DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This Final Office Action is responsive to Applicant's reply filed 2/25/2026.
Claims 1, 10, and 19 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
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
This application claims priority as a continuation of Application 17557994 filed on 12/21/2021 and as a continuation of Application 16207004 filed on 11/30/2018. Applicant's claim for the benefit of this prior-filed application is acknowledged.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments have been fully considered, but do not overcome the previously pending 35 USC 103 and 35 USC 101 rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Examiner further notes that claims 19-20 are directed towards non-statutory subject matter under Step 1. Appropriate correction is required.
With regard to the limitations of claims 1-20, Applicant argues that the claims are patent eligible under 35 USC 101 because the pending claims are not directed toward an abstract idea. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner has already set forth a prima facie case under 35 USC 101. The Examiner has clearly pointed out the limitations directed towards the abstract idea, what the additional elements are and why they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and why the additional elements and remaining limitations do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims specifically recite scheduling and coordinating transportation options (e.g. taxi services) for human users, which is Organizing Human Activity for commercial purposes. Implementing the abstract idea on a general purpose computer does not improve the functioning or efficiency of the computer itself, but rather merely adds the words apply it with the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106). Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
The Examiner asserts that displaying an advertisement on a human users phone while riding in a rideshare vehicle coordinated using a rideshare app does not improve the functioning of the computer, but rather further narrows the abstract idea. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant further argues the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner asserts the claims are unrelated to Diehr as no physical product is being manufactured and there is no specific control of any sort of mechanical machine. Rather the claims are scheduling taxi services and merely displaying the results so a human user can make a decision. The claims do not even specifically recite any mathematical relationships. Telling a human to do something does not amount to an improvement (See MPEP 2106.05). Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the technology is improved, but does not properly identify what limitations amount to the improvement or what the improvement even is. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are related to Amdocs, but does not correlate or provide reasoning as to how the claims are an improvement over the prior art. The Examiner points to MPEP 2106 which states “the search for an inventive concept should not be confused with a novelty or non-obviousness determination. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 91, 101 USPQ2d at 1973 (rejecting "the Government’s invitation to substitute §§ 102, 103, and 112 inquiries for the better established inquiry under § 101 "). As made clear by the courts, the "‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter”, where a narrow abstract idea is still an abstract idea. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
With regard to the limitations of claims 1-20, Applicant argues that the claims are allowable over 35 USC 103 because the claim amendments overcome the current art rejection. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Please see the updated rejection below since amendments by Applicant require additional reference to the Examiner’s art rejection.
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 non-statutory subject matter;
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
In the instant case (Step 1), claims 1-9 are directed toward a process and claims 10-18 are directed toward a system; which are statutory categories of invention. Claims 19-20 are directed toward a Non-statutory category of invention.
Additionally (Step 2A Prong One), the independent claims are directed toward a system comprising: a non-transitory memory; and one or more hardware processors configured to execute instructions from the non-transitory memory to perform operations comprising: determining that a transportation requestor device operated by a requestor has initiated a session with a dynamic transportation network; receiving an initial request for transportation via the dynamic transportation network, the initial request for transportation including contextual information related to the initial request; in response to receiving the initial request for transportation and prior to completion of the initial request for transportation, causing a display of the transportation requestor device to present, while the requestor is transported in connection with the initial request for transportation, a subsequent transportation option that provides transportation for the requestor to an alternative specified destination at a future point in time, wherein the alternative destination in the subsequent transportation option is based on the contextual information related to the initial request; and causing the display of the transportation requestor device to present, at least one incentive to accept the subsequent transportation option, while the requestor is transported in connection with the initial request for transportation; and in response to an acceptance of the subsequent transportation option, automatically dispatching a vehicle included in the dynamic transportation network to fulfill the subsequent transportation option for the transportation requestor device at the future point in time (Organizing Human Activity), which are considered to be abstract ideas (See MPEP 2106). The steps/functions disclosed above and in the independent claims are directed toward the abstract idea of Organizing Human Activity because the claimed limitations are analyzing human input data for requesting a ridesharing service and providing advertisements to select certain modes of transportation at certain times to certain locations, which is managing how humans interact for commercial purposes.
Dependent claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, where any additional elements introduced are discussed below.
Step 2A Prong Two: In this application, even if not directed toward the abstract idea, the independent claims additionally recite “a computer; by circuitry included in a system; a transportation requestor device operated by a requestor; a dynamic transportation network; by the circuitry; via the dynamic transportation network; causing a display of the transportation requestor device to; causing, by the circuitry, the display of the transportation requestor device to (claim 1)”; “a system comprising: a non-transitory memory; and one or more hardware processors configured to execute instructions from the non-transitory memory to perform operations comprising: a transportation requestor device operated by a requestor; a dynamic transportation network; via the dynamic transportation network, causing a display of the transportation requestor device to present; and causing the display of the transportation requestor device to present (claim 10)”; “computer-readable medium comprising: computer-readable instructions that, when executed by at least one processor of a computing device, cause the computing device to; a transportation requestor device operated by a requestor; a dynamic transportation network; via the dynamic transportation network; cause a display of the transportation requestor device to; cause the display of the transportation requestor device to (claim 19)”, which are additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See MPEP 2106) and are recited at such a high level of generality. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements in the claims do no more than use the computer components as a tool. There is no change to the computer or other technology that is recited in the claim, and thus the claims do not improve computer functionality or other technology.
In addition, dependent claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20 further narrow the abstract idea and dependent claims 4 and 13 additionally recite “training a neural network” which do not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because receiving/storing data merely add insignificant extra-solution activity and the claimed “neural network” does not account for an additional element that integrates the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See MPEP 2106).
Step 2B: When analyzing the additional element(s) and/or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se the claim limitations amount(s) to no more than: a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment and merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer (See MPEP 2106). Further, method; System; and Product Independent claims 1, 10, and 19 recite “a computer; by circuitry included in a system; a transportation requestor device operated by a requestor; a dynamic transportation network; by the circuitry; via the dynamic transportation network; causing a display of the transportation requestor device to; causing, by the circuitry, the display of the transportation requestor device to (claim 1)”; “a system comprising: a non-transitory memory; and one or more hardware processors configured to execute instructions from the non-transitory memory to perform operations comprising: a transportation requestor device operated by a requestor; a dynamic transportation network; via the dynamic transportation network, causing a display of the transportation requestor device to present; and causing the display of the transportation requestor device to present (claim 10)”; “computer-readable medium comprising: computer-readable instructions that, when executed by at least one processor of a computing device, cause the computing device to; a transportation requestor device operated by a requestor; a dynamic transportation network; via the dynamic transportation network; cause a display of the transportation requestor device to; cause the display of the transportation requestor device to (claim 19)”; however, these elements merely facilitate the claimed functions at a high level of generality and they perform conventional functions and are considered to be general purpose computer components which is supported by Applicant’s specification in Paragraphs 0067-0074 and Figures 13. The Applicant’s claimed additional elements are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a general purpose computer and generally link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. When viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
In addition, claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims. The Examiner notes that the dependent claims merely further define the data being analyzed and how the data is being analyzed. Similarly, claims 4 and 13 additionally recite “training a neural network” which do not account for additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the claimed structure merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer and does not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (See MPEP 2106). The additional limitations of the independent and dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The examiner has considered the dependent claims in a full analysis including the additional limitations individually and in combination as analyzed in the independent claim(s). Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 19 recites “a computer readable medium” where the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable media covers the forms of non-transitory tangible medial and transitory propagating signal per se when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01. Since the claims are drawn to a computer readable medium and the specification is silent, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed cir 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter) and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C 101, Aug 24, 2009; p. 2. 7. Applicant advised to amend the claim to recite "non-transitory computer readable media” to overcome rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-12, 14-15, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amin et al. (US 2014/0129951 A1) in view of Jiang et al. (US 2020/0081933 A1), which claims priority of provisional application 62/728029 filed 9/6/2018 and further in view of Medina et al. (US 2016/0042303 A1).
Regarding Claim 10: Amin et al. teach a system comprising: a non-transitory memory; and one or more hardware processors configured to execute instructions from the non-transitory memory to perform operations comprising (See Figure 1, Figure 3C-3H, and claim 19):
determining that a transportation requestor device operated by a requestor has initiated a session with a dynamic transportation network (See Figure 2 and Paragraph 0012);
receiving an initial request for transportation via the dynamic transportation network, the initial request for transportation including contextual information related to the initial request (See Figure 3C, Paragraph 0058, and Paragraph 0063);
in response to receiving the initial request for transportation (See Paragraph 0091 – “other suggested entries 440 can be provided based on historical/previous pickup locations of the user and/or based on user-specific data … Historical information, such as the frequency or recency of previous service locations that the user requested service to be performed at, can be used to provide recent and/or recommended points of interest to the user”);
a subsequent transportation option that provides transportation for the requestor to an alternative specified destination at a future point in time, wherein the alternative destination in the subsequent transportation option is based on the contextual information related to the initial request (See Figure 3C, Figure 3D, Figure 3E, Paragraph 0038 – “Based, in part, on the current location of the computing device 180, the on-demand service application 110 can use the user information 151, such as the user's home address, the user's place of business, the user's preferences, etc., and historical information 153, such as the frequency and recency of previous locations that the user requested services at, to provide recent and/or recommended points of interest to the user. When the user selects one of the entries of a recommended point of interest as a current location and/or pickup location, the on-demand service application 110 can provide the location data 119 to the on-demand service system 170”, Paragraphs 0063-0066, Paragraph 0091).
Amin et al. do not specifically disclose in response to receiving the initial request for transportation and prior to completion of the initial request for transportation, causing a display of the transportation requestor device to present; causing the display of the transportation requestor device to present at least one incentive to accept the subsequent transportation option; and in response to an acceptance of the subsequent transportation option, automatically dispatching a vehicle included in the dynamic transportation network to fulfill the subsequent transportation option for the transportation requestor device at the future point in time; while the requestor is transported in connection with the initial request for transportation. However, Jiang et al. further teach:
in response to receiving the initial request for transportation and prior to completion of the initial request for transportation, causing a display of the transportation requestor device to present a subsequent transportation option (See Figure 2A, Figure 2B, Figure 3A, Paragraph 0018 – “In one variation, a subset of the users of the network-based service can be associated with a package or product that caps the service parameter. Certain users of the network-based service can purchase a time-limited subscription package or product that caps the service parameter for a particular route. For example, a user can purchase a 30-day subscription package for capped fares between a first location (e.g., the user's home address) and a second location (e.g., the user's work address). In this example, any time the user requests service between the first and second locations, a corresponding service metric can be retrieved, and the service parameter can be determined based on the corresponding service metric. When the user requests service between to or from other locations, the network system can determine that no service metric is applicable to the user and the service parameter determined irrespective of any service metrics (e.g., the cost can be uncapped). As another example, the user can purchase a 10-day subscription or 10-use package for capped fares within certain areas of the geographic region (e.g., within San Francisco city limits, within Manhattan, etc.)”, Paragraph 0029 – “subscription for service between his or her home and work locations”, Paragraph 0034, and Paragraph 0051);
causing the display of the transportation requestor device to present at least one incentive to accept the subsequent transportation option (See Figure 2A, Figure 2B, Figure 3A, and Paragraph 0051);
and in response to an acceptance of the subsequent transportation option, automatically dispatching a vehicle included in the dynamic transportation network to fulfill the subsequent transportation option for the transportation requestor device at the future point in time (See Paragraph 0010 and Paragraph 0034 – “transmit the route 127 to the provider device 190 via the one or more networks 170”).
Amin et al. and Jiang et al. are related because both are analyzing rideshare requests to make determinations. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the rideshare system of Amin et al. to incorporate the incentive of Jiang et al. in order to encourage users to book the rideshare, which improves business.
Amin et al. in view of Jiang et al. do not specifically disclose while the requestor is transported in connection with the initial request for transportation. However, Medina et al. further teach while the requestor is transported in connection with the initial request for transportation (See Figure 1, Paragraph 0044, Paragraph 0167, and Paragraph 0192 – “Ride Offer during the ride offers”).
Amin et al., Jiang et al., and Medina et al. are related because all are analyzing rideshare requests to make determinations. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the rideshare system of Amin et al. in view of Jiang et al. to incorporate the during the ride notifications of Medina et al. in order to ensure information is displayed at appropriate times to users to improve user experience and foster continued use.
Regarding Claim 11: Amin et al. in view of Jiang et al. and further in view of Medina et al. teach the limitations of claim 10. Amin et al. do not specifically disclose the following. However, Jiang et al. further teach wherein the operations further include: receiving an indication that the subsequent transportation option has been selected by the transportation requestor; and automatically applying the presented incentive to the subsequent transportation option (See Figure 2A, Figure 2B, Figure 3A, Paragraph 0051, and Paragraph 0054).
Amin et al. and Jiang et al. are related because both are analyzing rideshare requests to make determinations. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the rideshare system of Amin et al. to incorporate the incentive of Jiang et al. in order to encourage users to book the rideshare, which improves business.
Regarding Claim 12: Amin et al. in view of Jiang et al. and further in view of Medina et al. teach the limitations of claim 10. Amin et al. do not specifically disclose the following. However, Jiang et al. further teach wherein the at least one incentive to accept the subsequent transportation option comprises at least one of: the subsequent transportation option offered at a reduced rate; a higher-tier transportation option at the price of a lower-tier transportation option; a redeemable credit toward the subsequent transportation option (See Figure 2A, Figure 2B, Figure 3A, Paragraph 0051, and Paragraph 0054).
Amin et al. and Jiang et al. are related because both are analyzing rideshare requests to make determinations. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the rideshare system of Amin et al. to incorporate the incentive of Jiang et al. in order to encourage users to book the rideshare, which improves business.
Regarding Claim 14: Amin et al. in view of Jiang et al. and further in view of Medina et al. teach the limitations of claim 10. Amin et al. further teach wherein the operations further include: determining a current state of one or more different transportation provider options available through the dynamic transportation network; and identifying, based at least in part on the determined current state of the different transportation provider options, which transportation provider options are currently available for the transportation requestor device (See Figure 3C, Paragraph 0012, Paragraph 0058, and Paragraph 0063).
Regarding Claim 15: Amin et al. in view of Jiang et al. and further in view of Medina et al. teach the limitations of claim 14. Amin et al. further teach wherein the operations further include ranking the available transportation provider options according to one or more ranking factors, wherein the ranking factors are specific to each type of transportation provider option (See Figure 3F – “UberX, BlackCar, SUV”).
Regarding Claim 17: Amin et al. in view of Jiang et al. and further in view of Medina et al. teach the limitations of claim 10. Amin et al. further teach wherein the contextual information related to the initial request for transportation comprises an indication of the origin of the initial request for transportation and an indication of the destination of the initial request for transportation (See Figure 3C, Paragraph 0012, Paragraph 0058, and Paragraph 0063).
Regarding Claim 18: Amin et al. in view of Jiang et al. and further in view of Medina et al. teach the limitations of claim 17. Amin et al. further teach wherein the contextual information related to the initial request for transportation comprises information indicating how long the transportation requestor normally spends at the destination of the initial request for transportation (See Figure 3C, Figure 3D, Paragraph 0012, Paragraph 0058, and Paragraph 0063).
Regarding Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-9, and 19-20: Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-9, and 19-20 recite limitations already addressed by the rejections of claims 10-12, 14-15, and 17-18 above; therefore the same rejections apply.
Claims 4, 7, 13, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amin et al. (US 2014/0129951 A1) in view of Jiang et al. (US 2020/0081933 A1), which claims priority of provisional application 62/728029 filed 9/6/2018 and further in view of Medina et al. (US 2016/0042303 A1) and Rajcok et al. (US 2019/0244318 A1) which claims priority of provisional application 62/625967 filed 2/3/2018.
Regarding Claims 4 and 13: Amin et al. in view of Jiang et al. and further in view of Medina et al. teach the limitations of claim 10. Amin et al. in view of Jiang et al. and further in view of Medina et al. do not specifically disclose the following. However, Rajcok et al. further teach wherein the operations further include: training a neural network using a specified set of training data representing different types of transportation provider options that are available through the dynamic transportation network, wherein the trained neural network predicts which of the subsequent transportation options the transportation requestor is most likely to select (See Figure 6, Figure 8, Figure 12, Paragraphs 0087-0088).
Amin et al., Jiang et al., Medina et al., and Rajcok et al. are related because all are analyzing rideshare requests to make determinations. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the rideshare system of Amin et al. in view of Jiang et al. and further in view of Medina et al. to incorporate the probabilities of Rajcok et al. in order to better understand the needs of the users.
Regarding Claims 7 and 16: Amin et al. in view of Jiang et al. and further in view of Medina et al. teach the limitations of claim 15. Amin et al. in view of Jiang et al. and further in view of Medina et al. do not specifically disclose the following. However, Rajcok et al. further teach wherein ranking the available transportation provider options according to the one or more ranking factors is based at least in part on a probability of the transportation provider options being selected (See Figure 6, Figure 8, Figure 12, Paragraphs 0087-0088).
Amin et al., Jiang et al., Medina et al., and Rajcok et al. are related because all are analyzing rideshare requests to make determinations. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the rideshare system of Amin et al. in view of Jiang et al. and further in view of Medina et al. to incorporate the probabilities of Rajcok et al. in order to better understand the needs of the users.
Conclusion
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.
The prior art made of record, but not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed on the attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW D HENRY whose telephone number is (571)270-0504. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 9AM-5PM.
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.
/MATTHEW D HENRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625