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 20 of July 2026.
Claims 1, 5-9, 11, 12, 14, 19, and 20 have been amended.
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-16, 19, and 20 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/20/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment/Argument
35 USC § 101
Applicant asserts that amended Claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea. The Specification expressly identifies a concrete technical problem experienced by service providers who operate electric vehicles ("EVs") to provide transport services for an on-demand transport service. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Step two of the Alice test is a two-prong test, where Prong I analyzes whether the claims recite an Abstract Idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon. The invention is aimed at determining an upcoming session during which the service provider (e.g. drivers who operate their own vehicles, see ¶29) is expected to utilize an on-demand transport service to provide transport services. The particular driver being determined based on a probability score that accounts for time and distance to future requests and the potential need to charge the EV. The driver of the EV can mentally or with the aid of pen and paper monitor the state of charge of the vehicle and elect to charge the vehicle as he/she sees necessary during a session/shift in order to provide riders with transport services. The driver can also perform more than one charging sessions in order to optimize service. Further, this highlights a vehicle for hire which falls under commercial interactions, also an abstract idea under certain method of organizing human activity. Fundamentally, there is no meaningful difference between monitoring the state of charge of an EV and monitoring a gas/diesel tank of an ICE vehicle. The difference is the length of time it takes to charge an EV versus the length of time it takes to fill up a tank of gas/diesel. Drivers of both types of vehicles need to have a basic understanding of range per charge or per fill in order to plan a “day at the office”. Tesla has offered supercharges for years at a 400V architecture which is able to charge, according to https://www.tesla.com/supercharger, up to 200 miles in 15 minutes. Accordingly, a bathroom/coffee/lunch break or running an errand provides the human driver ample opportunity to charge while performing other activities, minimizing any impact to his/her availability to service riders. This equates to selecting a charging station between locations where the driver knows his/her current location and a pick-up/future location, and knows his/her shift length. Determining a probability is a mathematical calculation as seen in ¶173.
Applicant asserts that Claim 1 recites ''additional elements'' which integrate he alleged abstract idea into a practical application, under the second prong of Step 2A. 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. Mere automation of a manual process or claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer where these purported improvements come solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer are not sufficient to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. See MPEP 2106.04(a); MPEP 2106.05(a); MPEP 2106.05(f); FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
NOTE: The applicant cites a PTAB decision, without an application number, to further support his fact pattern. The examiner reminds the applicant that "the fact pattern in the instant claims is different to that in application 16796278", along with the fact that PTAB decisions are non-precedential and are given no weight. The examiner further notes that sending/receiving/transmitting data is mere data gathering and deemed insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP 2106.05(g).
The applicant asserts that Claim 1 can also be viewed as analogous to the claim of USPTO Subject Matter Eligibility Example 40. Claim 1 of Example 40 recites steps of collecting data, comparing collected data to a predefined threshold, and collecting additional data based on the comparison. In the example, the USPTO reasoned that the claim was patent eligible under the second prong of Step 2A because the claimed collection of additional data, limited to when the abnormal condition is indicated, ''avoids excess traffic volume on the network and hindrance of network performance'' and ''provides a specific improvement over prior systems, resulting in improved network monitoring." Similarly, Claim 1 recites ''monitoring vehicle data'' that ''includes an indicator of a current charge level of a respective vehicle operated by the service provider, and conditions the ''transmitting'' of the ''notification'' on ''determining whether to send a recommendation to charge the respective vehicle of the service provider during a current or next sub-interval, based on at least each of the probability score determined for that service provider, the current location of the respective vehicle of the service provider, and the forecast of demand for one or more future sub-intervals of the upcoming session time." The analysis applied to Example 40 is directly applicable to the pending claims, which recite, for example, ''monitoring data'' and determinations for transmitting notifications to improve availability of EV drivers. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims at issue in Example 40 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 40 includes monitoring data traffic of appliances connected to a network, then adding a limitation that recites monitoring vehicle data will make the claims of the instant application eligible. This would only work if eligibility analysis is determined in a vacuum and is merely reliant on claim language absent any consideration of the invention as a whole as described in the original specification as filed. In Example 40, 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 collecting additional NetFlow protocol data whenever the initially collected data reflects an abnormal condition, which avoids excess traffic volume on the network and hindrance of network performance. Thus, the claim is eligible because it is not directed to the recited judicial exception. Example 40 provided a technological solution to an issue rooted in computer technology. Applicant’s claims do not recite the same fact pattern, in fact it is monitoring vehicle data that the driver can monitor in order to transmit a notification to a computing device associated with a driver, this is not a problem rooted in technology. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejections are maintained.
Applicant asserts that the Office Action does not support its Step 2B conclusion with the actual determinations required by Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018), and MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II). The Office Action cites only paragraphs of the Specification that describe a computer system (see Office Action, pages 7-8), and identifies no factual support for a finding that the additional elements identified above-whether individually or as an ordered combination-were well-understood, routine, and conventional. Accordingly, the Office Action fails to meet its prima facie burden for this additional reason. The examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that no elements were identified in the previous office action as well-understood, routine, and conventional. The applicant either maliciously intends to undermine the examiner's expertise and reputation, or has a subpar understand of the governing laws pertaining to USC 101, in particular Berkheimer. Further, the Federal Circuit in Berkheimer did not require evidentiary support for independent claim 1 because “[t]he limitations [of claim 1] amount to no more than performing the abstract idea of parsing and comparing data with conventional computer components.” /d. at 1370. Applicant has offered no persuasive argument or technical reasoning to demonstrate that the additional elements recited in claim 1 involves more than well-understood, routine, and conventional computer activities, i.e., generic computer functions.
The applicant asserts that according to the guidance of the August 2025 Memorandum, examiners should not ''expand [the mental process] grouping in a manner that encompasses claim limitations that cannot practically be performed in the human mind." The August 2025 Memorandum also cautions examiners ''not to oversimplify claim limitations and expand the application of the 'apply it' consideration." The Office Action does both-it reduces the claims to ''steps that a human can do'' (Office Action, page 3), and it dismisses the additional elements identified above as ''mere instructions to apply an exception'' (Office Action, page 7), without accounting for the specific operations recited by Claim 1 and quoted above. Additionally, the August 2025 Memorandum further describes the improvements consideration of the second prong of Step 2A as ''the search for a technological solution to a technological problem," and reminds examiners ''to consult the specification to determine whether the disclosed invention improves technology or a technical field'' (August 2025 Memorandum, page 4 ). As set forth above, the Specification identifies the technical problem (Specification, para. [0004 ]), and Claim 1 recites a particular solution to that problem through the operations quoted above. The examiner respectfully disagrees. While the specification may help illuminate the true focus of a claim, when analyzing patent eligibility, reliance on the specification must always yield to the claim language in identifying that focus." Id. at 766; see also Trinity Info Media, 72 F.4th at 1363 ("Our focus is on the claims, as informed by the specification."). At bottom, we must "articulate what the claims are directed to with enough specificity to ensure the step one inquiry is meaningful." Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
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 1-3, 5-9, 11-16, 19, and 20 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.
At Step 1 the claims fall under one of the four statutory categories. 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 15 recites “one or more processors; a memory to store instructions; wherein the one or more processors execute the instructions to perform operations that include: for each service provider of a plurality of service providers, determining a length of a current session of time during which the service providers is expected to be available to provide transport services for an on-demand transport service; monitoring vehicle data associated with each service provider of the plurality of service providers, wherein the vehicle data includes an indicator of a current charge level of a respective vehicle operated by the service provider; determining, for each service provider of the plurality of service providers, each of (i) a current location of the respective vehicle of the service provider; and (ii) a probability score indicative of whether charging of the respective vehicle operated by the service provider will occur during an upcoming session time, the probability score for each service provider being determined based at least in part on the indicator of the current charge level of the respective vehicle operated by the service provider; determining, for a geographic region, a forecast of demand for transport services at each of a plurality of sub-intervals of the upcoming session time; for each service provider of the plurality of service providers, determining whether to send a recommendation to charge the respective vehicle of the service provider during a current or next sub-interval, based on at least each of the probability score determined for that service provider, the current location of the respective vehicle of the service provider, and the forecast of demand for one or more future sub-intervals of the upcoming session time; and for each service provider for which the determination is to send the recommendation, (i) selecting a charging station for the service provider based on a distance of travel from the current location of the respective vehicle of the service provider to a location of the charging station and a charging cost of the charging station; and (ii) transmitting a notification to a respective computing device of the service provider, the notification being interactive to display, on the respective computing device, a current location of the service provider relative to the selected charging station”. Claims 14 and 20 disclose similar limitations as Claim 1, and therefore recites an abstract idea.
More specifically, claims 1, 14, and 20 are directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” in particular “commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)”, “Mathematical Concepts” in particular “mathematical calculations”, and “Mental Processes” in particular “concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)” as discussed in MPEP §2106.04(a)(2), and in the 2019-01-08 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Dependent claim 2-3, 5-9, 11-13, 15-16, and 19 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, the examiner acknowledges that Claims 1, 14, and 20 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 1, 14, and 20 recite additional elements underlined and boldened 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. 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 1, 14, and 20 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 claims recite the additional element described above. This is a generic computer component 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 ¶146-147 "In one implementation, the computing system 500 includes one or more processors 510, memory resources 520, and a communication interface 530. The computer system 500 includes at least one processor 510 for processing information. The memory resources 520 may include a random access memory (RAM) or other dynamic storage device, for storing information and instructions to be executed by the processor(s) 510. The memory resources 520 also may be used for storing temporary variables or other intermediate information during execution of instructions to be executed by the processor(s) 510. The computer system 500 may also include other forms of memory resources, such as static storage devices for storing static information and instructions for the processor 510. The memory resources 520 can store information and instructions, including instructions 542 for communicating with user computing devices to receive position information, and for transmitting application content data to requester and service provider devices 102, 104. The communication interface 530 can enable the computer system 500 to communicate with one or more networks 5480 (e.g., cellular network) through use of the network link (wireless or wireline). Using the network link, the computer system 500 can communicate with one or more other computing devices and/or one or more other servers or data centers. In some variations, the computer system 500 can receive service requests from requester devices via the network link 580. Additionally, the computer system 500 can receive information from provider devices, from which forecasts of provisioning levels, location bias and other aspects described herein may be determined”.
As a result, claims 1, 14, and 20 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 2-3, 5-9, 11-13, 15-16, and 19 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
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, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/MATHEUS RIBEIRO STIVALETTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623 08/17/2025
Prosecution Insights