DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This is a final action in reply to the application filed on July 16, 2024.
Claims 1-10, 13-15 and 17-18 have been amended.
Claims 21-22 have been added.
Claims 1-22 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 .
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
The previously pending rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 USC § 112(b) is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments. However, new grounds of rejection under 35 USC § 112 (b) are presented below.
The rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 USC § 101 is maintained. Please see the Response to Arguments.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No.11,429,910 B1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Application 18/774,666
Patent No. 12,051,020
Claims 1, 6, 7, 9 and 15
Claim 1:
at least one processor; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to carry out actions comprising: generating a plurality of itineraries for a plurality of vehicles in the ride-sharing service, each itinerary comprising a plurality of stops; wherein the plurality of vehicles comprises at least one of an autonomous vehicle or an electric vehicle; receiving a request for a break for a vehicle of the plurality of vehicles; inserting the break into at least two indices of at least one itinerary of each of the plurality of itineraries to obtain a plurality of itinerary variants; receiving location data associated with the vehicle; in real time and based at least in part on the location data, computing an objective value for the plurality of itinerary variants to determine an optimized itinerary variant with a better objective value from the plurality of itinerary variants, wherein the objective value is associated with one or more metrics for the plurality of itinerary variants; and assigning the break to the vehicle at a time associated with an index of the at least two indices in the optimized itinerary variant with the better objective value.
Claim 6:
wherein the actions further comprise: responsive to receiving a new ride request, reinserting the break into the new indices to generate a plurality of updated itinerary variants; computing, the objective value for the plurality of updated itinerary variants to determine a chosen updated itinerary for at least one vehicle of the plurality of vehicles; and communicating the chosen updated itinerary to the at least one vehicle.
Claim 7:
wherein the actions further comprise: validating the plurality of itineraries based at least in part on the location data to determine if the plurality of stops can be serviced by the ride-sharing service; and responsive to determining that the plurality of stops cannot be serviced by the ride-sharing service, modifying the plurality of itineraries by reindexing at least one stop of the plurality of stops or by reindexing the break in each itinerary of the plurality of itineraries to generate a plurality of updated itineraries.
Claim 9:
receiving a request for a break for a vehicle in the ride-sharing service, wherein the vehicle is an autonomous vehicle; accessing an itinerary for the ride-sharing service, the itinerary associated with the vehicle and comprising a plurality of stops associated with a plurality of indices of the itinerary, wherein each stop comprises at least one of a pick-up location a drop-off location, or a break location; inserting the break into an index of the plurality of indices of the itinerary; receiving location data associated with the vehicle; and validating the itinerary to determine if the plurality of stops can be serviced by the vehicle based at least in part on the location data, wherein determining if the plurality of stops can be services comprises determining whether at least one constraint associated with the plurality of stops can be met.
Claim 15:
generating an itinerary for a vehicle in the ride-sharing service, the itinerary comprising a plurality of stops, wherein each stop of the plurality of stops comprises a stop associated with a passenger or a break; receiving GPS location data associated with the vehicle, wherein the vehicle is an electric vehicle; and validating the itinerary to determine if the plurality of stops can be serviced by the ride-sharing service, wherein determining if the plurality of stops can be serviced comprised determining whether at least one constraint associated with the plurality of stops can be met, and wherein validating is performed in real time and based at least in part on the GPS location data.
Claims 1, 11 and 19:
Claim 1:
receiving a break request for a plurality of drivers in the ride-sharing service for scheduling a break for each driver of the plurality of drivers; accessing a plurality of itineraries for the ride-sharing service, each itinerary comprising a plurality of stops and associated with a driver of the plurality of drivers; inserting the break into an index of each itinerary of the plurality of itineraries; validating the plurality of itineraries to determine if the plurality of stops can be serviced by the ride-sharing service, wherein validating is performed in real time and based at least in part on GPS location data associated with the plurality of drivers; and responsive to determining the plurality of stops can be serviced by the ride-sharing service, communicating the plurality of itineraries to the plurality of drivers in the ride-sharing service.
Claim 11:
at least one processor; a data store; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to take actions comprising: receiving a break request for a plurality of drivers in the ride-sharing service, the break request comprising a set of break parameters for scheduling a break for each driver of the plurality of drivers; accessing a plurality of itineraries for the ride-sharing service, each itinerary comprising a plurality of stops for the ride-sharing service and associated with a driver of the plurality of drivers; inserting the break into an index of each itinerary of the plurality of itineraries; computing, in parallel, an objective value for the plurality of itineraries to determine a chosen itinerary from the plurality of itineraries for each driver of the plurality of drivers; and responsive to determining the chosen itinerary, communicating the chosen itinerary to each driver in the ride-sharing service.
Claim 19:
generating a plurality of itineraries for a plurality of drivers in the ride-sharing service, each itinerary of the plurality of itineraries comprising a plurality of stops, wherein each stop of the plurality of stops comprises a stop associated with a passenger or a break; validating the plurality of itineraries to determine if the plurality of stops can be serviced by the ride-sharing service; responsive to determining the plurality of stops cannot be serviced by the ride- sharing service, modifying the plurality of itineraries to generate a plurality of updated itineraries; and communicating the plurality of updated itineraries to the plurality of drivers in the ride-sharing service.
Claims 1-22 (instant) and claims 1-26 (reference Patent) recite common subject matter; Whereby the elements of 1-20 (instant) are fully anticipated by patented claims 1-26, and anticipation is the “ultimate or epitome of obviousness (In re Kalm, 154 USPQ 10 (CCPA 1967)), also In re Dailey, 178 USPQ 923 (CCPA 1973) and In re Pearson, 181 USPQ 641 (CCPA 1974).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As per claim 1 recites “computing an objective value for the plurality of itinerary variants to determine an optimized itinerary variant with a better objective value from the plurality of itinerary variants; […] assigning the break to the vehicle at a time associated with an index of the at least two indices in the optimized itinerary variant with the better objective value” Examiner is not clear how the better objective value is determined? Is the objective value the same as the better objective value? What are the metes and bounds of a better objective value? Appropriate correction is required.
As per claim 4 recites “ wherein the better objective value is a first objective value, and wherein the actions further comprise periodically optimizing the plurality of itineraries to determine whether a new itinerary variant comprising a second objective value that is better than the first objective value of the optimized itinerary variant” Examiner is not clear is how much better is the second objective value from the first objective value? What are the metes and bounds of a better objective value? The same rationale applies to claim 5. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-22 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. Per MPEP 2106.03 Eligibility Step 1: The Four Categories of Statutory Subject Matter [R-07.2022]. Step 1 is directed to determining whether or not the claims fall within a statutory class. Herein, claims 1-8 and 21-22 falls within statutory class of a machine, claims 9-14 falls within statutory class of a process and claims 15-20 falls within statutory class of an article of manufacturing. Hence, the claims qualify as potentially eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C §101. With Step 1 being directed to a statutory category, per MPEP 2106.04 Eligibility Step 2A: Whether a Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception [R-07.2022].. Step 2 is the two-part analysis from Alice Corp. (also called the Mayo test). The 2019 PEG makes two changes in Step 2A: It sets forth new procedure for Step 2A (called “revised Step 2A”) under which a claim is not “directed to” a judicial exception unless the claim satisfies a two-prong inquiry. The two-prong inquiry is as follows: Prong One: evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon). If claim recites an exception, then Prong Two: evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. The claim(s) recite(s) the following abstract idea indicated by non-boldface font and additional limitations indicated by boldface font:
Claim 1:
at least one processor; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to carry out actions comprising:
generating a plurality of itineraries for a plurality of vehicles in the ride-sharing service, each itinerary comprising a plurality of stops, wherein the plurality of vehicles comprises at least one of an autonomous vehicle or an electric vehicle;
receiving a request for a break for a vehicle of the plurality of vehicles;
inserting the break into at least two indices of at least one itinerary of the plurality of itineraries to obtain a plurality of itinerary variants;
receiving location data associated with the vehicle;
in real time and based at least in part on the location data, computing an objective value for the plurality of itinerary variants to determine an optimized itinerary variant with a better objective value from the plurality of itinerary variants, wherein the objective value is associated with one or more metrics for the plurality of itinerary variants; and
assigning the break to the vehicle at a time associated with an index of the at least two indices in the optimized itinerary variant with the better objective value.
Claim 9:
receiving a request for a break for a vehicle in the ride-sharing service, wherein the vehicle is an autonomous vehicle;
accessing an itinerary for the ride-sharing service, the itinerary associated with the vehicle and comprising a plurality of stops associated with a plurality of indices of the itinerary, wherein each stop comprises at least one of a pick-up location, a drop-off location or a break location;
inserting the break into an index of the plurality of indices of the itinerary;
receiving data associated with the vehicle; and validating the itinerary to determine if the plurality of stops can be serviced by the vehicle based at least in part on the location data, wherein determining if the plurality of stops can be services comprised determining whether at least one constraint associated with the plurality of stops can be met.
Claim 15:
generating an itinerary for a vehicle in the ride-sharing service, the itinerary comprising a plurality of stops, wherein each stop of the plurality of stops comprises a stop associated with a passenger or a break;
receiving GPS location data associated with the vehicle, wherein the vehicle is an electric vehicle; and validating the itinerary to determine if the plurality of stops can be serviced by the ride-sharing service, wherein determining if the plurality of stops can be serviced comprises determining whether at least one constraint associated with the plurality of stops can be met, and wherein validating is performed in real time and based at least in part on the GPS location data.
Per Prong One of Step 2A, the identified recitation of an abstract idea falls within at least one of the Abstract Idea Groupings consisting of: Mathematical Concepts, Mental Processes, or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Particularly, the identified recitation falls within Mental Processes: concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion and Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, business relations). Per Prong Two of Step 2A, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim as a whole does not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 recite the additional elements of one processor. And claim 15 in the preamble recite the additional elements of a processor and non-transitory computer-readable media. This generic a processor and non-transitory computer-readable media is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic processor component. Further, the processor is configured to cause receiving/determining/transmitting data is mere instruction to apply an exception using a generic computer component which cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, this/these additional element(s) does/do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, since the claims are directed to the MPEP 2106.05 Eligibility Step 2B: Whether a Claim Amounts to Significantly More [R-07.2022] is directed to Step 2B. Therein, the additional elements and combinations therewith are examined in the claims to determine whether the claims as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. It is noted here that the additional elements are to be considered both individually and as an ordered combination. In this case, the claims each at most comprise additional elements of: a processor and non-transitory computer-readable media. Taken individually, the additional limitations each are generically recited and thus does not add significantly more to the respective limitations. Further, executing all the components is mere instruction to apply an exception using a generic processor component which cannot provide an inventive concept in Step 2B (or, looking back to Step 2A, cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application). For further support, the Applicant’s specification supports the claims being directed to use of a generic a processor and non-transitory computer-readable media type structure at ¶ 0023: “Computer 102 can be a desktop computer, a laptop computer, a server computer, a mobile device such as a smartphone or tablet, or any other form factor of general- or special-purpose computing device containing at least one processor.” See also ¶ 0024: “Computer-readable media include both volatile and nonvolatile media, removable and nonremovable media, and contemplate media readable by a database.” See also figure 1.
Taken as an ordered combination, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are directed to limitations referenced in Alice Corp. that are not enough to qualify as significantly more when recited in a claim with an abstract idea include, as a non-limiting or non-exclusive examples: i. Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)); ii. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); iii. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)); or v. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, e.g., a claim describing how the abstract idea of hedging could be used in the commodities and energy markets, as discussed in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 595, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010) or a claim limiting the use of a mathematical formula to the petrochemical and oil-refining fields, as discussed in Parker v. Flook. The courts have recognized the following computer functions inter alia to be well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner: performing repetitive calculations (e.g., the present claims); receiving, processing, and storing data (e.g., the present claims); electronically scanning or extracting data; electronic recordkeeping; automating mental tasks (e.g., process/machine for performing the present claims); and receiving or transmitting data (e.g., the present claims). The dependent claims 2-8, 10-14 and 17-22 do not cure the above stated deficiencies, and in particular, the dependent claims further narrow the abstract idea without reciting additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception or providing significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 2 further limit the abstract idea that a reservation application programming interface (API), wherein the actions further comprise: responsive to detecting a charge level of the vehicle is below a threshold charge level, determining if the vehicle can complete the optimized itinerary variant based on at least one of: an estimated mileage to be incurred on future stops, a time-in service for the vehicle, or a remaining charge level; and responsive to determining the vehicle cannot complete the optimized itinerary variant, reserving, via the reservation API, a recharging station for the vehicle (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 3 further limit the abstract idea by generating an additional break request for the vehicle, wherein the additional break request comprises a break location associated with the recharging station (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 4 limit the abstract idea that the better objective value is a first objective value, and wherein the actions further comprise periodically optimizing the plurality of itineraries to determine whether a new itinerary variant comprising a second objective value that is better that the first objective value of the optimized itinerary variant (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 5 limit the abstract idea that responsive to determining the new itinerary variant has the second objective value that is better than the first objective value, assigning the new itinerary variant to the vehicle (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 6 further limit the abstract idea that the actions further comprise: responsive to receiving a new ride request, reinserting the break into new indices to generate a plurality of updated itinerary variants; computing, in parallel, the objective value for the plurality of updated itinerary variants to determine a chosen updated itinerary for at least one vehicle of the plurality of vehicles; and communicating the chosen updated itinerary to at least one vehicle (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 7 further limit the abstract idea by validating the plurality of itineraries based at least in part on the location data to determine if the plurality of stops can be serviced by the ride-sharing service; and responsive to determining that the plurality of stops cannot be serviced by the ride-sharing service, modifying the plurality of itineraries by reindexing at least one stop of the plurality of stops or by reindexing the break in each itinerary of the plurality of itineraries to generate a plurality of updated itineraries (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 8 further limit the abstract idea by determining a break window for the plurality of vehicles, the break window having a start time and a stop time; and constraining insertion of the break to indices of the plurality of itineraries within the break window (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 10 further limit the abstract idea that the break is a maintenance break (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 11 further limit the abstract idea that responsive to determining the plurality of stops cannot be serviced by the vehicle, modifying the itinerary to generate an updated itinerary; and validating the updated itinerary to determine if the plurality of stops can be serviced by the vehicle (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 12 further limit the abstract idea that responsive to determining that the plurality of stops can be serviced by the vehicle, constraining the break to the itinerary, wherein constraining the break prevents the break from being removed from the itinerary (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 13 further limit the abstract idea by selecting a break location for the break based on at least one of: the GPS location data, a first location of a last stop before the break, or a second location of a first stop after the break (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 14 further limit the abstract idea that the responsive to: (i) detecting a fuel level or a charge level of the vehicle below a threshold level, or (ii) determining the vehicle will reach the threshold level based on an expected fuel usage or an expected battery usage, determining if the vehicle can complete the itinerary based at least in part on at least one of: an estimated milage to be incurred on future stops, a time-in service for the vehicle, a remaining fuel level, a remaining charge level, an estimated remaining fuel level, or an estimated remaining charge level; and responsive to determining the vehicle cannot complete the itinerary, generating an additional break request for the vehicle, wherein the additional break request for the vehicle comprises the break location that is associated with one of a refueling station or a recharge station (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 16 further limit the abstract idea that wherein generating the itinerary comprises: inserting the break at an index of the itinerary; and shuffling the plurality of stops associated with the passenger around the index of the break to generate an optimized itinerary (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 17 further limit the abstract idea that responsive to detecting a charge level below a threshold level, automatically generating a break request for the vehicle (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 18 further limit the abstract idea by reserving, via an application programming interface, a recharging location for the vehicle (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 19 further limit the abstract idea that wherein validating the itinerary comprises a forward-looking validation to determine if an estimated time of arrival for each stop associated with the passenger matches a scheduled time to complete each stop of the plurality of stops (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 20 further limit the abstract idea by receiving a new ride request for the ride-sharing service; and responsive to receiving the new ride request, modifying the itinerary to service the new ride request by reindexing of at least one stop of the plurality of stops to generate an updated itinerary (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 21 further limit the abstract idea that the actions further comprise: responsive to detecting a maintenance need for the vehicle, determining if the vehicle can complete the optimized itinerary variant; and responsive to determining the vehicle cannot complete the optimized itinerary variant, generating an additional break request for the vehicle, wherein the additional break request comprises a break location associated with a mechanics shop (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). And claim 22 further limit the abstract idea that the one or more metrics comprise at least one of a metric of relative delay, a cost per passenger mile, a total vehicle driving time, a total vehicle driving distance, passenger constraint violations, break parameter violations, or recharging parameter violations (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). The identified recitations from the dependents claims fall within Mental Processes: concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion and Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, business relations). Accordingly, this/these additional element(s) does/do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Since there are no elements or ordered combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, the claims are not eligible subject matter under 35 USC §101. Thus, viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 12/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that (1) “The claims are not directed to an abstract idea.” (2) “The claims include additional elements that incorporate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application” and (3) “The claims include significantly more than the alleged abstract idea” (Remarks. Pages 10-14).
In response to Applicant’s argument (1). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 recites a system for dynamically scheduling breaks in a ride-sharing service as described in the Applicant's disclosure in paragraph 0003 " scheduling breaks for vehicles." Claim 1 recites a concept related to Mental Processes: concepts performed in the human mind, including observation (itineraries, breaks, indices, location data, itineraries variants, one or more metrics), evaluation (objective value), judgment (optimized itinerary with the better objective value), opinion (break assignation) and Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, business relations: breaks schedules for vehicles in a ride-sharing service. Therefore, claim 1 recites an abstract idea falling within the Guidance's subject-matter grouping to the group of certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes. The same rationale applies to claims 9 and 15.
In response to Applicant’s argument (2). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Per Prong Two of Step 2A, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim as a whole does not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application. The processor and non-transitory computer-readable media is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of receiving/determining/transmitting data. This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Considering the claims as a whole, these additional limitations merely add generic computer activities i.e., receiving/determining/transmitting. The recited processor and non-transitory computer-readable media, merely links the abstract idea to a computer environment. In this way, the processor and non-transitory computer-readable media involvement is merely a field of use which only contributes nominally and insignificantly to the recited method, which indicates absence of integration. Claim 1 uses the processor and non-transitory computer-readable media as a tool, in its ordinary capacity, to carry out the abstract idea. As to this level of computer involvement, mere automation of manual processes using generic computers does not necessarily indicate a patent-eligible improvement in computer technology. Considered as a whole, the claimed method does not improve the functioning of the computer itself or any other technology or technical field. Further, a processor configured to cause receiving/determining/transmitting data to a device is mere instruction to apply an exception using a generic computer component which cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, this/these additional element(s) does/do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The same rationale applies to claims 9 and 15.
In response to Applicant’s argument (3). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Executing all the operations (identifying/determining/transmitting) by a processor is mere instruction to apply an exception using a generic computer component which cannot provide an inventive concept in Step 2B (or, looking back to Step 2A, cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application). For further support, the Applicant’s specification supports the claims being directed to use of a generic a processor and non-transitory computer-readable media type structure at ¶ 0023: “Computer 102 can be a desktop computer, a laptop computer, a server computer, a mobile device such as a smartphone or tablet, or any other form factor of general- or special-purpose computing device containing at least one processor.” See also ¶ 0024: “Computer-readable media include both volatile and nonvolatile media, removable and nonremovable media, and contemplate media readable by a database.” See also figure 1. Taken as an ordered combination, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are directed to limitations referenced in Alice Corp. that are not enough to qualify as significantly more when recited in a claim with an abstract idea include, as a non-limiting or non-exclusive examples: i. Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)); ii. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); iii. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)); or v. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, e.g., a claim describing how the abstract idea of hedging could be used in the commodities and energy markets, as discussed in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 595, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010) or a claim limiting the use of a mathematical formula to the petrochemical and oil-refining fields, as discussed in Parker v. Flook. The courts have recognized the following computer functions inter alia to be well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner: performing repetitive calculations; receiving, processing, and storing data (e.g., the present claims); electronically scanning or extracting data; electronic recordkeeping; automating mental tasks (e.g., process/machine for performing the present claims); and receiving or transmitting data (e.g., the present claims). Applicant's claims do not apply the additional elements in a manner beyond what has been recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional for computers and computing devices, the processor and non-transitory computer-readable media is merely used as a tool, there is no improvement to the field of computer technology. Employing well-known computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, does not add significantly more, similar how limiting the abstract idea in Flook to petrochemical and oil-refining industries was insufficient. The same rationale applies to claims 9 and 15. The rejection is maintained.
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 NADJA CHONG whose telephone number is (571)270-3939. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00 am - 2:00 pm ET. 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, RUTAO WU can be reached on 571.272.6045. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NADJA N CHONG CRUZ/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623