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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is a first action on the merits in response to the application filed on 08/28/2024.
Claims 1 – 20 are currently pending and have been examined in this application.
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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1, 3, 8,10, 15 and 17 of Application no. 18/818,373 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8 and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,086,897 (Hereinafter “’897”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
The narrower patented claims anticipate the broader reference application claims.
Claims of the referenced patent ‘897 read:
Claim 1:
A method comprising:
receiving, by one or more server devices of a dynamic transportation matching system, a first transport request from a requester computing device associated with a first geohash and a first request matching time period;
generating, by the one or more server devices, a geohash pairing comprising the first geohash and one or more geohashes associated with the first geohash based on an average estimated time of arrival between geohashes;
generating, by the one or more server devices, a transport request grouping of the first transport request from the requester computing device with other transport requests from other requester computing devices that are received within the first request matching time period and are associated with the geohash pairing;
selecting, from the provider computing devices available for assignment, a subset of available provider computing devices that are associated with the geohash pairing;
monitoring, by the one or more server devices, location information from a plurality of requester computing devices and a plurality of provider computing devices to determine a number of requester computing devices and a number of provider computing devices in a second geohash;
generating, by the one or more server devices, virtual penalties for candidate transportation matches for transport requests that involve provider computing devices crossing between the second geohash and the first geohash, wherein the virtual penalties are based on a ratio of a number of transport requests and the number of provider computing devices in the second geohash;
generating, by the one or more server devices, a directed graph by generating a plurality of edges between the first transport request and the other transport requests in the transport request grouping;
generating a plurality of candidate virtual geographic boundaries wherein edges from the directed graph intersect the plurality of candidate virtual geographic boundaries; determining, by the one or more server devices, edge weights for the plurality of edges of the directed graph based on an amount of the subset of available provider computing devices available for assignment to the first transport request and an amount of the subset of available provider computing devices available for assignment to the other transport requests in the transport request grouping;
determining, for the plurality of candidate virtual geographic boundaries, edge weight combinations, based on the edges from the directed graph that intersect the plurality of candidate virtual geographic boundaries;
selecting a virtual geographic boundary from the plurality of candidate virtual geographic boundaries based on the edge weight combinations;
generating, by the one or more server devices, within the first request matching time period and based on the virtual penalties and the directed graph, a transportation match for the first transport request from a first requester computing device and a first provider computing device, wherein the first provider computing device is selected from the subset of available provider computing devices within the virtual geographic boundary; and
providing, for display via a user interface of the first provider computing device, the transportation match for the first transport request from the first requester computing device and the first provider computing device.
Claim 8 for a system and Claim 15 for a CRM substantially recites the subject matter of Claim 1.
Claims of the instant application ‘373 read:
Claim 1:
A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, by one or more server devices of a dynamic transportation matching system, a transport request from a requester computing device associated with a geohash and a request matching time period;
generating, by the one or more server devices, a directed graph by:
generating nodes of the directed graph from the transport request and additional transport requests received within the request matching time period;
generating a plurality of edges between nodes of the directed graph; and
generating, by the one or more server devices, edge weights for the plurality of edges of the directed graph based on a measure of available provider computing devices available for assignment to node pairs of the directed graph;
generating a virtual geographic boundary based on edges and corresponding edge weights from the directed graph that intersect the virtual geographic boundary;
generating, by the one or more server devices within the request matching time period, a transportation match for the transport request from the requester computing device by selecting a provider computing device from a subset of available provider computing devices within the virtual geographic boundary; and
providing, for display via a user interface of the provider computing device, the transportation match for the transport request from the requester computing device and the provider computing device.
Claim 3:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein generating the virtual geographic boundary based on the edges and the corresponding edge weights from the directed graph that intersect the virtual geographic boundary comprises:
generating a candidate virtual geographic boundary;
identifying an edge that intersects the candidate virtual geographic boundary; and selecting the candidate virtual geographic boundary as the virtual geographic boundary based on an edge weight corresponding to the edge that intersects the candidate virtual geographic boundary.
Claims 8 and 10 for a system and Claims 15 and 17 for a CRM substantially recites the subject matter of claims 1 and 3.
As previously stated the narrower patented claims anticipate the broader reference application claims.
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 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 recites:
receiving, by one or more server devices of a dynamic transportation matching system, a transport request from a requester computing device associated with a geohash and a request matching time period;
generating, by the one or more server devices, a directed graph by: generating nodes of the directed graph from the transport request and additional transport requests received within the request matching time period;
generating a plurality of edges between nodes of the directed graph; and
generating, by the one or more server devices, edge weights for the plurality of edges of the directed graph based on a measure of available provider computing devices available for assignment to node pairs of the directed graph;
generating a virtual geographic boundary based on edges and corresponding edge weights from the directed graph that intersect the virtual geographic boundary;
generating, by the one or more server devices within the request matching time period, a transportation match for the transport request from the requester computing device by selecting a provider computing device from a subset of available provider computing devices within the virtual geographic boundary; and
providing, for display via a user interface of the provider computing device, the transportation match for the transport request from the requester computing device and the provider computing device.
The limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities related to managing behavior, but for the recitation of generic computer components (e.g. a processor). For example, receiving a transport request, generating a directed graph with nodes, edges and weights then generating and providing a transportation match involves managing behaviors. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
In addition, the claim could be seen as Mental Processes as one is identifying an available driver (a transportation match) through observation and evaluation of data.
Independent Claims 8 and 15 substantially recite the subject matter of Claim 1 and also include the abstract ideas identified above. The dependent claims encompass the same abstract ideas. For instance, Claim 2 is directed to generating edge weights of the directed graph and identifying node pairs (analysis); Claims 3-5 is directed to generating and selecting virtual geographic boundary based on edges and edge weights (analysis); Claim 6 is directed to generating total edge weights of virtual geographic boundary (analysis); Claim 7 is directed to generating the virtual geographic boundary by comparing total edge weight and second total edge weight. Claims 9-14 and 16-20 substantially recite the subject matter of Claims 2-7.
The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites the additional elements of one or more server devices and a requester computing device. Claims 8 and 15 recite the additional elements of at least one processor, a non-transitory computer-readable medium and at least one server device. These are generic computer components recited at a high level of generality as performing generic computer functions (see Spec Figure 8 and ¶0074, general purpose computer)
For instance, the step of receiving a transport request is data gathering activity. The steps of generating nodes of the directed graph, generating edges between nodes, generating edge weights for the plurality of edges and generating a transportation match involve collecting/analyzing data and representing data within a directed graph (displaying). The step of providing a display of the transportation match involves generic display functionality.
Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components (e.g. a processor). The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (e.g. a processor). Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because it does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As stated above, the additional elements of a processor, a crm, a server device, etc. are considered generic computer components performing generic computer functions that amount to no more than instructions to implement the judicial exception. Mere, instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The dependent claims when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be ineligible for the same reason above and the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract. The additional limitations of the dependent claims when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Looking at these limitations as an ordered combination and individually adds nothing additional that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because they simply provide instructions to use generic computer components, to "apply" the recited abstract idea. Thus, the elements of the claims, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, are not sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, Claims 1-20 are not patent eligible.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 (AIA ) 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.
Claims 1-5, 8-12 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biswas et al. (US 2017/0154348) in view of Reddy et al. (US 2018/0095977) further in view of Liao et al. (CN 102299959 A).
Claim 1:
Biswas discloses:
A computer-implemented method comprising: receiving, by one or more server devices of a dynamic transportation matching system, a transport request from a requester computing device associated with a geohash and a request matching time period; (see at least ¶0028, request for a ride; see also ¶0043, requests received over a time period; see also ¶0033, service vicinity)
generating, by the one or more server devices, a directed graph by: generating nodes of the directed graph from the transport request and additional transport requests received within the request matching time period; (see at least ¶0052-¶0053, directed bipartite graph representing requestors and drivers; see also ¶0043, requests over a period of time)
generating a plurality of edges between nodes of the directed graph; and (see at least ¶0052-¶0053, edges are directed from requests to drivers)
generating, by the one or more server devices, edge weights for the plurality of edges of the directed graph based on a measure of available provider computing devices available for assignment to node pairs of the directed graph; (see at least ¶0054, weighted edge connecting a request represented by a vertex x with all available drivers)
generating, by the one or more server devices within the request matching time period, a transportation match for the transport request from the requester computing device by selecting a provider computing device from [a subset of available provider computing devices within the virtual geographic boundary]; and (see at least ¶0082, matching drivers to service requests based on optimal conditions and presenting)
providing, for display via a user interface of the provider computing device, the transportation match for the transport request from the requester computing device and the provider computing device. (see at least ¶0082, matching drivers to service requests based on optimal conditions and presenting)
While Biswas discloses the above limitations, Biswas does not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Reddy does disclose:
A computer-implemented method comprising: receiving, by one or more server devices of a dynamic transportation matching system, a transport request from a requester computing device associated with a geohash and a request matching time period; (see at least ¶0039, a user requesting a trip from a geohash area; see also ¶0027, matching services and location)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine the service request matching of Biswas with the locations organized in to geohashes of Reddy to assist with location and trip planning.
While Biswas discloses the above limitations, Biswas does not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Liao does disclose:
generating a virtual geographic boundary based on edges and corresponding edge weights from the directed graph that intersect the virtual geographic boundary; (see at least Figure 4 and associated text; see also ¶0041-¶0043, division method divides request node transactions where boundary lines represent boundary between different partitions; see also ¶0054, transaction nodes are divided into a subarea)
…[a transportation match for the transport request from the requester computing device by selecting a provider computing device from] a subset of available provider computing devices within the virtual geographic boundary (see at least ¶0054, transaction nodes are divided into a subarea)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine the service request matching of Biswas and the locations organized in to geohashes of Reddy with the division method of dividing node transactions into partitions and implementing a boundary line of Liao to facilitate load balancing (Abstract) by creating subareas within the directed graph.
Claim 2:
While Biswas, Reddy and Liao disclose claim 1, neither Biswas nor Reddy does not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Liao does disclose:
wherein generating the edge weights for the plurality of edges of the directed graph based on the measure of available provider computing devices available for assignment to node pairs of the directed graph comprises: (see at least ¶0054, weighted edge is associated with available drivers)
identifying a node pair comprising a first node, corresponding to a requestor computing device, and a second node, corresponding to an additional requestor computing device; and (see at least ¶0053, edges are directed from requests to the cab drivers)
generating an edge weight for an edge between the node pair based on identifying an available provider device eligible for assignment to both the requestor computing device corresponding to the first node and the additional requestor computing device corresponding to the second node. (see at least ¶0053, edges are directed from requests to the cab drivers)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine the service request matching of Biswas and the locations organized in to geohashes of Reddy with the division method of dividing node transactions into partitions and implementing a boundary line of Liao to facilitate load balancing (Abstract) by creating subareas within the directed graph.
Claim 3:
While Biswas and Liao disclose claim 1, neither Biswas nor Reddy explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Liao does disclose:
wherein generating the virtual geographic boundary based on the edges and the corresponding edge weights from the directed graph that intersect the virtual geographic boundary comprises: generating a candidate virtual geographic boundary; (see at least ¶0043 and Figure 4, the dashed line represents the boundary between different partitions)
identifying an edge that intersects the candidate virtual geographic boundary; (see at least ¶0043 and Figure 4, the dashed line represents the boundary between different partitions)
and selecting the candidate virtual geographic boundary as the virtual geographic boundary based on an edge weight corresponding to the edge that intersects the candidate virtual geographic boundary. (see at least ¶0041-¶0043 and Figure 4, the dashed line represents the boundary between different partitions)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine the service request matching of Biswas and the locations organized in to geohashes of Reddy with the division method of dividing node transactions into partitions and implementing a boundary line of Liao to facilitate load balancing (Abstract) by creating subareas within the directed graph.
Claim 4:
While Biswas, Reddy and Liao disclose claim 3, neither Biswas nor Reddy explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Liao does disclose:
wherein generating the virtual geographic boundary based on the edges and the corresponding edge weights from the directed graph that intersect the virtual geographic boundary comprises: identifying an additional edge that intersects the candidate virtual geographic boundary; (see at least ¶0041-¶0043)
identifying an additional edge weight corresponding to the additional edge that intersects the candidate virtual geographic boundary; and (see at least ¶0040, maximum weighted sum edge; see also ¶0041, weighted sum of edge; see also ¶0043)
generating a total edge weight by combining the edge weight corresponding to the edge that intersects the candidate virtual geographic boundary and the additional edge weight corresponding to the additional edge that intersects the candidate virtual geographic boundary. (see at least ¶0040, maximum weighted sum edge; see also ¶0041, weighted sum of edge; see also ¶0043)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine the service request matching of Biswas and the locations organized in to geohashes of Reddy with the division method of dividing node transactions into partitions and implementing a boundary line of Liao to facilitate load balancing (Abstract) by creating subareas within the directed graph.
Claim 5:
While Biswas, Reddy and Liao disclose claim 4, neither Biswas nor Reddy explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Liao does disclose:
further comprising selecting the candidate virtual geographic boundary as the virtual geographic boundary based on the total edge weight. (see at least ¶0043, boundary between different partitions to create subareas)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine the service request matching of Biswas and the locations organized in to geohashes of Reddy with the division method of dividing node transactions into partitions and implementing a boundary line of Liao to facilitate load balancing (Abstract) by creating subareas within the directed graph.
Claims 8-12 for a system (Biswas see Figure 2) and Claims 15-18 (Biswas see ¶0009) substantially recite the subject matter of Claims 1-5 and are rejected based on the same rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered relevant but not applied:
Jebara et al. (US 2012/0005238) discloses defining supplier and customers, which are referred here to as "nodes" which information may be considered to define a bipartite graph. Each supplier node is connected to a customer node by an edge so the one or more computers is supplied with the potential edges of all the nodes mapping from a supplier node to a customer node. The one or more computers are also provided with access to weight data, for example a matrix with a weight value for each edge of the bipartite graph data structure. In this example, the weight data may be total cost of goods and the optimum matching would coincide with maximum exchange of revenue between buyers and sellers.
Borgerson et al. (US 2016/0216122) discloses generate a travel shed, the system builds two data structures from the optimized road graph data. First, the arrays of nodes and edges are reconstituted into a directed graph and where edges weights are applied to indicate information about roads.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Renae Feacher whose telephone number is 571-270-5485. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor, Beth Boswell can be reached at 571-272-6737.
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.
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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free).
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
Washington, D.C. 20231
or faxed to 571-273-8300.
Hand delivered responses should be brought to the United States Patent and Trademark Office Customer Service Window:
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314.
/Renae Feacher/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625