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 1-3, 5-9, 11-16, and 19-20 have been amended.
Claims 4, 10, and 17-18 have been canceled.
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-16, and 19-20 are currently pending and are rejected as described below.
Response to Amendment/Argument
35 USC § 101
Applicant asserts that amended Claim 1 recites additional elements that are analogous to the additional elements recited in the claims of SRI. Each of these additional elements recites a limitation that is beyond "concepts performed in the human mind". Therefore, consistent with the technological improvement recognized in SRI, these additional elements confer patent-eligible subject matter that improve the functioning of the network system for on-demand transport services. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The overall concept of the invention revolves around a transportation services provided by an electric vehicle (EV) in a particular area, where charging the vehicle during a shift maybe necessary according to a calculated probability score. The driver of the EV can monitor the state of charge of the vehicle and elect to charge the vehicle as he/she sees necessary during off-peak hours, during a bathroom or food break. The driver can also perform more than one charging sessions in order to optimize service. Therefore, this is an abstract idea of mental process and mathematical concepts. Further, this highlights a vehicle for hire which falls under commercial interactions, also an abstract idea under certain method of organizing human activity. Lastly, SRI is a problem rooted in computer technology, meanwhile the instant application is performing steps that a human can do. Monitoring a vehicle charge is no different than monitoring a traditional ICE fuel tank, where running out of fuel/charge will unravel into a bigger loss of time (downtime) than stopping to fuel/charge, therefore the instant application is unlike the SRI example. 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.
Applicant asserts that like BASCOM, the claims recite an inventive concept, by their recitation of an ordered, non-conventional and nongeneric combination of additional elements for purpose of providing a "technologybased solution" - one that optimizes when a service provider charges a vehicle during a session time in order to optimize both the execution of network side operations and an objective of individual service providers. The examiner respectfully disagrees. None of the steps/functions of independent/dependent claims whether taken alone or in an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. For example, no inventive concept can be found in any unconventional or non-generic combination of known pieces similar to BASCOM. 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 § 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 1-3, 5-9, 11-16, and 19-20 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.
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 1 recites “one or more processors; a memory to store instructions; wherein the one or more processors execute the instructions to perform operations that include: determining an upcoming session time during which each service provider of a plurality of service providers is expected to utilize an on-demand transport service to provide, or be available to provide, transport services; monitoring vehicle data associated with each service provider of the plurality of service providers in a geographic region, wherein the vehicle data includes an indicator of charge level of a respective vehicle operated by the service provider; determining, for each service provider of the plurality of service providers, a probability score indicative of whether charging of the respective vehicle operated by the service provider will occur during the upcoming session time, the probability score for each service provider being determined based at least in part on the indicator of charge level of the respective vehicle operated by the service provider; determining, for the geographic region, a forecast of demand for transport services at each of a plurality of sub-intervals of the upcoming session time; determining, based at least in part on the probability score, one or more sub-intervals of the plurality of sub-intervals for each service provider of the plurality of service providers to charge the respective vehicle in order to minimize a downtime of the service provider; wherein determining the one or more sub-intervals includes selecting sub-intervals for individual service providers of the plurality to fulfill the forecasted demand for transport services in the geographic region while also optimizing an objective of that service provider; transmitting content data to a respective computing device of-one or more service providers of the plurality, the content data causing a service application running on the respective computing device of each of the one or more service providers to display an indication of the one or more sub-intervals that are determined for that service provider.”. 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 “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)” and “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. Claims 14 and 20 disclose similar limitations as Claim 1, as disclosed, and therefore recites an abstract idea.
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
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 01/16/2026