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 .
Claims Status
Claim 14 has been cancelled.
Claims 1-13 and 15-20 remain pending and stand rejected.
Priority
The current application claims priority to multiple provisional applications, including US Provisional Application Nos. 63/589,615 filed 10/11/2023, 63/583,562 filed 9/18/2023, and 63/57,8653 filed 8/24/2023.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 17-18 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.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 is amended to recite “a perception system detects the objects in the environment surrounding the AV based on sensor data and vehicle poses provided by a localizer system”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for each of the objects and the environment in the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 18, claim 17 is amended to recite “a prediction system of the AV generating predicted trajectories for the detected objects based on state data from the perception system and the vehicle poses from the localizer system. There is insufficient antecedent basis for each of the objects. Though claim 17 recites a perception system, claim 18 does not depend from claim 17 and there is insufficient antecedent basis for the term the perception system in claim 18. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1-13 and 15-20, under Step 2A claims 1-13 and 15-20 recite a judicial exception (abstract idea) that is not integrated into a practical application and does not provide significantly more.
Under Step 2A (prong 1), and taking claim 1 as representative, claim 1 recites a method comprising:
receiving a request for a transportation service associated with pickup and drop off (PUDO) locations;
in response to receiving the request, transmitting data representing the PUDO locations to an autonomous vehicle (AV) service provider, the data representing the PUDO locations comprising a requested pickup location and a requested drop off location;
receiving, from the AV service provider, a proposed navigation plan, for an AV, that includes the PUDO locations;
determining that the proposed navigation plan received from the AV service provider satisfies one or more trip quality criteria, by:
computing a first deviation of distance between the requested pickup location and a proposed pickup location in the proposed navigation plan;
computing a second deviation of duration between an expected estimated time of arrival (ETA) at the requested pickup location and a proposed ETA at the requested pickup location in the proposed navigation plan;
computing a third deviation of distance between the requested drop off location and a proposed drop off location in the proposed navigation plan;
computing a fourth deviation of duration between an expected ETA at the drop off location and a proposed ETA at the drop off location in the proposed navigation plan; and
determining that the one or more trip quality criteria is satisfied in response to determining that the first deviation and the third deviation fail to transgress a maximum distance threshold and in response to determining that the second deviation and the fourth deviation fail to transgress a maximum duration threshold;
selectively transmitting an offer to the AV service provider to perform the transportation service in response to determining whether the proposed navigation plan received from the AV service provider satisfies the one or more trip quality criteria, the offer comprising the PUDO locations and service quality information corresponding to the one or more trip quality criteria; and,
causing the AV service provider to navigate along a route to at least one of the requested pickup location or the requested drop off location by generating a motion plan and executing the motion plan.
These limitations recite ‘certain methods of organizing human activity’, such as by performing commercial interactions, or, fundamental economic practices (see: MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). This is because claim 1 sets forth or describes receiving requests for transportation services and transmitting offers to AV service providers (for acceptance or rejection). This represents the performance of marketing or sales activities or behaviors, which is a commercial interaction and falls under organizing human activity. This also describes concepts relating to the economy and commerce that represent fundamental economic practices, which also fall under organizing human activity.
Accordingly, under step 2A (prong 1) claim 1 recites an abstract idea because claim 1 recites limitations that fall within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Under Step 2A (prong 2), the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. The Examiner acknowledges that representative claim 1 does recite additional elements, such as a service assignment system, (arguably) transmitting data [representing the PUDO locations to an autonomous vehicle (AV) service provider] and selectively transmitting an offer to [the AV service provider], and causing the AV of the AV service provider to utilize one or more sensors of the AV to autonomously navigate the AV along a route to at least one of the requested pickup location or the requested drop off location by generating a motion plan and executing the motion plan by controlling one or more vehicle controls.
Although reciting these additional elements, taken alone or in combination these elements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. This is because the additional elements of claim 1 are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
With respect to causing the AV of the AV service provider to utilize one or more sensors of the AV to autonomously navigate the AV along a route to at least one of the requested pickup location or the requested drop off location by generating a motion plan and executing the motion plan by controlling one or more vehicle controls, the Examiner maintains that this element merely applies the exception using a generic autonomous vehicle and generic components thereof, while do little more than generally linking the abstract idea to the field of autonomous vehicles (see below Response to Arguments).
Secondly, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) 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.
In addition to the above, transmitting data and selectively transmitting requests - assuming arguendo it is not part of the abstract idea (which the Examiner does not acquiesce) – represents little more than extra-solution activity (e.g. data gathering and output, obtaining information and transacting) that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (see: MPEP 2106.05(g)).
In view of the above, under Step 2A (prong 2), claim 1 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, examiners should evaluate additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). In this case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Returning to representative claim 1, taken individually or as a whole the additional elements of claim 1 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment.
Furthermore, the additional elements fail to provide significantly more also because the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. For example, the additional elements of claim 1 utilize operations the courts have held to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see: MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)), including at least:
receiving or transmitting data over a network
performing repetitive calculations
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of claim 1 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, representative claim 1 does not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible for patenting.
Regarding dependent claims 2-13 and 15-18, dependent claims 2-13 and 15-18 recite more complexities descriptive of the abstract idea itself, and at least inherit the abstract idea of claim 1. As such, claims 2-13 and 15- 18 are understood to recite an abstract idea under step 2A (prong 1) for at least similar reasons as discussed above.
Under prong 2 of step 2A, the additional elements of dependent claims 2-13 and 15-18 also do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, considered both individually or as a whole. Claims 2-13 and 15-18 rely upon at least the additional elements of claim 1. Further additional elements (e.g., a perception system, localizer system, motion planning system, prediction system – claims 17-18) are also recited at a high-level of generality. Considered individually or as a whole, the additional elements in claims 2-13 and 15-18 are recited only at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
Lastly, under step 2B, claims 2-13 and 15-18 also fail to result in “significantly more” than the abstract idea under step 2B. This is again because the claims merely apply the exception on generic computing hardware, generally link the exception to a technological environment, and append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Even when viewed as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of the dependent claims do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, claims 2-13 and 15-18 do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and are therefore ineligible for patenting.
Regarding claims 19 (system) and claim 20 (non-transitory CRM), claims 19-20 recite at least substantially similar concepts and elements as recited in claim 1 such that similar analysis of the claims would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. As such, claims 19-20 are rejected under at least similar rationale.
Subject Matter Allowable Over the Prior Art
Claims 1-13 and 15-18 remain rejected on other grounds, but are allowable over the prior art. Claim 14 was objected to in the Non-Final Action mailed 12/2/2025 as being an allowable dependent claim. Applicant’s amendment to claim 1 and parallel amendments to claims 19-10 incorporate the allowable subject matter of claim 14.
The Examiner hereby asserts that the totality of the evidence neither anticipates nor renders obvious the particular combination of elements as claimed above. That is, the Examiner emphasizes the claims as a whole and hereby asserts that the totality of the evidence fails to set forth, either explicitly or implicitly, an appropriate rationale for combining or otherwise modifying the available prior art to arrive at the claimed invention. The combination of features as claimed would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because any combination of the evidence at hand to reach the combination of features as claimed would require a substantial reconstruction of Applicant’s claimed invention relying on improper hindsight bias.
Response to Arguments
I. Applicant’s arguments made with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 103 have been considered in view of the amendments filed 3/2/2026 and are persuasive. The rejections have been withdrawn.
II. Applicant’s arguments made with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101 have been considered but are not persuasive.
With respect to Applicant’s arguments in section (A), the Examiner disagrees. Applicant is reminded that in Prong One examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e. whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. Many of the limitations that have been amended and argued by Applicant merely serve to expand upon the abstract idea previously discussed, resulting only in a more complex abstract idea. Furthermore, the mere presents of additional elements does not negate the recitation of the abstract idea. Accordingly, the Examiner maintains that the claims continue to recite an abstract idea under Prong One, and has evaluated the impact of any additional elements in Prong Two and Step 2B.
Concerning Applicant’s arguments in section (B) beginning at page 12 the Examiner again disagrees. With respect to paragraph 13, the Examiner holds that this paragraph reiterates that the problem solved by the claimed invention is one of an abstract, commercial problem in the realm of rid sharing and ride matching – not in the functioning of the compute itself or another technology or technical field. While the specification alleges technical problems of “computational overhead” and “bandwidth”, any improvement manifested by the claim in these areas stems not from any underlying technical procedure but merely from the accuracy of the matching and selection of providers. That is, the reduction in bandwidth or the like stems only from the abstract-idea based solution rather than a specific technological procedure employed to reduce bandwidth or usage of computational resources. If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Although the specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology (see MPEP 2106.05(a); MPEP 2106.04(d)(1)).
Turning to Applicant’s citation to DDR Holdings, the claims in DDR Holdings attempted to address a problem specific to the routine functionality of a link (i.e. a user is directed away from the current page to the site of another merchant). The claims of DDR Holdings specified how interactions with the computer/Internet were manipulated to create a composite/hybrid page that prevented the user from being directed to the outside merchant, therein overriding the routine function of the link.
The claims of the instant application, however, lack any restriction on the manner in which the underlying technical operations are performed, instead relying only on the computer’s ability to automate repetitive calculations and determinations required to select service providers relative to offers.
Although the Examiner appreciates the arguments set forth by Applicant, the Examiner maintains that the evidence at hand demonstrates that the invention fails to provide the requisite detail and technical explanation with respect to the alleged improvements in order to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the claimed invention achieves an improvement in the functioning of the computer itself or another technology or technical field.
With respect to causing the AV of the AV service provider to utilize one or more sensors of the AV to autonomously navigate the AV along a route to at least one of the requested pickup location or the requested drop off location by generating a motion plan and executing the motion plan by controlling one or more vehicle controls, the Examiner maintains that this limitation is not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or otherwise provide significantly more. This is because at least a portion of the above limitation – specifically causing the AV service provider to navigate along a route to at least one of the requested pickup location or the requested drop off location by generating a motion plan and executing the motion plan -– extends the abstract idea itself. There use of a generic autonomous vehicle, sensor, or vehicle controls as recited amounts to little more than mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware, and ultimately fails to move beyond a general link of the abstract idea to the field of autonomous vehicles. At best, this limitation is insignificant to the solution at hand, representing an insignificant application of the abstract solution of assigning a service provider to the field of autonomous vehicles.
Although the claim may improve upon the assessment of navigation plans and assignment of requests to appropriate service providers, the claims do not include limitations that demonstrate improvements to the field of autonomous vehicles or vehicle control systems. The high-level use of autonomous vehicles and generic components thereof post-hoc to does not sufficiently reflect an improvement.
Similar analysis as applied above in Prong Two is also applicable with respect to Applicant’s arguments under Step 2B in section (C). Concerning Bascom, the focus of the court was the installation of the filtering tool at a specific location, which represented a "non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known conventional pieces" resulting in a technical improvement. Neither the claims at issue, nor Applicant’s specification, purport to offer a “non-conventional” arrangement of components like that of Bascom. Bascom further emphasized that the claims – in light of their unconventional arrangement and technical improvement – represented a technology-based solution, not an abstract-idea-based solution implemented with generic technical components. Here again, the Examiner emphasizes that the current disclosure does not support a comparison to Bascom for at least the reasons above.
For these reasons the Examiner maintains the rejection as provided below in view of the amended features. Additionally, the Examiner draws Applicant’s attention to the proposed amendment below for further guidance on overcoming the rejection under 35 USC 101.
Proposed Amendment
The Examiner proposes the amendment below to advance prosecution. The ordered combination of features below integrates the recited exception into a practical application because they actively employ specific operations of interoperating components of the autonomous vehicle to achieve an active invocation of vehicle controls resulting in performance of a modified movement in relation to object(s) and the motion path. The amendment is provided relative to the final limitation of claim 1 and claim 17. Similar amendments would be applicable to claims 19 and 20. The amendment is as follows:
Final limitation of claim 1:
causing the AV of the AV service provider to utilize one or more sensors of the AV to autonomously navigate the AV along a route to at least one of the requested pickup location or the requested drop off location by generating a motion plan and executing the motion plan by controlling one or more vehicle controls, wherein executing the motion plan comprises:
generating, by a localizer system of the AV, object pose data for one or more objects based on sensor data received from one or more sensors;
detecting, by a perception system of the AV and based on the generated pose data, the one or more objects in an environment that the AV is autonomously navigating along the route, wherein detecting the one or more objects by the perception system includes detecting state information for the one or more objects;
causing, by a motion planning system of the AV, the AV to perform a modified motion along the route by activating one or more vehicle controls based on the detected one or more objects and the state information.
17. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 1, further comprising:
preventing transmission of the offer to the AV service provider in response to determining that the proposed navigation plan received from the AV service provider fails to satisfy the one or more trip quality criteria[[,]]
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
PTO form 892-U discloses a ride hailing service for multi-objective pickup location recommendations (see Introduction, Section 2.3).
Wang (US 20200326194) discloses trip planning with autonomous vehicles (see: abstract, Fig. 5-7).
Applicant's amendment necessitated any changes to the 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 WILLIAM J ALLEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1443. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00-4:00.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-3614. 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.
WILLIAM J. ALLEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3625
/WILLIAM J ALLEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619