DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/6/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This is in reply to the claim amendments and remarks of the RCE filed 7/6/2026.
Claims 1, 3, 8-10, 12, and 17-20 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
The previously pending 35 USC 103 rejection has been withdrawn in response to Applicant’s claim amendments. See below for reasoning.
Applicant’s amendments have been fully considered, but do not overcome the previously pending 35 USC 101 rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
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. The Examiner asserts that calculating demand, availability and estimated arrival times all further narrow the abstract idea by providing the human with additional information that the human uses to make decisions, which is managing how the human interacts and has the commercial purpose of ridesharing (for profit). 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 (incentive) 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). The claims are merely using the general-purpose computer components to implement the abstract idea, which adds the words apply it with the judicial exception. Applicant does not state how the computer itself is improved. 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. Using a general-purpose computer over pencil and paper inherently increases efficiency and user experience, but merely implementing the abstract idea using a general purpose computer has shown to not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (See MPEP 2106.05). 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. Specifically the Applicant does not point out what hardware or arrangement of hardware amounts to more than generic use of a general-purpose computer. Applicant does not properly identify the additional elements. The Applicant further points to the specification, but those details further narrow the abstract idea. The Examiner further notes that the reserving of the transportation resource is still done in the human mind. This entire application still depends solely on a human user deciding what to do such as, making a transportation request, analyzing estimated arrival times, analyzing incentive offers, the human driver actually picking up the user, all these aspects are organizing human activity and have been clearly identified as so in the rejection below. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
The Examiner also 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.
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; claims 10-18 are directed toward a system; and claims 19-20 are directed towards a product which are statutory categories 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: establishing, by a dynamic transportation matching system, a live transportation session between a transportation requestor device and a transportation provider; monitoring, during the live transportation session, a current state of a dynamic transportation network involving at least transportation provider availability, estimated arrival times, and current transportation demand; determining, based on contextual information associated with an initial transportation request and the current state of the dynamic transportation network, a subsequent transportation option corresponding to a future transportation request at a future time, wherein the subsequent transportation option is selected to modify a projected state of the dynamic transportation network; causing, prior to completion of the initial transportation request, a display of the transportation requestor device to present the subsequent transportation option in response to detecting that the live transportation session satisfies a triggering condition based on the current state of the dynamic transportation network; generating an incentive for the subsequent transportation option, wherein the incentive is dynamically determined based on an expected impact of acceptance of the subsequent transportation option on the current state of the dynamic transportation network; causing the display of the transportation requestor device to present the incentive concurrently with the subsequent transportation option while the transportation requestor is being transported; and in response to receiving an acceptance of the subsequent transportation option, reserving transportation resources for the future transportation request and automatically dispatching a transportation provider at the future 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 and a transportation provider; a dynamic transportation network (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: by a dynamic transportation matching system, a transportation requestor device and a transportation provider; a dynamic transportation network (claim 10)”; “non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising computer-readable instructions that, when executed by at least one processor of a computing device, cause the computing device to; by a dynamic transportation matching system, a transportation requestor device and a transportation provider; a dynamic transportation network (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 and a transportation provider; a dynamic transportation network (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: by a dynamic transportation matching system, a transportation requestor device and a transportation provider; a dynamic transportation network (claim 10)”; “non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising computer-readable instructions that, when executed by at least one processor of a computing device, cause the computing device to; by a dynamic transportation matching system, a transportation requestor device and a transportation provider; a dynamic transportation network (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.
Allowable over 35 USC 103
Claims 1-20 are allowable over the prior art, but remain rejected under §101 for the reasons set forth above. Independent claims 1, 10, and 19 disclose a system, product, and method for monitoring a transportation network to determine estimated arrival times and initial transportation demand by analyzing current transportation requests and determining potential future transportation requests and displaying subsequent future transportation requests with incentives to the user while the initial transportation request is occurring based on triggering conditions and the current state of the transportation network and dispatching the future transportation request at the appropriate time.
Regarding a possible 103 rejection: The closest prior art of record is:
Amin et al. (US 2014/0129951 A1) – which discloses providing on demand service through use of portable computing devices like ride sharing (See previous OA’s and parent case OA’s for specific citations of relevance).
Jiang et al. (US 2020/0081933 A1) – which discloses on demand transportation services with keywords and other variables (See previous OA’s and parent case OA’s for specific citations of relevance).
Medina et al. (US 2016/0042303 A1) – which discloses a dispatch system for dispatching vehicles for rideshare services (See previous OA’s and parent case OA’s for specific citations of relevance).
Rajcok et al. (US 2019/0244318 A1) – which discloses automation of on demand transportation services for drivers (See previous OA’s and parent case OA’s for specific citations of relevance).
The prior art of record neither teaches nor suggests all particulars of the limitations as recited in claims 1, 10, and 19, such as monitoring a transportation network to determine estimated arrival times and initial transportation demand by analyzing current transportation requests and determining potential future transportation requests and displaying subsequent future transportation requests with incentives to the user while the initial transportation request is occurring based on triggering conditions and the current state of the transportation network and dispatching the future transportation request at the appropriate time. While individual features may be known per se, there is no teaching or suggestion absent applicants’ own disclosure to combine these features other than with impermissible hindsight and the combination/arrangement of features are not found in analogous art. Specifically the claimed “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: establishing, by a dynamic transportation matching system, a live transportation session between a transportation requestor device and a transportation provider; monitoring, during the live transportation session, a current state of a dynamic transportation network involving at least transportation provider availability, estimated arrival times, and current transportation demand; determining, based on contextual information associated with an initial transportation request and the current state of the dynamic transportation network, a subsequent transportation option corresponding to a future transportation request at a future time, wherein the subsequent transportation option is selected to modify a projected state of the dynamic transportation network; causing, prior to completion of the initial transportation request, a display of the transportation requestor device to present the subsequent transportation option in response to detecting that the live transportation session satisfies a triggering condition based on the current state of the dynamic transportation network; generating an incentive for the subsequent transportation option, wherein the incentive is dynamically determined based on an expected impact of acceptance of the subsequent transportation option on the current state of the dynamic transportation network; causing the display of the transportation requestor device to present the incentive concurrently with the subsequent transportation option while the transportation requestor is being transported; and in response to receiving an acceptance of the subsequent transportation option, reserving transportation resources for the future transportation request and automatically dispatching a transportation provider at the future time (as required by independent claims 1, 10, and 19)”, thus rendering claims 1, 10, 19 and their dependent claims as allowable over the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, but not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure is listed on the attached PTO-892 and should be taken into account / considered by the Applicant upon reviewing this office action.
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.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, BRIAN EPSTEIN can be reached on (571)-270-5389. 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.
/MATTHEW D HENRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights