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 1-15 are pending and examined herein per Applicant’s March 20, 2024 filing with the USPTO.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/18/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-15 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 1-7 are to a method (process); claims 8-14 are to a system (machine) and claim15 is to a non-transitory computer-readable storage media (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 method for planning a public transit system comprising determining costs of providing a fixed-route service, the method comprising:
receiving, via a computing device, a set of fixed route lines and trips for a particular public transit system;
receiving, via the computing device, a plurality of ride requests, each ride request comprising a start location, a start or end time, and an end location;
determining, via the computing device, a plurality of possible proposals for each ride request of the plurality of ride requests based on the received set of fixed route lines and trips, the start location, the start time, the end location of each of the ride requests and one or more constraints;
determining, via the computing device, for each ride request of the plurality of ride requests, a set of proposals of the plurality of proposals having the lowest overall cost to provide the fixed-route service;
determining, via the computing device, whether one or more of a subset of the fixed route lines or trips are to be removed from the received set of fixed route lines and trips, and whether the remaining fixed route lines and trips are to be adjusted in time; and
transmitting, via the computing device, the set proposals for each ride request, and the remaining fixed route lines and trips to a display, to a transit system, to a ride sharing management system or any combination thereof.
The claims are directed towards “to transit planning, vehicle ridesharing and systems and methods for transit planning management”, (Spec [2]). Where the claims expressly recite determining rides and cost associated with the rides before making a proposal to the requesting system. The claims are found to be providing a user/rider with trip information best matching their request and the request of other users. Therefore the claims are found to be directed to managing personal behavior and thereby falling in to the abstract field of certain method of organizing human activity.
Further the Office finds the claims to also fall within the abstract category of a mental processes. The claims only nominally require computing components. The Office finds that a dispatcher with the same known information could carry out the determinations step using the power of the human mind’s ability to reason and make judgements. The MPEP provides that the Courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind." Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (‘‘[W]ith the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.’’); Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324, 117 USPQ2d 1693, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that computer-implemented method for "anonymous loan shopping" was an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer"). The Office find planning and proposing routes within a transit system to be akin to loan shopping.
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 receiving and transmitting elements are determined to be insignificant extra solution activity of data-gathering and outputting.
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 claimed elements applied using general purpose computing components, see at least Spec. [61] and [110].
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.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 8-10, 13, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pishdadian et al (US 2021/0302175 A1).
Claims 1, 8, and 15
Pishdadian teaches a method for planning a public transit system comprising determining costs of providing a fixed-route service (Pishdadian “Methods and systems for improved generation of multi-modal transportation routes are provided” and [62] “identify routes that indicate the . . . route with the lowest cost”), the method comprising:
receiving, via a computing device, a set of fixed route lines and trips for a particular public transit system (Pishdadian [4] “the network includes at least two subnetworks of route segments associated with the at least one rideable modality and the at least one additional modality” and [25] “routes may include multiple segments that are associated with different types of vehicles (i.e., modalities). In certain instances, the modalities may include rideable vehicles, such as bicycles or scooters. The modalities may also include, e.g., automobiles, buses, trains, and/or ferries.”);
receiving, via the computing device, a plurality of ride requests, each ride request comprising a start location, a start or end time, and an end location (Pishdadian [33] “computing device 202 may receive transportation request 242 from computing devices 240 requesting transportation from a first location 244 to a second location” and [42] “”a particular travel time requirement (e.g., five minutes, 10 minutes, 15 minutes)”);
determining, via the computing device, a plurality of possible proposals for each ride request of the plurality of ride requests based on the received set of fixed route lines and trips, the start location, the start time, the end location of each of the ride requests and one or more constraints (Pishdadian [48] “ the route segments 408, 410, 412, 414, 416, 418 may be generated to comply with one or more requirements (e.g., cost, distance, travel time, and/or vertical gain requirements).” And [53] “route segments 510, 514, 518, 520, 522, 526, 528 may be generated based on route segment constraints for the associated modalities. For example, the route segments 510 for the subnetwork 502 associated with trains may be generated to comply with train lines and train schedules between the locations 512 (e.g., between train stations) . . . route segments 526, 528 for the subnetwork 508 associated with automobiles may be generated between the locations 530 based on route segment restrictions associated with automobiles (e.g., distance, time, and/or costs restrictions)”);
determining, via the computing device, for each ride request of the plurality of ride requests, a set of proposals of the plurality of proposals having the lowest overall cost to provide the fixed-route service (Pishdadian [63] “ if the preferences indicate that the user prefers low-cost routes, the predetermined threshold around the lowest cost route may be tightened (e.g., within $5 of the lowest cost route) and the predetermined thresholds around other criteria may be relaxed (e.g., within 20 minutes of the shortest travel time, within 10 minutes of the shortest wait time).”);
determining, via the computing device, whether one or more of a subset of the fixed route lines or trips are to be removed from the received set of fixed route lines and trips, and whether the remaining fixed route lines and trips are to be adjusted in time (Pishdadian [10] “removing at least one route segment that does not meet at least one of (i) a time requirement, (ii) a cost requirement, (iii) a distance requirement, and (iv) a vertical gain requirement.” And [47] “Removing route segments in this manner may reduce the number of overall route generation options within a network that ultimately correspond to undesirable routes (e.g., unnecessarily short segments, unnecessarily long segments, difficult segments to travel by rideable vehicle). Accordingly, the overall quality of the generated routes may be improved while also reducing the computing resources necessary to generate the routes.”); and
transmitting, via the computing device, the set proposals for each ride request, and the remaining fixed route lines and trips to a display, to a transit system, to a ride sharing management system or any combination thereof (Pishdadian abstract “Routes may be generated, based on the network, that utilize the rideable modality and at least one of the routes may be sent to a computing device for display.” [65] “computing device 240 may then be configured to display the selected routes at least in part (e.g., to enable selection by a user). For example, the computing device 240 may display one or more of the modalities used during the selected route and/or may display at least a portion of the route itself . . . computing device 202 may select a subset of the routes (e.g., 1-10 routes) to send to the computing device for display (e.g., to improve visual clarity and reduce visual clutter for displayed routes)”).
Independent claims 8 and 15, recite substantially similar limitations to those rejected above and therefore are rejected for the same reasons given above.
Pishdadian additionally teaches the additional features of claim 8, a system for planning a public transit system comprising determining costs of providing a fixed-route service, the system comprising (Pishdadian [27] “transportation matching system may generate a route from the starting location that utilizes a public transportation modality (e.g., a bus or a train)” and [28] “existing systems may recommend public transportation modalities between starting and ending locations for users located near transit stops.”): at least one processor configured to (Pishdadian [33] “computing device 202 may be configured to” and [39] “the memory may contain instructions which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to”).
Pishdadian additionally teaches the additional features of claim 15, one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media comprising instructions that are executable to cause one or more processors to (Pishdadian [15] “a non-transitory, computer-readable medium is provided storing instructions which, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to implement at least one of the first through twelfth aspects”).
Claims 2 and 9
Pishdadian teaches all the limitations of the method of claim 1 further comprising outputting the public transit system timetables, vehicle frequency, or any combination thereof (Pishdadian [53] where bus and train schedules are examples of public transit and where the claims are made in the alternative only one element needs to be found in the art, also see [67]).
Claim 9 recites substantially similar limitations to those rejected above and therefore are rejected for the same reasons given above.
Claims 3 and 10
Pishdadian teaches all the limitations of the method of claim 1 wherein the one or more constraints include a number of assignments per trip does not exceed a predetermined limit per trip, if a trip is assigned to a request, then a corresponding return trip is automatically assigned when the fixed route line operates the same route in two directions, if a trip is assigned to a request, then activate the fixed route line, or any combination thereof (Pishdadian [10] and [47]).
Claim 10 recites substantially similar limitations to those rejected above and therefore are rejected for the same reasons given above.
Claims 6 and 13
Pishdadian teaches all the limitations of the method of claim 1 further comprising:
determining for at least some of the ride requests an on-demand proposal (Pishdadian [84]);
determining a cost of providing the proposals for each ride request based on the fixed-service proposal and the on-demand proposal (Pishdadian [62]); and
selecting one proposal of the plurality of proposals based on the overall cost (Pishdadian [65]).
Claim 13 recites substantially similar limitations to those rejected above and therefore are rejected for the same reasons given above.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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(s) 4, 5, 7, 11, 12, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pishdadian et al (US 2021/0302175 A1) in view of Lui et al (US 2019/0056233 A1).
Claims 4 and 11
Pishdadian teaches all the limitations of the method of claim 1; however Pishdadian does NOT expressly teach wherein determining, the set of proposals for each request further comprises using a mixed integer linear program based on the plurality of solutions.
Lui in an analogous art of multi-modal trip planning, teaches wherein determining, the set of proposals for each request further comprises using a mixed integer linear program based on the plurality of solutions (Lui abstract and [45]).
Both Pishdadian and Lui are concerned with planning multi-modal trips, see their respective abstracts. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Pishdadian the wherein determining, the set of proposals for each request further comprises using a mixed integer linear program based on the plurality of solutions as taught by Lui since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 11 recites substantially similar limitations to those rejected above and therefore are rejected for the same reasons given above.
Claims 5 and 12
Pishdadian teaches all the limitations of the method of claim 1, Pishdadian does NOT expressly teach, but Lui in an analogous art of multi-modal trip planning, does teach wherein determining the overall cost comprises:
a) summing fixed route trip durations multiplied by fixed route trip’s total operational cost over all fixed route trips used (Pishdadian [44]);
b) summing costs for each fixed-route (Pishdadian [45-46]);
c) summing for all rides total trip duration multiplied by value of travel time (Pishdadian [45-46]); and
d) summing outcomes of a) b) and c) (Pishdadian [23] and [45-46]).
Both Pishdadian and Lui are concerned with planning multi-modal trips, see their respective abstracts. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Pishdadian the wherein determining the overall cost comprises: a) summing fixed route trip durations multiplied by fixed route trip’s total operational cost over all fixed route trips used; b) summing costs for each fixed-route; c) summing for all rides total trip duration multiplied by value of travel time; and d) summing outcomes of a) b) and c) as taught by Lui since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 12 recites substantially similar limitations to those rejected above and therefore are rejected for the same reasons given above.
Claims 7 and 14
Pishdadian teaches all the limitations of the method of claim 6 wherein determining the cost of the fixed-route and on-demand proposals comprises:
a) summing fixed route trip duration multiplied by fixed route trip’s total operational cost over all fixed route trips used (Pishdadian abstract and [45-46]);
b) summing costs for each fixed route (Pishdadian abstract and [45-46]);
c)summing on-demand trip durations multiplied by on-demand van time cost over all on-demand trips, and adding an overhead for operating an on-demand service (Pishdadian abstract and [45-46]);
d) summing for all rides total trip duration multiplied by value of travel time (Pishdadian abstract, [20], and [45-46]); and
e) summing outcomes of a) b) c) and d) (Pishdadian abstract and [45-46]).
Both Pishdadian and Lui are concerned with planning multi-modal trips, see their respective abstracts. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Pishdadian the determining the cost of the fixed-route and on-demand proposals comprises: a) summing fixed route trip duration multiplied by fixed route trip’s total operational cost over all fixed route trips used; b) summing costs for each fixed route; c)summing on-demand trip durations multiplied by on-demand van time cost over all on-demand trips, and adding an overhead for operating an on-demand service; d) summing for all rides total trip duration multiplied by value of travel time; and e) summing outcomes of a) b) c) and d)as taught by Lui since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 14 recites substantially similar limitations to those rejected above and therefore are rejected for the same reasons given above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nguyen et al (US 2019/0108468 A1) teaches Instead of static routes, fixed stops, and rigid schedules, transit vehicles in the new system run dynamic routes, make flexible stops, and cooperate among themselves to provide fast, convenient, and efficient transit services. The transit service area is divided into multiple transit zones associated with fixed transfer centers as well as dynamic transit stops. A transit coordination center tracks transit vehicles and passengers in real time and uses a set of algorithms to calculate personalized transit plans for passengers and dynamic routes for transit vehicles, match passengers to transit vehicles, and coordinate passenger pick-up, drop-off, and transfers to provide transit services with minimal passenger travel time, vehicle operating costs, and other costs.
Gururajan et al (US 10,248,913 B1) teaches bus route has fixed stop locations and a static itinerary. Embodiments described herein can generate a dynamic itinerary for a vehicle that includes dynamic and varied stop locations to provide a dynamic route depending on passenger requests. The itinerary can be more flexible than a bus route given the dynamic locations. This may also provide a more efficient system as a vehicle may only pass by a particular stop location based on passenger requests and will not pass by a particular stop only because it is part of a fixed route or itinerary. In a carpooling scenario, the carpool route has fixed stop locations based on a fixed route of the driver. Each fixed stop location is often associated with only one pickup time, such as a time that the driver travels to work, for example. In the traditional carpooling scenario passengers requesting a trip must conform to the fixed stop location and fixed pickup times of the fixed carpool route.
Marcovitch (US 2023/0394613 A1) teaches a rider assigned to a particular fixed stop can have multiple vehicle options available at that particular fixed stop due to multiple vehicles having the same fixed stop. For a set of fixed stop routes the ridesharing management system can maintain a list of all fixed stop routes and continually optimize the routes in real time to achieve the best efficiency.
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