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 the Claims
Claims 1-16 were previously pending and subject to a non-final rejection dated March 23, 2026. In the Response, submitted on May 28, 2026, claims 1 and 9 were amended. Therefore, claims 1-16 are currently pending and subject to following final rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Remarks on Pages 7-14 of the Response, regarding the previous rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but are not found persuasive.
On Pages 7-8 of the Response, in discussing Step 2A, Prong One, Applicant argues “claims 1 and 9 are not directed to an abstract idea grouping of a certain methods of organizing human activity” as “claim 1 is rooted in computer technology and defines a computer-implemented method for controlling execution of allocation operations through structured processing of location based-data”, “which results in an improved and efficient method to control adaptive allocation of service requests in the field of real-time, location-based service request processing and scheduling by introducing a structured mechanism for controlling iterative computation and eliminating redundant re-calculation of priority levels across successive time windows, which is an improvement in the realm of ‘scheduling and allocation for vehicle dispatch systems.’”
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the high-level recitation of the “computer” additional elements (i.e., “computer-implemented method for controlling execution of allocation operations” and “real-time” requests) amounts to “apply it.”
Furthermore, similar to Trading Technologies, it appears Applicant is arguing an improvement to a business process in “ream of ‘scheduling and allocation for vehicle dispatch systems’” (“improved and efficient method to control adaptive allocation of service requests” and “scheduling by introducing a structured mechanism for controlling iterative computation and eliminating redundant re-calculation of priority levels across successive time windows”) rather than an improvement to any underlying technology or computers (e.g., real-time technology or location detecting technology). See MPEP 2106.05(a)(II) “in Trading Technologies... the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology (emphasis added). Thus, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive.
On Page 8, Applicant further argues “claim 1 explicitly recites that the priority level is selectively adjusted such that re-calculation of the priority level is eliminated when the evaluated difference remains unchanged across successive time windows. This elimination of re-computation of the priority level introduces a condition-based mechanism for controlling execution of priority level updates, which directly corresponds to how frequently computational operations are performed and thereby results in efficiently managing computing resources. Accordingly, the amended independent claim 1 does not merely recite data processing or decision-making. Rather, the amended independent claim 1 defines a specific manner of processing real-time location-based data to control execution of repeated computations within a computing system. By eliminating re-calculation when the evaluated difference remains unchanged, the claimed method reduces redundant computational operations associated with repeated evaluation of service request allocation.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that eliminating “re-calculation of the priority level” is not a technical improvement. That is, merely providing less data to recalculate and therefore, allegedly, cause efficiency in “managing computing resources” or “reduce[] redundant computational operations” is not a technological improvement. Thus, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive.
On Pages 8-9 Applicant further argues “instead of continuously re-computing priority levels across successive time windows, the processor performs selective updating of the priority level of the service request based on the factor that the evaluated difference between the first severity level and the second severity level remains unchanged, thereby limiting unnecessary processing and improving operational efficiency within the computing system. This results in improved utilization of processor resources by reducing repeated computation across successive time windows…The claimed method therefore introduces a structured computational technique for controlling iterative processing operations, which improves the functioning of the computer system itself by reducing redundant computations over successive time windows. Accordingly…amended independent claim 1 is directed to a specific technological solution for controlling processing of location-based data within a computing system. Therefore, the amended independent claim 1 recites a specific improvement in computer- implemented processing, particularly in reducing redundant computation and controlling execution of allocation-related operations.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed above, merely providing less data for processing is not “a specific improvement” in the technology of the computers. That is, “selective updating of the priority level of the service request based on the factor that the evaluated difference between the first severity level and the second severity level remains unchanged” merely recites the abstract idea, but does not provide a specific improvement in the computer technology. The alleged “improved utilization of processor resources” that comes from “reducing repeated computation across successive time windows” merely reflects performing the abstract idea functions on a computer (i.e., “mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer”). Thus, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive.
On Pages 9-11 of the Response, in discussing Step 2A, Prong Two, Applicant alleges similarity of claim 1 to eligible claim 1 of Example 42. Specifically, Applicant argues “Similar to Claim 1 of Example 42… the amended independent claim 1 does not merely involve organizing human activity…the amended independent claim 1 recites a specific processor-implemented mechanism for controlling execution of computations performed on location-based data across successive time windows that reduces redundant computations and avoids overloading of computer resources. In particular, the amended independent claim 1 recites computing a first predicted severity level corresponding to a destination location and a second predicted severity level corresponding to a current location, computed based on real-time location-based data. The computed first predicted severity level and the second predicted severity level are not mere mathematical outputs but are applied within the system to evaluate a difference between the first predicted severity level and the second predicted severity level and selectively adjusting a priority level of the service request based on the evaluated difference. Further, the amended independent claim 1 recites that the priority level is selectively adjusted such that re-calculation of the priority level of the service request is eliminated when the evaluated difference remains unchanged across successive time windows. Therefore, the claimed computer-implemented method utilizes the evaluated difference between predicted severity levels to control whether further re-calculation operations are required to be performed, thereby avoiding unnecessary repeated computation of priority levels across successive time windows. Thus, the amended independent claim 1 does not merely rely upon computing predicted severity levels. Instead, the computed severity levels and the evaluated difference are integrated into a control mechanism that directly eliminates the execution of repeated computation operations by determining whether re-calculation of the priority level is required, i.e., by establishing that the computed difference of severity levels remains unchanged for the successive time windows. This constitutes a practical application of the computed severity levels in controlling operation of a computer system in a computationally efficient manner. Rather than repeatedly re-computing priority levels for each processing interval, the system performs re-calculation only when the evaluated difference of the severity levels changes, thereby limiting unnecessary processing operations across successive time windows and thereby constituting to conservation of computational resources. Accordingly, the amended independent claim 1 provides a technical solution that improves computer performance by reducing redundant re-calculation and optimizing processor utilization during processing of large real-time location-based data.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, Claim 1 of Example 42 was found eligible because the claim recites “a combination of additional elements including storing information, providing remote access over a network, converting updated information that was input by a user in a non-standardized form to a standardized format, automatically generating a message whenever updated information is stored, and transmitting the message to all of the users” (emphasis added). The additional elements recite a specific improvement over prior art systems by allowing remote users to share information in real time in a standardized format regardless of the format in which the information was input by the user. No similar specific improvement over prior art systems for allowing remote users to share information in real time in a standardized format (regardless of the format in which the information was input by the users) is claimed here. Thus, Applicant’s comparison is not found persuasive.
Second, as discussed above, Examiner reiterates that reduction in “redundant computations and avoid[ing] overloading of computer resources” that comes from merely providing less data for processing, is not “a practical application of the computed severity levels in controlling operation of a computer system in a computationally efficient manner”, as alleged. Rather, “computing a first predicted severity level corresponding to a destination location and a second predicted severity level corresponding to a current location, computed based on ….location-based data”, “priority level is selectively adjusted such that re-calculation of the priority level of the service request is eliminated when the evaluated difference remains unchanged across successive time windows… utilizes the evaluated difference between predicted severity levels to control whether further re-calculation operations are required to be performed, thereby avoiding unnecessary repeated computation of priority levels across successive time windows” recites the abstract idea, and using a processor, “control mechanism” amounts to “apply it”. Therefore, “computer performance” itself is not improved by simply “reducing redundant re-calculation”. That is, “optimizing processor utilization during processing of large real-time location-based data” is not a technical improvement, when the processer merely processes less data. Thus, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive.
On Pages 12-14, in discussing Step 2B, Applicant compares the claims to BASCOM and argues “claim 1 amounts to ‘significantly more’ at least because the ‘additional elements’ add ‘a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application.’ Conventional service request allocation systems rely on repeated evaluation of dynamic data and continuous re-calculation of priority level determinations across successive processing intervals, often resulting in redundant computations, repeated processing of data, and inefficient use of computing resources. Such systems lack a structured mechanism for controlling execution of repeated computational updates based on stability of computed conditions…. In contrast, amended independent claim 1 introduces a structured computational process in which a processor computes a first predicted severity level corresponding to a destination location and a second predicted severity level corresponding to a current location of a service provider based on real-time location-based data. The processor further evaluates a difference between the first predicted severity level and the second predicted severity level and utilizes the evaluated difference to control whether a priority level of a service request is to be adjusted. The amended independent claim 1 describes an ordered combination of steps that introduces a control mechanism over repeated computation operations, such that the evaluated difference between predicted severity levels determines whether re-calculation of the priority level is to be performed across successive time windows. This interaction between the computed severity levels and their evaluated difference results in controlled execution of repeated computations, thereby reducing unnecessary re-computation of priority level across successive time windows. This unconventional arrangement of operations, as emphasized in BASCOM, amounts to ‘significantly more’ than an abstract idea of mental processes. When considered as a whole, amended independent claim 1 provides a specific technical solution to a problem arising in computer-implemented data processing systems, i.e., inefficient and redundant processing during repeated evaluation of time-varying data. This is achieved by introducing a non-conventional arrangement of processor-executed steps that control execution of re-calculation operations through evaluation of computed severity levels across successive time windows…claim 1 provides an inventive concept in the form of a non-generic, structured computational framework that improves the functioning of the computer system itself by reducing redundant re-calculation and improving efficiency of processing operations.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed above, “comput[ing[] a first predicted severity level corresponding to a destination location and a second predicted severity level corresponding to a current location of a service provider based on real-time location-based data… evaluat[ing] a difference between the first predicted severity level and the second predicted severity level and utilize[ing] the evaluated difference to control whether a priority level of a service request is to be adjusted… introduce[ing] a control mechanism over repeated computation operations, such that the evaluated difference between predicted severity levels determines whether re-calculation of the priority level is to be performed across successive time windows….reducing unnecessary re-computation of priority level across successive time window” recites the abstract idea. Furthermore, as discussed above “reducing redundant re-calculation and improving efficiency of processing operations” is not a technical improvement to the processor itself. Thus, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive.
Examiner further notes, BASCOM was found to be eligible because of the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of the additional elements, i.e., the installation of a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from the end-users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end user. Here no “non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of the additional elements” is being claimed. Rather, the additional elements (as previously discussed in the non-final rejection dated March 23, 2026, and as will be discussed in the below final rejection), are recited at a high-level of generality such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Thus, Applicant’s argument that “non-conventional arrangement of processor-executed steps” (emphasis added) is analogous to the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of the additional elements of BASCOM is not found 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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-8 recite a method (i.e., a process), and claims 9-16 recite a system (i.e., a machine). Therefore the claims all fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One
Claims 1 and 9 recite adaptively allocating one of a plurality of service requests to a service provider, each of the plurality of service requests requiring the service provider to move from one location to another to complete the each of the plurality of service requests, by: computing a first predicted severity level, based on location-based data, of a lack of available service providers for completing available service requests condition at a destination location indicated in a service request of the plurality of service requests during an estimated arrival time window within which the service provider is estimated to move to the destination location from a pickup location to complete the service request, the location-based data, indicating dynamic location of the available service providers, received from the service provider; computing a second predicted severity level, based on the location-based data, of the lack of available service providers for completing available service requests condition at a current location of the service provider during one of a current time window, a time window subsequent to the current time window and the estimated arrival time window; evaluating a level difference between the first predicted severity level and the second predicted severity level to determine whether a priority level of the service request is to be adjusted; adjusting the priority level of the service request based on the evaluated level difference between the first predicted severity level and the second predicted severity level, wherein the priority level is selectively adjusted such that re-calculation of the priority level of service request is eliminated when the evaluated difference between the first predicted severity level and the second predicted severity level remains unchanged across successive time intervals; allocating based on the adjusted priority level, one service request associated with a highest priority level from the plurality of service requests to the service provider; and directing the service provider towards the allocated service request based on an indication of the service provider.
The claims as a whole recites a certain method of organizing human activity. The limitations recited above, under broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a certain method of organizing human activity, e.g., commercial interactions or fundamental economic practices. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1 and 9 as a whole amount to: “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
The claims recite the additional elements of: (i) a computer-implemented method executed by at least one processor and memory including computer program code (claim 1); (ii) at least one processor; and at least one memory including computer program code, the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with at least one processor, cause the system to perform a method (claim 9); (iii) modules (a predicted severity level detection module, a priority level comparison module, a priority level calculation module, and a service request allocation module) (claims 1 and 9); (iv) real-time data (real-time location-based data) (claims 1 and 9); and (v) a communication device.
The additional elements (i) – (v) are recited at a high-level of generality such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination (See Fig. 6) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claims 1 and 9 are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in claims 1 and 9 amount to no more than reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; or generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional elements discussed above do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, claims 1 and 9 are ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-8 and 10-16 further recite details which merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitiaitions. For these reasons, as described above with respect to claims 1 and 9 respectively, these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, claims 2-8 and 10-16 are also ineligible.
Allowable over Prior Art
Claims 1-16 are allowable over the prior, because the prior art fails to disclose, teach or suggest “computing, via the predicted severity level detection module, a second predicted severity level….of the lack of available service providers for completing available service requests condition at a current location of the service provider during one of a current time window, a time window subsequent to the current time window and the estimated arrival time window; evaluating…a level difference between the first predicted severity level and the second predicted severity level to determine whether a priority level of the service request is to be adjusted; adjusting the priority level of the service request based on the evaluated level difference between the first predicted severity level and the second predicted severity level, wherein the priority level is selectively adjusted such that the re-calculation of the priority level of the service request is eliminated when the evaluated difference between the first predicted severity level and the second predicted severity level remains unchanged across successive time windows; allocating based on the adjusted priority level one service request associated with a highest priority level from the plurality of service requests to the service provider” as recited in claim 1 (and similarly in claim 9) in combination with the other limitations in the claim. The closest prior art includes:
--- U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0019760 to Murakami et al. (hereinafter “Murakami”). Murukami discloses a port that includes a terminal which notifies a host computer of the number of currently available vehicles and passenger demands for vehicles. The terminal of a port P, at which a vehicle user wishes to ride a vehicle, transmits to the host the existing vehicle count at the port P in question and the ride demand. The surplus/shortage computing unit computes a surplus or a shortage of vehicles based on the demands and existing vehicle count sent from the terminal at each port P as well as on predicted starting trips. The computation of the vehicle surplus or shortage takes into account those arriving trips at destination ports which are predicted by the destination information included in the demands. If a vehicle is lacking, the vehicle distribution determining unit computes a waiting time based on a predicted arriving time of a redistributed vehicle designated by the vehicle redistribution determining unit.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0157174 to Izumida et al. (hereinafter “Izumida”). Izumida discloses determining the order of priority for vehicle allocation, and allocating the vehicle to a first user whose order of priority for vehicle allocation is the highest among the plurality of users.
U.S. Patent No. 6,584,488 to Brenner et al. (hereinafter “Brenner”). Brenner discloses a priority value is a function of the resource allocation desired for a particular thread, as indicated by its NICE value. When a user desires to decrease a priority of a particular thread, the NICE value is increased. The NICE value is multiplied by two, although other factors may be utilized based on the level of decrease in priority desired. In this illustration, iNICE (NICE*2), when utilized as a multiplier and then added, serves to further increase the penalty with NICE. The priority calculation for increasing a thread's priority may also be adjusted based on the level of increase desired.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0124207 to Marueli et al. (hereinafter “Marueli”). Marueli discloses a queue of drivers for a particular area is maintained, wherein the queue specifies an order in which drivers are selected for transportation requests from the particular area.
Prior Art
The following is prior art not cited but considered relevant:
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0366287 to Lee (hereinafter “Lee”). Lee discloses providing a big data-based AI automatic allocation matching service using taxi demand prediction.
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 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 Rupangini Singh whose telephone number is (571)270-0192. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached on (571) 272-5587. 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.
/RUPANGINI SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights