the first partial shared ride probability and the second partial shared ride probability based on the first predicted time of travel and the second predicted time of travel (Claim 8)
The generating, selecting, determining, identifying and combining limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performances of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “[a] system comprising: at least one processor; and a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to:” or “[a] non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause a computing device to:” nothing in the claim precludes the generating, selecting, determining, identifying and combining steps from practically being performed in the human mind and/or visually. For example, but for the “. . . caus[ing] the system to:” or “. . . caus[ing] a computing device to:” language, the claims encompass the user to manually and/or visually perform the aforementioned steps. As such, these limitations are considered mental processes.
Step 2A – Prong 2
Do claims 1, 4 – 9, 11 – 15 and 17 – 20 integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No. Claims 4 – 8, 11 – 14 and 17 – 20 are directed specifically to the judicial exception. Claims 1, 9 and 15, however, recite two additional elements: receiving, by one or more servers from a requestor device, a transportation request comprising a destination; and transmitting navigational data comprising the digital transportation route to a driver computing device, causing the driver computing device to travel in accordance with the digital transportation route. The processor in both steps is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering an electronic representation of a transportation request comprising a destination and navigational data comprising the digital transportation route to a driver computing device, causing the driver computing device to travel in accordance with the digital transportation route), and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these 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. As such, claims 1, 4 – 9, 11 – 15 and 17 – 20 are directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B
Do claims 1, 4 – 9, 11 – 15 and 17 – 20 provide an inventive concept? No. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Claims 1, 4 – 9, 11 – 15 and 17 – 20 are ineligible.
Therefore, claims 1, 4 – 9, 11 – 15 and 17 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 7 and 9 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0364812 A1 to Cao (herein after "Cao publication").
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application.
Texts written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
As to claims 1, 9 and 15,
the Cao publication discloses a system comprising:
at least one processor (see ¶9 for “ride service network” which are known to have at least one processor; see also ¶45 for “let[ting] people use smartphone apps to book and pay for a private car service” where smartphones are known to have at least one processor); and
a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor (see ¶9 for “ride service network” which are known to have a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions executed by at least one processor; see also ¶45 for “let[ting] people use smartphone apps to book and pay for a private car service” where smartphones are known to have a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions executed by at least one processor), cause the system to:
receive, from a requestor device, a transportation request comprising a destination (see ¶10, where “a mobile device is used to transmit a ride-sharing request from a rider”; see also ¶45 for “let[ting] people use smartphone apps to book and pay for a private car service . . . In addition, as described herein, ‘customer devices’ and ‘provider devices’ refer to computing devices that can correspond to desktop computers, cellular or smartphones, personal digital assistants (PDAs), laptop computers, tablet devices, television (IP Television), etc., that can provide network connectivity and processing resources for enabling a user to communicate with a system over a network”)(Emphasis added);
determine a plurality of digital transportation routes to the destination (FIG. 1A and see ¶46);
generate, for the plurality of digital transportation routes to the destination, a plurality of shared ride probabilities indicating likelihoods of receiving an additional shared ride request along the plurality of digital transportation routes within a limit of deviation (see FIG. 1A and ¶46. where ”[t]he process can identify carpooling possibility by matching sub-segments where people can be picked up and dropped off”);
select a digital transportation route from the plurality of digital transportation routes based on the plurality of shared ride probabilities (see FIG. 1A and ¶46); and
transmit navigational data comprising the digital transportation route to a driver computing device, causing the driver computing device to travel in accordance with the digital transportation route (see FIG. 1A and ¶45 – ¶46).
As to claims 2, 10 and 16,
the Cao publication is considered to disclose instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to:
receive, from an additional requestor device, a shared ride request corresponding to the digital transportation route, wherein the shared ride request comprises a pick-up location (see ¶45 – ¶46);
in response to determining that the shared ride request falls within the limit of deviation, add the requestor device and the additional requestor device to a group ride (see ¶129).
As to claims 4, 11 and 17,
the Cao publication is considered to disclose instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to generate a modified digital transportation route to the additional requestor device to initiate the group ride by (see ¶45 – ¶46):
determining an additional pickup location within an additional threshold deviation of the pick-up location (see ¶129); and
determining a first digital transportation route to the pick-up location and a second digital transportation route to the additional pickup location within the additional threshold deviation of the pick-up location (see ¶129).
As to claims 5, 12 and 18,
the Cao publication is considered to disclose instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to select the modified digital transportation route by comparing the first digital transportation route to the pick-up location and the second digital transportation route to the additional pickup location within the additional threshold deviation of the pick-up location (see ¶88 for comparing the first digital transportation route to the pick-up location and the second digital transportation route to the additional pickup location, and ¶129 for within the additional threshold deviation of the pick-up location).
As to claims 6, 13 and 19,
the Cao publication is considered to disclose instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to generate a shared ride probability for a particular digital transportation route of the plurality of digital transportation routes by: identifying a first segment of the particular digital transportation route and a second segment of the particular digital transportation route (see FIG. 1A ); generating a first partial shared ride probability for the first segment of the particular digital transportation route (see ¶46); and generating a second partial shared ride probability for the second segment of the particular digital transportation route (see ¶46).
As to claims 6, 13 and 19,
the Cao publication is considered to disclose instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to generate a shared ride probability for a particular digital transportation route of the plurality of digital transportation routes by: identifying a first segment of the particular digital transportation route and a second segment of the particular digital transportation route (see FIG. 1A ); generating a first partial shared ride probability for the first segment of the particular digital transportation route (see ¶46); and generating a second partial shared ride probability for the second segment of the particular digital transportation route (see ¶46).
As to claims 7, 14 and 20,
the Cao publication is considered to disclose instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to generate the shared ride probability for the particular digital transportation route by combining the first partial shared ride probability and the second partial shared ride probability (see ¶46).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Cao publication.
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application.
Texts written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
As to claim 8,
the Cao publication discloses the invention substantially as claimed, including “determin[ing] a route based at least in part on an amount of time predicted for travelling from a starting location to a destination location of the route . . . .” (See ¶250.) Thus, the Cao publication is considered to disclose generating a first predicted time of travel for the first segment and second predicted time of travel for the second segment.
The Cao publication, however, fails to specifically disclose combining the first partial shared ride probability and the second partial shared ride probability based on the first predicted time of travel and the second predicted time of travel.
In FIG. 1A, the Cao publication discloses “identify[ing] carpooling possibilit[ies] by matching sub-segments where people can be picked up and dropped off.” (See ¶46.) “[T]he system can transport people as well as goods/services. People can be riders, while goods may be items/packages consigned by a store.” (See ¶46.) For perishable items consigned by a store time is critical. Thus, it is imperative to combine the first partial shared ride probability and the second partial shared ride probability based on the first predicted time of travel and the second predicted time of travel in order to preserve the integrity of the goods in transit.
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been an obvious expedient1 to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to modify the Cao publication by combining the first partial shared ride probability and the second partial shared ride probability based on the first predicted time of travel and the second predicted time of travel, as suggested by the Cao publication, in order to preserve the integrity of the goods in transit.
Conclusion
Examiner's Note(s): The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R-07.2015] VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). See also MPEP §2123.
In addition, disclosures in a reference must be evaluated for what they would fairly teach one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Snow, 471 F.2d 1400, 176 USPQ 328 (CCPA 1973) and In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 148 USPQ 507 (CCPA 1966). Specifically, in considering the teachings of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only the specific teachings of the reference, but also the inferences that one skilled in the art would reasonably have been expected to draw from the reference. See In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 159 USPQ 342 (CCPA 1968) and In re Shepard, 319 F.2d 194, 138 USPQ 148 (CCPA 1963). Likewise, it is proper to take into consideration not only the teachings of the prior art, but also the level of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Luck, 476 F.2d 650, 177 USPQ 523 (CCPA 1973). Specifically, those of ordinary skill in the art are presumed to have some knowledge of the art apart from what is expressly disclosed in the references. See In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 135 USPQ 317 (CCPA 1962).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY A. BUTLER whose telephone number is (313)446-6513. The examiner can normally be reached on weekdays, Monday through Friday, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anne M. Antonucci can be reached on weekdays, Monday through Friday, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. at (313) 446-6519. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Electronic Communications
Prior to initiating the first e-mail correspondence with any examiner, Applicant is responsible for filing a written statement with the USPTO in accordance with MPEP § 502.03 II. All received e-mail messages including e-mail attachments shall be placed into this application’s record.
/RODNEY A BUTLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666
1 In patent law, an obvious expedient refers to a modification, substitution, or combination of existing technology that a Person Having Ordinary Skill In The Art (PHOSITA) would have deemed a "common sense" or routine solution to a problem. Such improvements are generally not patentable because they do not represent a significant, non-obvious advancement over existing knowledge. (See MPEP §§ 2144.03 – 2144.04.)