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
This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed on May 14, 2026. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 8 and 15 are independent.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ amendments and arguments filed May 14, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argued that the recited “non-dispatch state” and “active dispatch state” govern whether execution of the transportation matching process remains suppressed or becomes enabled based on updated estimated arrival times. The claims do not recite any specific data structure, state machine implementation or technical mechanism by which these states are maintained (e.g., computational architecture). The “state” is used in the claims as a status on a request record and not in the sense of a computational architecture.
Applicants provide benefits of the claims, such as “reduces inefficient allocation of provider resources,” “improvise efficiency of the matching system,” and “more efficiently process ride requests”. The benefits are improvements to better resource allocation and dispatches of ride matching and not to the technical function of the computer or network. Also, the argument that the claims “reduces unnecessary system communications and processing is unsupported by any specific claim recitation.
The claimed recitation of “repeated processing of updated GPS sensor measurements over time,” does not provide a specific improvement to the GPS signal processing, positioning accuracy or ETA calculation. The successive location measurements are recited without any algorithmic detail and do not provide a generic computation as a technical improvement.
The claims are essentially a matching/dispatch transaction and when a matching process is invoked on a threshold condition that a human dispatcher performs with a map and watch.
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 therefore, 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.
Claims 1 and 8 are directed to a method (i.e., a process system); and claim 15 is directed to system. Therefore, claims 1, 8 and 15 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
Claim 1 recites:
1. A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, from a requestor computing device, a transport request comprising a pickup location different than a current location of the requestor computing device, the current location determined by a GPS sensor coupled to the requestor computing device;
monitoring, utilizing a GPS system comprising the GPS sensor coupled to the requestor computing device, movement of the requestor computing device by receiving successive location measurements from the GPS sensor over time and updating, over time as the successive location measurements are received, estimated arrival times of the requestor computing device relative to the pickup location based on the successive location measurements;
maintaining, by one or more servers of a transportation matching system, the transport request in a non-dispatch state in which execution of a transportation matching process for the transport request is suppressed;
based on determining at a first time using the estimated arrival times updated over time based on the successive location measurements that a respective first estimated arrival time of the requestor computing device fails to satisfy threshold radius relative to the pickup location, continuing to suppress execution of the transportation matching process for the transport request;
upon determining that at a second time using updated estimated arrival times based on additional location measurements received over time from the GPS sensor that a respective second estimated arrival time of the requestor computing device satisfies the threshold radius relative to the pickup location, transitioning, by the one or more servers, the transport request from the non-dispatch state to an active dispatch state by enabling execution of the transportation matching process to generate a transportation match between the requestor computing device and a provider computing device; and
sending, to the provider computing device, transport request information corresponding to the transport request.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. Specifically, “receiving a transport requestion” and “maintaining . . . the transport request in a non-dispatch state in which execution of a transportation matching process . . . is suppressed” step encompasses a human receiving data and withholding a process or service until a certain condition is met.
The “monitoring movement” step encompasses a human observing the received data.
The recitation of “based on determining . . . that a . . . first estimated arrival time . . . fails to satisfy a threshold radius . . . continuing to suppress execution” and “upon determining . . . that a . . . second estimated arrival time . . . satisfies the threshold radius . . . transitioning . . . to an active dispatch state” recites a conditional decision process that compares a threshold and if satisfied, a condition or action is performed.
The “sending . . . transport request information . . . to the provider computing device” is a generic data transmission that constitutes an insignificant post-solution or extra solution activity.
Accordingly, the claims organize human activity and recite human making decisions (e.g., a human dispatcher can perform an analogous process determining arrival times, comparing arrival times to a threshold radius, and deciding when to delay or initiate matching which is an abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
1. A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, from a requestor computing device, a transport request comprising a pickup location different than a current location of the requestor computing device, the current location determined by a GPS sensor coupled to the requestor computing device;
monitoring, utilizing a GPS system comprising the GPS sensor coupled to the requestor computing device, movement of the requestor computing device to determine estimated arrival times of the requestor computing device relative to the pickup location;
based on determining at a first time that a respective first estimated arrival time of the requestor computing device fails to satisfy threshold radius relative to the pickup location, delaying a transportation match process for the requestor computing device;
upon determining that at a second time that a respective second estimated arrival time of the requestor computing device satisfies the threshold radius relative to the pickup location, initiating the transportation match process to generate a transportation match between the requestor computing device and a provider computing device; and
sending, to the provider computing device, transport request information corresponding to the transport request.
For the following reasons, the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “GPS system” and “computing device”, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer to perform the process. In particularly, the GPS system and computing device are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the determining steps, therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea. The GPS system and computing device are claimed generically and is operating in its ordinary capacity and does not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The additional limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the GPS system and computing device.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitations add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitations do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a “GPS system” and “computing device” amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-7 do not recite any further limitations that cause claim 1 to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the additional element of amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Therefore, dependent claims 2-7 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Therefore, claims 1-7 are ineligible under 35 USC §101. Claims 8-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101 for at least the same reasons given above with respect to claims 1-7.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicants are 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 DEMETRA R SMITH-STEWART whose telephone number is (571)270-3965. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Peter Nolan can be reached at 571-270-7016. 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.
/DEMETRA R SMITH-STEWART/Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/PETER D NOLAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights