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
Claims 2, 8, and 12 have been cancelled.
Claim 22 has been added.
Claims 2-8, 10-17, and 19-22 are currently pending and are rejected as described below.
Response to Amendment/Argument
35 USC § 101
The applicant asserts that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the alleged abstract idea, with a nonconventional and non-generic arrangement, and they also demonstrate a practical application of the technologically rooted solution that improves the technology of computer-implemented fleet routing and scheduling. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Prong I of step 2A evaluates whether the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon) if the claim recites and exception then we advance to Prong Two which evaluates whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. The claims are aimed at identifying available vehicles and unavailable vehicles for servicing a new route and displaying route groups on a GUI overlaying on current route grouping. Identifying a new route to be serviced including the identification of which vehicle(s) within a fleet are available to add this new route and assigning the new route to the selected vehicle can be done mentally or with the aid of pen and paper. 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). The Federal Circuit has held that claims directed to "analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, [are] essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category." Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The examiner further notes the limitations are aimed at following rules or instructions deemed certain methods of organizing human activity. Thus, the claims recite the judicial exceptions of a mental process (i.e. observation, judgment) and certain methods of organizing human activity.
Taking the claim elements separately, the functions performed in claim 12 by the generic fleet routing system to receive data, analyze data, calculate results, and output data are purely conventional. Receiving data, analyzing data, calculating results, and outputting data are well-understood, routine, and conventional functions previously known to the industry. See Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1356 (The claims “do not include any requirement for performing the claimed functions of gathering, analyzing, and displaying in real time by use of anything but entirely conventional, generic technology. The claims therefore do not state an arguably inventive concept; see also Versata Dev. Grp., Inc., 793 F.3d at 1335 (determining claims requiring “arranging, storing, retrieving, sorting, eliminating, determining” to “involve the normal, basic functions of a computer” and to be “conventional, routine, and well-known”). Similarly, "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). The instant application ingests different inputs and provides different outputs displayed on a GUI where the user may choose to use control buttons 550 (e.g., a route update button) to update the route as shown and notify fleet routing system 100 of the update. Essentially, the computer provides increases the speed and efficiency of the invention by applying the abstract idea on a computer as disclosed above. In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an 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.
Considered as an ordered combination, the generic computer components of applicant’s claimed invention add nothing that is not already present when the limitations are considered separately. For example, claim 12 does not purport to improve the functioning of the computer components themselves. Nor does it affect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Instead, claim 12 amounts to nothing significantly more than an instruction to apply the abstract ideas using generic computer components performing routine computer functions. That is not enough to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 225-26.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1, 8, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The specification does not disclose “dynamically update a visualization of utilization…, and toggling between different vehicle options…”. In his arguments, the applicant points to Figs. 4 and 5, and ¶27, 37, 40-46 as supporting the amendments. At best, the specification discloses a computer application that ingests data such as new or unassigned riders, compares to existing routes, and outputs results to an administrator in an effort of presenting optimized routes. Therefore, the specification fails to disclose to the level of specificity nor expressly or inherently explains the term.
Dependent claims 3-8, 10-11, 13-17, and 19-21 inherit the deficiencies of the independent Claims and thus are similarly rejected.
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 therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 2-8, 10-17, 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: identifying a new route to be serviced by one of a fleet of vehicles; generating 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; identifying 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; identifying a second set of vehicles among the plurality of vehicles that are unavailable to accommodate the new route within their schedule; generating a graphical user interface that includes (1) a representation of the new route embedded in the graphical utilization representation of the first set of vehicles, and (2) an overlapping representation of the new route with the schedules of the second set of vehicles in the graphical utilization representation of the second set of vehicles, wherein the graphical user interface is configured to enable a user to interactively select one or more vehicles for potential assignment to the new route, and to dynamically update a visualization of utilization and a timeline to predictively display an impact on vehicle schedules, route overlaps, and fleet utilization at least in part by: displaying one or more overlaps between the new route and one or more existing vehicle schedules; providing one or more visual cues indicating one or more scheduling conflicts, one or more constraints, and/or one or more optimal assignments; and toggling between different vehicle options to show a predicted impact on one or more vehicle schedules, one or more route overlaps, and/or the fleet utilization; transmitting data and instructions to facilitate the graphical user interface including the graphical utilization representation of the first set of vehicles and the second set of vehicles including the representation of the new route to a display device, wherein, responsive to user interaction, the graphical user interface dynamically updates the visualization of the utilization and the timeline to predictively display an impact of a potential assignment of a selected vehicle to the new route on one or more current vehicle schedules, one or more current route overlaps, and/or current fleet utilization; identifying the selected vehicle among the first set of vehicles in the fleet of vehicles; and assigning the new route to the selected vehicle”. Claims 2 and 22 disclose similar limitations as Claim 12 as disclosed, and therefore recite 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” in particular (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 3-8, 10-11, 13-17, 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 italicized above reflect insignificant extra solution activities to the judicial exception. 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 elements 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 3-8, 10-11, 13-17, and 19-21 do not disclose additional elements, further narrowing the abstract ideas of the independent claims and thus not practically integrated 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 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 (Rob) Wu can be reached on (571)272-7761. 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).
/MATHEUS RIBEIRO STIVALETTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623 03/17/2026