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 Claim
This action is in reply to the action filed on 22 of June 2026.
Claims 2-4, 6, 10-14, 16, and 19-22 have been amended.
Claims 8 and 17 have been cancelled.
Claims 2-7, 10-16, and 19-22 are currently pending and are rejected as described below.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/22/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment/Argument
35 USC § 112
Applicant’s amendments to claims 2, 12, and 22 are sufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112. Accordingly, the previous rejection of claims 2-8, 10-11, 12-17, and 19-22 under 35 U.S.C 112 is withdrawn.
35 USC § 101
Applicant asserts that these limitations, as understood by those skilled in the art, are necessarily rooted in computer technology as they are directed to the real-time update of a graphical user interface in response to user interactions, with specific views showing projected fits/overlaps of new routes requested by the user with available vehicles having previously assigned routes. The aforementioned operations are computationally intensive and far exceed the capabilities of human mental work. The human mind, even with pen and paper, cannot practically or feasibly perform, in real time, the complex calculations and optimizations required to simultaneously analyze and reconcile the constantly changing views, much less receive a signal/a logical condition defined in software code representing a user selection of a selectable interface element. The examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the claims do not disclose “real-time update”, therefore this is a moot point, albeit according to the MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(d) real-time can still invoke an abstract idea, “A wide-area real-time performance monitoring system for monitoring and assessing dynamic stability of an electric power grid – Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d at 1351 and n.1, 119 USPQ2d at 1740 and n.1”. Further, the transmission of data (e.g. mere data gathering) and output of a result (e.g. display on GUI) are deemed insignificant extra-solution activities per MPEP, see USC 101 Rejection below. The independent claims do not disclose an optimization step, but as claimed on dependent claims, “optimizing by a computer system” is merely applying the abstract idea on a computer. A human can observe routes and make a judgment call on how to improve it. Lastly, the examiner notes that dispatching and transportation of people and goods has been done long before the advent of the IoT or computer, making the invention not necessarily rooted in computer technology.
Applicant further asserts that the action's assertion that the claims fall in the category of organizing human activity, stating that the limitations are aimed at “following rules or instructions and managing interactions”, is overbroad. The Action does not provide any explanation or evidence on how the claims were directed to any of the above-mentioned practices, interactions, personal behavior or interactions between people. Further, the present claims are not directed to any such economic, commercial, or interpersonal activities. Specifically, the amended claims do not regulate human conduct, commercial dealing, contractual relations, or interpersonal interactions. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims disclose receiving a new route and updating the new route once a selection is made. The GUI in this case is static, functioning as an output for the provider/administrator/requestor user to select a route. There are no updates to the GUI without the input of the user, therefore the user is following rules or instructions which falls under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The user works for a transportation company, which also falls under business relations. This analysis falls squarely within the guidance of the 2019 PEG and the 2025 Memorandum.
Applicant asserts claim 1 as a whole integrates the judicial exception into a practical application such that the claim is not directed to the judicial exception. Amended claim 1, even if treated as reciting a judicial exception, integrates that exception into a practical application. The practical application is the claimed fleet routing system's specific manner of presenting route assignment options and consequences through coordinated graphical views. The claims require the system to present said options and consequences in a utilization view, to depict the new route relative to the first set of vehicles using visual cues, to update the utilization view in response to vehicle selection, and to generate and present an augmented timeline view of the selected. The examiner respectfully disagrees. To show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology. “Claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
Applicant asserts that the same reasoning applied to Example 37, claim I of the July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples by the Office, applies to the amended claims. More specifically, the claims require: I) a graphical utilization representation showing in-use and free time for multiple vehicles, 2) a utilization view depicting the new route relative to the first set of vehicles, 3) visual cues indicating conflicts, constraints, or availabilities, 4) updating of the utilization view in response to the vehicle selection, and 5) generation of an augmented timeline view depicting at least one previously assigned route for a selected vehicle and the new route. Just as Example 37 improved icon organization on a GUI, the amended claims improve vehicle route visualization and assignment on a fleet-routing GUI. Both are interface improvements, both reciting specific displayed results, and both relying on a particular arrangement of GUI elements and system responses to user interaction. Applicant further submits that even if the Examiner were to continue to identify some alleged abstract concept at a high level of generality, the amended claims clearly integrate that concept into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims at issue in Example 37 were found to be eligible because they were not directed to the judicial exception. This is not the case in the instant application as the claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Applicant’s rationale for this assertion is merely based on the fact that since Example 37 includes data transmission via a GUI and selection of a criteria via a GUI will make the claims of the instant application eligible. This would only work if eligibility analysis were determined in a vacuum and was merely reliant on claim language absent any consideration of the invention as a whole as described in the original specification as filed. In Example 37, the claim as a whole integrates the mental process into a practical application. The additional elements recite a specific improvement over prior art systems by providing a way to organize icons on a screen that were previously unavailable. Thus, the claim is eligible because it is not directed at the recited judicial exception. Example 37 provided a technological solution to an issue rooted in computer technology. Applicant’s claims do not recite the same fact pattern; in fact, displays vehicle fleet availability on a GUI and updated the GUI based on the user selection of a new route. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive, and the rejections are maintained.
Applicant asserts that examiner has not provided any basis to show that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, or conventional, as required under Berkheimer. Thus, a prima facie showing has not been made that the claims are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Several court decisions were cited to support examiner’s findings, most notably EPG, and this satisfies Berkheimer (b). The steps of gathering data, analyzing data, and outputting a new instruction, constitute "analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category." Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (claims directed to certain arrangements involving contractual relations are directed to abstract ideas). Further, the examiner must consider whether there are specific limitations or elements recited in the claim “that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present” or whether the claim “simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.” Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 56 (footnote omitted). The examiner must also consider whether the combination of steps perform “in an unconventional way and therefore include an ‘inventive step, “rendering the claim eligible at Step 2B” Id. In this part of the analysis, the examiner considers “the elements of each claim both individually and ‘as an ordered combination’” to determine “whether the additional elements ‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2354. As discussed above, there is no evidence in the record that claim limitations are accomplished in a non-conventional way.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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 2-7, 10-16, and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
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, machines, article of 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. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. ____ (2014). See MPEP 2106.03(II).
The claims are then analyzed to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception. MPEP §2106.04(a). In determining whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite a judicial exception (Prong One of Step 2A), and whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Prong Two of Step 2A). See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“PEG” 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 (Jan. 7, 2019)).
With respect to 2A Prong 1, claim 12 recites “one or more processors and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform steps comprising: receiving, from a graphical user interface, a new route to be serviced by one of a fleet of vehicles; displaying, in the graphical user interface, a graphical utilization representation of an overall utilization of a plurality of vehicles in the fleet of vehicles, wherein the graphical utilization representation illustrates a schedule for each vehicle including in-use time and free time for each vehicle; determining a first set of vehicles among the plurality of vehicles that are available to service the new route during a specified time on a specified day within their schedule; displaying, in the graphical user interface, a utilization view depicting the new route in relation to the first set of vehicles, comprising one or more visual cues indicating availability of the first set of vehicles; receiving, from the graphical user interface a selection of a vehicle from the first set of vehicles by the user for potential assignment to the new route; updating, in the graphical user interface, in response to receiving the selection, the utilization view to depict the new route in relation to the vehicle; generating an augmented timeline view of the vehicle to depict the new route in conjunction with at least one previously assigned route for the vehicle; displaying, in the graphical user interface, the augmented timeline view of the vehicle depicting the new route in conjunction with the previously assigned route for the vehicle; and assigning the new route to the vehicle”. Claims 2 and 22 disclose similar limitations as Claim 12 as disclosed and therefore recites an abstract idea.
More specifically, claims 2, 12, and 22 are directed to “Mental Processes” such as “concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)” and “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” such as “commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)” and “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)” as discussed in MPEP §2106.04(a)(2), and in the 2019-01-08 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 3-7, 10-11, 13-16, and 19-21 further recite abstract idea(s) contained within the independent claims, and do not contribute to significant more or enable practical application. Thus, the dependent claims are rejected under 101 based on the same rationale as the independent claims.
Under Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, claims 2, 12, and 22 recite additional elements, yet the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. In order for the judicial exception to be “integrated into a practical application”, an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim “will apply, rely on, or 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 judicial exception.” PEG, 84 Fed. Reg. 54 (Jan. 7, 2019). The courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application when “an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.” PEG, 84 Fed. Reg. 55 (Jan. 7, 2019); MPEP § 2106.05(h). The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
In particular, claims 2, 12, and 22 recite additional elements boldened and underlined above. These are generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are mere instructions to apply an exception, because it does no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process. Further, the remaining additional element(s) italicized above reflect insignificant extra solution activities to the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
With respect to step 2B, claims 2, 12, and 22 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim recites the additional elements disclosed above. These are generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are mere instructions to apply an exception, because it does no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process, as evidenced by at least ¶30-31 “Ride requestor device 110, user device 115, driver device 120, administrator device 125, and provider device 130 may be implemented as any electronic device with processing power sufficient to share electronic information back and forth through communications network 105. Examples of ride requestor device 110, user device 115, driver device 120, administrator device 125, and provider device 130 include mobile phones, desktop computers, laptop computers, tablets, game consoles, personal computers, mobile devices, notebook computers, smart watches, and any other digital device that has the processing ability to interact with server 135. Ride requestor device 110, user device 115, driver device 120, administrator device 125, and provider device 130 may include software and hardware modules that execute computer operations, communicate with communication networks 105 and server 135. Further, hardware components may include a combination of Central Processing Units (“CPUs”), buses, volatile and non-volatile memory devices, storage units, non-transitory computer-readable storage media, data processors, processing devices, control devices transmitters, receivers, antennas, transceivers, input devices, output devices, network interface devices, and other types of components that are apparent to those skilled in the art. These hardware components within ride requestor device 110, user device 115, driver device 120, administrator device 125, and provider device 130, are used to connect with server 135”. Further, additional element(s) italicized above do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the elements reflect insignificant extra solution activities to the judicial exception that are well-understood, routine, and conventional data retrieval and transmission functions in view of MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
As a result, claims 2, 12, and 22 do not include additional elements, when recited alone or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
Claims 3-7, 10-11, 13-16, and 19-21 do not disclose additional elements, further narrowing the abstract ideas of the independent claims and thus not practically integrate under prong 2A as part of a practical application or under 2B not significantly more for the same reasons and rationale as above.
After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination, Examiner has determined that the claims are directed to the above abstract ideas and do not amount to significantly more. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, No. 13–298.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATHEUS R STIVALETTI whose telephone number is (571)272-5758. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30-5:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rutao Wu can be reached on (571)272-6045. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-1822.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone or video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, the applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form.
/MATHEUS RIBEIRO STIVALETTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623 08/31/2026
Prosecution Insights