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 Claims
Claims 1-20 of US Application No. 18/777,393, filed on 18 July 2024, are currently pending and have been examined. Applicant amended claim 1 and added claims 2-20 via preliminary amendment.
Specification
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words. It is important that the abstract not exceed 150 words in length since the space provided for the abstract on the computer tape used by the printer is limited. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes," etc.’
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is not written in narrative form. Instead, the abstract has been written as a run-on sentence that generally mimics the claim. The abstract should be in narrative form, which should include a series of complete sentences. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 recites “determining a priority score based on the associated service task, the associated fleet vehicle demand, and the current locations of the plurality of fleet vehicles; generating a service task list based on the plurality of service locations, the service tasks associated with the plurality of service locations, and the priority scores associated with the plurality of service locations”. Claims 16 and 20 recite substantially similar limitations as claim 1. Both the description and the drawings are silent regarding determining a priority score. Further, both the description and the drawings are silent regarding generating a service task list based on the priority score. Claims 2-15 and 17-19 are also rejected as failing to comply with the written description because they depend from on of claims 1, 16, and 20.
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 1-7, 11-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In January, 2019 (updated October 2019), the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claims 1-7, 11-15, and 17-20 are directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Does claims 1, 16, and 20 fall within one of the statutory categories? Yes. Independent claim 1 is directed toward a process and independent claims 16 and 20 are directed toward a machine, which fall within one of the statutory categories.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, independent claims 1, 16, and 20 are directed to an abstract idea.
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), a claim that recites an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon is directed to a judicial exception. the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
See the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. With respect to mental processes, the courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer.
Independent claim 1 recites “determining, based on data received from the plurality of fleet vehicles, current locations and statuses of the plurality of fleet vehicles in a region”, “determining a plurality of service locations for servicing the plurality of fleet vehicles in the region, each of the plurality of service locations being associated with a subset of the plurality of fleet vehicles”, “for each of the plurality of service locations, determining at least a fleet vehicle demand associated with the service location and a service task associated with the service location, the service task being determined at least based on the statuses of the subset of the plurality of fleet vehicles associated with the service location”, “for each of the plurality of service locations, determining a priority score based on the associated service task, the associated fleet vehicle demand, and the current locations of the plurality of fleet vehicles”, and “generating a service task list based on the plurality of service locations, the service tasks associated with the plurality of service locations, and the priority scores associated with the plurality of service locations”. Independent claims 16 and 20 recite substantially similar limitations as claim 1. These claimed determinations may be performed in the human mind. Using a computing system (claim 1) or processor with storage media (claims 16 and 18) to perform these abstract ideas does not take the limitation out of the mental process and/or mathematical groupings. Therefore, claims 1, 16, and 20 recite an abstract idea.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, claims 1, 16, and 20 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), even when a judicial element is recited in the claim, an additional claim element(s) that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception renders the claim eligible under §101. The guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
In the instant application, claims 1, 16, and 20 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. Claim 1 recites the additional element “by a computing system”, claim 16 recites the additional element “one or more processors and one or more computer- readable non-transitory storage media in communication with the one or more processors, the one or more computer-readable non-transitory storage media comprising instructions, that when executed by the one or more processors, are configured to cause the system to perform operations”, and claim 20 recites the additional element “One or more computer-readable non-transitory storage media including instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, are configured to cause the one or more processors to perform operations”. Claims 1, 16, and 20 all recite the additional element “providing for display, on a computing device associated with a user, the service task list to the user for instructing the user to service one or more of the plurality of fleet vehicles” or a substantially similar limitation.
As noted above, merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea is indicative that the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application. The claimed computing system (claim 1) and processor with storage media (claims 16 and 20) represent a computer. Using the computing system or processor with storage media to perform the determinations is merely using a computer as a tool to perform abstract ideas.
Also as noted above, adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception is indicative that the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application. Insignificant extra-solution activity includes data gathering and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Using the computing system or the processor with storage media to provide the service task list for display is data outputting. Therefore, this additional element just adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Therefore, claims 1, 16, and 20 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, claims 1, 16, and 20 do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Claims 1, 16, and 20 do not recite any specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional (WURC) activity in the field.
Using a generic computer to perform generic computing functions is WURC activity. Generic computing functions include 1) performing repetitive calculations, 2) receiving, processing, and storing data, 3) electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, 4) electronic recordkeeping, 5) automating mental tasks, and 6) receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). The computing system (claim 1) and the processor with storage media (claims 16 and 20) are recited at a high level of generality and, given their broadest reasonable interpretation, represent a generic computer. Providing the service task list for display on a computing device is sending and receiving data over a network. Therefore, providing the service task list for display on a computing device is using a generic computer to perform generic computing functions. The additional elements, both individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field
CONCLUSION
Thus, since claims 1, 16, and 20 (a) are directed toward an abstract idea, (b) do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claims 1 and 8 are directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 2 recites “wherein an order of the service task list is determined based on the priority scores”, which may be performed mentally. The claim does not recite any new additional elements. Therefore, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim 3 recites the additional element “providing for display, on the computing device associated with the user, a plurality of visual representations indicating the plurality of service locations, wherein the plurality of visual representations are rendered based on the priority scores”. Using the computing system or the processor with storage media to provide representations indicating service locations is data outputting. Therefore, this additional element just adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. Providing representations indicating service locations for display on a computing device is sending and receiving data over a network. Therefore, this additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons.
Claim 4 further defines a previously-recited additional element, i.e., providing for display, on the computing device associated with the user, a plurality of visual representations. Even as further defined, providing for display is still data outputting and providing representations indicating service locations for display on a computing device is still sending and receiving data over a network. Therefore, this additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons.
Claim 5 further defines a previously-identified abstract ideas, i.e., determining at least a fleet vehicle demand. However, even as further defined, the previously-identified abstract ideas may still be performed mentally. The claim does not recite any new additional elements. Therefore, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim 6 further defines a previously-identified abstract ideas, i.e., determining current locations and statuses. However, even as further defined, the previously-identified abstract ideas may still be performed mentally. The claim does not recite any new additional elements. Therefore, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim 7 further defines a previously-identified abstract ideas, i.e., determining a priority score. However, even as further defined, the previously-identified abstract ideas may still be performed mentally. The claim does not recite any new additional elements. Therefore, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim 11 recites “determining a location of the computing device associated with the user, wherein generating the service task list is further based on the location of the computing device”, which may be performed mentally. The claim does not recite any new additional elements. Therefore, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim 12 recites “monitoring a progress of the service task list”, which may be performed mentally. The claim does not recite any new additional elements. Therefore, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for 6the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim 13 recites “updating the progress of the service task list based on the status updates”, which may be performed mentally. The claim also recites the additional element “receiving a status update for each of the plurality of fleet vehicles”. Receiving a status update is data gathering. Receiving a status update is also receiving data. Therefore, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 14 recites “updating a status indicator of a service task in the service task list in correlation with the status update”, which may be performed mentally or with the aid of pen and paper. The claim does not recite any new additional elements. Therefore, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 17 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 2 and is rejected for the same reasons as claim 2.
Claim 18 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 3 and is rejected for the same reasons as claim 2.
Claim 19 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 4 and is rejected for the same reasons as claim 2.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-10 and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Zeira et al. (US 20190318549 A1);
Zanghi et al. (US 10423934 B1);
Colijn et al. (US 20190179336 A1);
Clark, IV et al. (US 20180047224 A1);
Hyatt et al. (US 20120123951 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON L TROOST whose telephone number is (571)270-5779. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30am-4pm.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at 313-446-6519. 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.
/AARON L TROOST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights