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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 1-20 are the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea of subsidizing ride costs. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application for the reasons that follow. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as described below.
Eligibility Analysis, Step 1
Regarding claims 1-20, the claims are each directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, a method and system. As such, the analysis proceeds to Step 2. The 2019 Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“2019 PEG”) sets forth a revised Step 2A analysis which includes a two-prong inquiry.
Eligibility Analysis, Step 2A Prong One
Prong one consists of determining if the claims recite a judicial exception, which includes abstract ideas, laws of nature, and natural phenomenon. Groupings of abstract ideas may include mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activity. Here, representative independent claim 1 recite the abstract idea subsidizing commuting costs. The abstract steps comprise the following:
receiving, over a network, a ride request including one or more ride parameters for a ride in the network-connected autonomous vehicle;
calculating an overall ride fare for the ride;
receiving a productivity metric indicating a measure of productivity attributed to activity of a rider using a virtual work environment facilitated by the network-connected autonomous vehicle;
using the productivity metric in a calculation to determine a first portion of the overall ride fare to be allocated to the rider; and
allocating the first portion of the overall ride fare to an account of the rider.
The receiving step at the is pre-solution activity. The allocating steps are post solution activity. The remaining steps above describe a fundamental economic practice, commercial interactions, and managing interactions between people, and therefore a certain method of organizing human activity. Further, the limitations, as drafted, describe a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by a human analog but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than the recitation of the processor, memory and a network nothing in the claims precludes the steps from practically being performed by a human analog. Here, the mere nominal recitation of the generic computer components does not take the claim limitation out of the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping. As such, the claims recite an abstract idea under prong one. The analysis proceeds to Step 2A Prong Two.
Eligibility Analysis, Step 2A Prong Two
Prong two consists of determining whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim recites the following additional elements:
a processor
storage device
network
The additional element in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. It does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. As such, the claims are directed to the abstract idea. The analysis proceeds to Step 2B.
Eligibility Analysis, Step 2B
Step 2B consists of determining whether the claim provides an inventive concept by considering whether the additional elements go beyond what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity.
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106; see also USPTO: July 2015 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility):
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink.” (emphasis added));
ii. Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.”);
iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2359, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (creating and maintaining “shadow accounts”); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log);
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
In the case of the instant claims, the generic application of the computing devices similarly does not make the invention patent-eligible. Note that the disclosure merely puts a name to general computer products which are suitable to perform the claimed method, but fail at any detail to describe these elements. Moreover, the specification does not contribute any technically-specific computer algorithm or code, but rather merely states that the claimed steps may be performed by the generic modules with the expectation that one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of implementation without further instruction. The use of computing devices in this manner is merely what computers do, ie. performing repetitive calculations, receiving, processing, and storing data, and automating mental tasks, and does not change the analysis. Whilst the implementation of such a solution may include the use of generic technical features, these merely serve their well-understood functions as would be recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art in the technical field under consideration. As such, the claims' invocation of the computer merely amounts to the limiting of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Here, the involvement of the generic computer products does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-eligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. The claims 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 computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. The use of generic computer components in this manner does not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of 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. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality, as discussed above. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Independent claims 10 and 19 recite substantially similar limitations as independent claim 1 and are rejected using the same rationale. Dependent claims 2-6 and 9, 11-14 , 18 and 20 do not remedy the deficiencies of the independent claims – as they offer either further modifications of the abstract idea or present additional elements at a high level and are rejected for the same reasons as that of the independent claim. Claim 6 and 15 include the use of image sensors and a pretrained computer vision model. Claim 7,8,15 and 16, include the use of cloud based time activity software. These “additional elements” do not when read in light of the specification amount to improvements of any underlying technology. Under 2B, the specification does not teach an “inventive concept” or add anything “significantly more” to transform the abstract concept into a patent-eligible application. Appeal Br. 27. Likewise, the specification does not identify any specific limitation of claim 1 beyond the judicial exception(s) that was not “‘well-understood, routine, and conventional’ in the field,” as per MPEP § 2106.05(d). See - VERIFYING MEETING ATTENDANCE VIA A MEETING EXPENSE AND VERIFICATION CONTROLLER Mitchell US 20220270055 A1
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5,7,9,10-15,17,19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Copeland et al. 11361594
1, 10. 19 A system, method and computer readable medium for determining a ride fare for a ride in a network-connected autonomous vehicle, the system comprising:
a processor; and
a memory storage device storing executable instructions thereon, which, when executed by the processor, cause the system to perform operations comprising:
receiving, over a network, a ride request including one or more ride parameters for a ride in the network-connected autonomous vehicle; p 3
calculating an overall ride fare for the ride; p 15
receiving a productivity metric indicating a measure of productivity attributed to activity of a rider using a virtual work environment facilitated by the network-connected autonomous vehicle; p18
using the productivity metric in a calculation to determine a first portion of the overall ride fare to be allocated to the rider; p18 and
allocating the first portion of the overall ride fare to an account of the rider. p18
Claims 2 & 11. The system of claim 1/10, wherein the rider is an employee of a first enterprise and, prior to using the productivity metric in the calculation to determine the first portion of the overall ride fare to be allocated to the rider:
receiving, over a network, an indication of approval for using the calculation to determine an amount of a ride fare for a rider employed by the enterprise. P 20 (the wherein clause directed to being an employee of the first enterprise does not further limit the system)
3 & 12 . The system of claim 2/11, wherein the memory storage device is storing additional executable instructions thereon, which, when executed by the processor, cause the system to perform additional operations comprising:
allocating to an account of the enterprise a second portion of the ride fare, the second portion being the amount of the overall ride fare remaining after allocating the first portion to the rider. p 15
4 & 13. The system of claim 1,10 wherein the virtual work environment facilitated by the network-connected autonomous vehicle comprises:
a network connectivity service facilitated by the autonomous vehicle and for use by the rider in connecting a computing device to a public network;
an input device and one or more displays providing the rider with access to a suite of cloud-based productivity software applications; and a combination thereof. Fig. 1
5 & 15 . The system of claim 1/10 wherein the activity attributed to the rider using the virtual work environment is determined by a productivity sensing system of the network-connected autonomous vehicle, the productivity sensing system configured to generate the productivity metric by:
monitoring network traffic associated with a network connection provided by the autonomous vehicle to determine an amount of the network traffic associated with work being performed by the rider, wherein the productivity metric is based on the amount of network traffic. Fig. 2 (the Micro-task module)
7 & 17 - The system of claim 1/16 wherein the virtual work environment facilitated by the network-connected autonomous vehicle includes a suite of cloud-based productivity software applications associated with a service of the autonomous vehicle and the activity attributed to the rider using the virtual work environment is determined by a productivity sensing system of the network-connected autonomous vehicle, the productivity sensing system configured to generate the productivity metric by:
monitoring interactions by the rider with the cloud-based productivity software applications, wherein interactions include launching applications, opening documents, editing documents, sending communications through applications, and accessing application features. Fig. 4.
9. The system of claim 1, wherein the memory storage device is storing additional executable instructions thereon, which, when executed by the processor, cause the system to perform additional operations comprising:
at the conclusion of the ride, communicating a message to a computing device of the rider, the message specifying i) the overall ride fare, ii) the first portion of the overall ride fare allocated to the account of the rider, iii) a value for the productivity metric, and iv) an indication that the overall ride fare was reduced based on the value of the productivity metric. Fig 3.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 6,8,16-18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Copeland et al. 11361594 in view of Mitchell US 20220270055 A1
The teaching of Copeland is incorporated by reference to the 102 rejection.
6/16/20 The Copeland reference fails to teach the system of claim 1,10 wherein the activity attributed to the rider using the virtual work environment is determined by a productivity sensing system of the network-connected autonomous vehicle, the productivity sensing system configured to generate the productivity metric by:
capturing images of the rider within the interior of the autonomous vehicle using one or more image sensors;
providing the captured images as input to a pre-trained computer vision model that is configured to analyze the captured images and determine, based on analysis of the captured images, when the rider is performing work within the virtual work environment;
Mitchell provides this teaching at p [0037-0038]
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art to have combined the references as they share a common goal of time and attendance verification.
8 and 18. The Copeland reference fails to teach the system of claim 7/10 wherein the productivity sensing system is configured to generate the productivity metric by:
determining an amount of time the rider interacts with the cloud-based productivity software applications based on the monitored interactions;
wherein generating the productivity metric is based on the percentage of time during the ride that the rider is determined to be interacting with the cloud-based productivity software applications.
generating the productivity metric based on output of the pre-trained computer vision model indicating an amount of time the rider was determined to be performing work within the virtual work environment.
Mitchell provides this teaching at p 0051-0052.
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art to have combined the references as they share a common goal of time and attendance verification.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD C WEISBERGER whose telephone number is (571)272-6753. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 10AM-8PM PCT.
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, Michael Anderson can be reached at 571-270-0508. 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.
/RICHARD C WEISBERGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights