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 .
Priority
Application 18/538,335 was filed on December 13, 2023 and claims priority to Korean Patent Application No. 10-2022-0187478, filed on Dec. 28, 2022.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-24 and 26 are currently pending. Claims 1, 10, and 18 were amended in the reply filed December 8, 2025.
Response to Arguments
112(a):
Applicant's amendments overcome the rejection made under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) and it is withdrawn.
101:
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the rejection made under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant first argues that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. Specifically, that the claims relate to, rather than recite a judicial exception and that “the concept of ‘sales activity/behavior or business relation’ or ‘observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion’ is wholly absent from the claims” (Remarks p. 12). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that Applicant’s specification refers to ride-offering services such as “taxis and public transportation” and “car-sharing, car-hailing, ride- hailing, ride-sharing and taxi-hailing” services [p. 1] as well as “payment” for completing a delivery [p. 20], which illustrates the sales and business aspects of the claims (i.e., exchanging ride or delivery services for money/compensation) as well as managing behavior and relationships (i.e., managing relationships between drivers, passengers, and persons submitting delivery requests).
Applicant further argues that the claims do not recite a mental process, similar to claim 2 of USPTO Subject Matter Eligibility Example 37 (“Example 37”), because it requires action by a processor that cannot be practically applied in the mind. Particularly, “causing automatic setting of the origin to the pickup location and the destination to the drop-off location based on the user accepting the delivery request via a graphical user interface overlaid on a digital map of a user interface screen” (Remarks p. 12-13). Examiner respectfully disagrees. A claim that requires a computer may still recite a mental process where the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)). Here, setting the origin and destination is a setting of locations that can be performed in the human mind. Examiner notes that the claims are not limited to cases with a sufficiently large number of possible locations, such that a human would have difficulty analyzing and selecting locations. The graphical user interface is analyzed an additional element in Step 2A-Prong 2 and does not negate the presence of an abstract idea.
Applicant next argues that the claims integrate any alleged abstract idea into practical application. Specifically that, the claims “recite a specific manner of displaying elements to a user (and specific ways in which the user or the driver aspects the delivery request with those elements, such as a graphical user interface overlaid on a digital map of a user interface screen, for the automatic setting of the origin to the pickup location and the destination to the drop-off location resulting in an ‘improved user interface for electronic devices’” similar to claim 1 of Example 37 (Remarks p. 14). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes Figs. 9 and 10 of Applicant’s specification, which show the “graphical user interface” as a pop-up menu with an “Accept” button, on top of a map that is displayed on a generic mobile device. Furthermore the “graphical user interface” is not described in any detail in Applicant’s specification and is only shown in Figs. 8-11 as being a generic interface on a generic mobile device. As such, the graphical user interface does not appear to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or any other technology. Any improvement is to the abstract idea, which is not an integration into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(a) - A judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field).
Lastly, Applicant argues that the claims recite significantly more that the alleged abstract idea and “recite features that are not generic” because the claims recite “specific ways of displaying elements to a user, using specific types of user input, and perform automatic location setting changes … in specific computerized ways” (Remarks p. 14). Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted above, the additional elements recited by the claims are generic computer components recited at a high-level of detail. Examiner notes that displaying information relating to the abstract idea (e.g. a map or delivery details) does not change the generic nature of the computer components performing the processes. As such, the claims do not add significantly more that the allege abstract idea.
Accordingly, the rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-24 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, 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, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 10, and 18 recite, performing various limitations “in real time”. These limitations are not supported by the specification. Applicant does not refer to any particular sections of the specification as supporting the limitation. Applicant’s specification teaches: “a system (e.g., a ride-offering system) may comprise a communication module configured to communicate with a user terminal, a driver terminal, and a delivery system; and at least one processor configured to: perform matching between: a ride request transmitted from the user terminal and a delivery request transmitted to the delivery system” [p. 4]; and “a screen for inputting a destination may be displayed” [p. 18]. However, it does not contain any description that would convey to a person skilled in the relevant art that any of the limitations are performed in “real-time” (i.e., with time constraints) or that any form of real-time computing is used. There are no other sections of Applicant’s specification that teach the amended limitations. Therefore, claims 1, 10, and 18 fail to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 2-9, 11-17, 19-24, and 26 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claims 1, 10, and 18.
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 1-24 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Independent Claims
MPEP 2106 Step 2A- Prong 1:
Independent claims 1, 10, and 18 recite, perform matching between: a ride request and a delivery request;
and based on the performed matching, change at least one of an origin associated with the ride request or a destination associated with the ride request
determine a pickup location and a drop-off location associated with the delivery request based on the origin and the destination associated with the ride request,
identify information on an item associated with the delivery request,
transmit the pickup location, the drop-off location, and the information on the item associated with the delivery request,
transmit the pickup location, the drop-off location, and the information on the item associated with the delivery request to the user and the driver to display the pickup location, the drop-off location, and the information on the item associated with the delivery request,
determine whether the user accepts the delivery request and whether the driver accepts the delivery request,
set the origin to the pickup location and the destination to the drop-off location based on the user accepting the delivery request, and
transmit the origin set to the pickup location and the destination set to the drop-off location to the user and the driver and display the origin set to the pickup location and the destination set to the drop-off location.
The limitations above are processes that under broadest reasonable interpretation cover “certain methods of organizing human activity” (including sales activities or behaviors, or business relations). Specifically, coordinating rideshares and package delivery requests is establishing business relationships and performing sales activities.
Additionally, the limitations include mental processes (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion) because they can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper. Specifically, claims to match ride requests and delivery requests and to change a ride origin or destination based on the match can all be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A- Prong 2:
The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1, 10, and 18 as a whole amount to: merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, or “apply it”; or generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Independent claims 1, 10, and 18 recite the following additional elements to perform the above recited steps: transceiver (claims 1 and 18), a ride-offering system (claims 1, 10, and 18), a delivery system (claims 1, 10, and 18), a wired network or a wireless network (claims 1 and 18), a user terminal (claims 1, 10, and 18), a driver terminal (claims 1, 10, and 18), at least one processor (claims 1 and 18), user interface screens (claims 1, 10, and 18), a computing device (claim 10). These additional elements are generic computer components performing generic computer functions at a high level of generality, and are recited at a high level of generality. These additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Examiner notes that performing limitations in “real-time” and “automatically” is recited at a very high-level of detail and therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, includes functions inherent to the computer systems they are performed on, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Furthermore, claims 1, 10, and 18 recite the additional element of “a graphical user interface overlaid on a digital map of the user interface screen of the user terminal”. This additional element is described at high level of generality such that, when viewed as a whole, the additional element does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., mapping and navigation applications).
Individually and as a whole, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application because the claims do not: improve the functioning of the computer itself or any other technology or technical field; 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 meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment to transform the judicial exception into patent-eligible subject matter; amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer.
MPEP 2106 Step 2B:
Independent claims 1, 10, and 18 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements are generic computer components performing generic computer functions at a high level of generality and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Alone or in combination, the additional elements do not contribute significantly more than the judicial exception and as a result, the claims are ineligible.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 2-9, 11-17, 19-24, and 26, recite additional details that merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations, without adding any additional elements for analysis. Thus, claims 2-9, 11-17, 19-24, and 26 are also ineligible for the reasons stated above with respect to independent claims 1, 10, and 18.
Allowable Subject Matter
Available prior art, alone or in combination fail to teach all of the claim limitations in the independent claims. Examiner notes that there is a 101 rejection of the claims as well as a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). The following are the closest prior art:
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0365629 to Zeng et al. (Zeng) teaches taxi-based delivery method where delivery and rideshare requests are matched and a passenger and driver can accept or reject a delivery request. However, Zeng does not teach that the origin or destination of the ride request is changed.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2016/0364678 to Cao (Cao) teaches systems and methods that can provide package delivery in conjunction with a ride-sharing service. The system can suggest an alternative pickup or drop-off location that complies with route planning objectives, such as the safety of the participants. However, Cao does not teach that the origin of the ride request is changed to the pickup location of the item or that the destination is changed to the drop-off location.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0342706 to Hawley et al. (Hawley) teaches systems and methods for mixed use rideshare services where a user with an item for pickup can request that a rideshare vehicle to pick up the item if the rideshare vehicle has a route that passes nearby. A rider can accept or reject the item pick up. However, Hawley does not teach that the origin or destination of the ride request is changed.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0019146 to Chraibi et al. (Chraibi) teaches a system and method to arrange a delivery service, wherein the delivery service request may include an item-delivery request, a ride-sharing request, or both. A courier or requesting party can accept or decline a delivery request. However, Chraibi does not teach that the origin or destination of the ride request is changed.
Korean Patent Publication No. KR 102147258 B1 to Mi (Mi) teaches a goods delivery system that allows a taxi to deliver a product with a passenger, where the passenger agrees to collect the goods along his or her route. However, Mi does not teach that the origin or destination of the ride request is changed.
NPL “Model of information system for combined ride-sourcing service” by Fóldes et al. (Fóldes) teaches a model for extended ride-sourcing, wherein the vehicles are shared between passengers, passengers and packages, or packages. The model allows for a modified route when vehicle sharing is accepted. However, Fóldes does not teach that the origin or destination of the ride request is changed.
Conclusion
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 STEPHANIE S WALLICK whose telephone number is (703)756-1081. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571) 272-5587. 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.
/S.S.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/RUPANGINI SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628