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 .
Request for Continued Examination under 37 CFR 1.1141
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on August 4, 2026 has been entered.
This action is a Non-Final action on the merits in response to communications filed on 08/04/2026.
Claims 1, 5, 7, 8,10, 11-15 and 17-20 have been amended. Claims 1 – 20 are currently pending and have been examined in this application.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment has been considered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks have been considered.
In the remarks Applicant argues the independent claims, “…do not recite certain methods of organizing human activity as characterized by MPEP § 2106.04(a).” (pg. 16)
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims encompass 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; portioning a geographical area into non-overlapping subgraphs; and providing a transportation match involves managing behaviors through scheduling. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
In addition, the claim could be seen as Mathematical Concepts related to mathematical relationships through the use of directed graphs in determining transportation matching.
Applicant argues, “As such, the currently amended independent claims recite a particular technical mechanism for constructing, partitioning, and using a directed graph data structure to generate a virtual geographic boundary that constrains provider computing device selection to a subgraph, which does not fall within any enumerated abstract idea grouping under MPEP § 2106.04(a).”(pg. 16)
Examiner notes that the limitations encompassing the directed graph, virtual boundaries and subgraphs utilize mathematical relationships to perform an analysis of the respective geohash area for matching transportation requests. Thus, providing abstract concepts.
Applicant argues, “…independent claims integrate any allegedly recited abstract idea into a practical application.” (pg. 16)
Examiner respectfully disagrees. 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 from the transport request and additional transport requests within matching time period, generating edges between nodes, generating edge weights for the plurality of edges, partitioning a geographical area identified by the geohash into non-overlapping subgraphs and generating a transportation match involve collecting/analyzing data and performing mathematical operations in 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 component (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.
Applicant argues similarly to Example 42, “ … the presently amended independent claims integrate the alleged method of organizing human activity into a practical application. As in Example 42, the claimed system transforms a complicated data type that is hard to work with (the non-partitioned area) into a data type that can be more efficiently manipulated (non-overlapping subgraphs).” (pg. 18)
In Example 42 the combination of additional elements recites a specific improvement over prior art systems by allowing remote users to share information in real time in a standardized format regardless of the format in which the information was input by the user, and where the claim as a whole integrates the certain method of organizing human activity into a practical application.
Unlike Example 42 the instance claims are directed to using generic computer components to perform generating nodes of the directed graph from the transport request and additional transport requests within matching time period, generating edges between nodes, generating edge weights for the plurality of edges, partitioning a geographical area identified by the geohash into non-overlapping subgraphs and generating a transportation match for a transportation request. The limitations are reflective of abstract concepts related to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities.
Further, there is no support in the Specification or the claims disclosing an improvement in a technology or a technical field.
Applicant argues, “This practical application is a solution to the technical problem of the required "massive amounts of processor utilization, bandwidth, and memory" associated with other "matching approaches." “ (pgs. 18-19)
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Reducing a number of the requests and providers evaluated by further partitioning the directed graphs does not demonstrate a technical solution to a technical problem, nor does it provide for an improvement in a technology or a technical field. The claims appear to be an improved business process for matching requesters and providers using directed graphs.
Applicant argues,” Indeed, similarly to the claims in Amdocs, the presently amended claims entail an unconventional technological solution ( dissecting a created directed graph into non-overlapping subgraphs using an intelligently drawn virtual geographic boundary) to a technological problem (inefficient, complex matching approaches within computational environments that can "approach an exponential running time," whereupon the "service may be overwhelmed and cease to operate normally.")” (pgs. 19-22)
In Amdocs, the court found under Step 2A that the claims were directed to the abstract idea of “correlating two network accounting records to enhance the first record”. However, the claims were found eligible under Step 2B as the independent claims recite a series of limitations that when considered individually and as an ordered combination provide an inventive concept sufficient for eligibility. The claimed invention enables load distribution that helps to avoid/reduce congestion in network bottlenecks. The court concluded that the claim entails an unconventional technological solution (enhancing data in a distributed fashion) to a technological problem (massive record flows which previously required massive databases). Amdocs, 841 F.3d 1288 (2016)
Unlike Amdocs the instant claims 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.
Further partitioning the directed graphs does not demonstrate a technical solution to a technical problem, nor does it provide for an improvement in a technology or a technical field. The claims appear to be an improved business process for matching requesters and providers using directed graphs.
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;
partitioning, by the one or more server devices, a geographical area identified by the geohash into non-overlapping subgraphs by generating a virtual geographic boundary based on edges of the directed graph that intersect the virtual geographic boundary and corresponding edge weights of the intersecting edges;
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 based on one subgraph of the non-overlapping subgraphs, [a provider computing device] from a subset of available provider computing devices within the one subgraph of the non-overlapping subgraphs that are eligible for assignment; 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 limitations 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; portioning a geographical area into non-overlapping subgraphs; and providing a transportation match involves managing behaviors through scheduling. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
In addition, the claim could be seen as Mathematical Concepts related to mathematical relationships through the use of directed graphs in determining transportation matching.
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 and 4 are directed to generating and selecting virtual geographic boundary based on edges and edge weights (analysis); Claim 5 is directed to requester device is associated with a geohash paring based on an average estimated time of arrival; 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 from the transport request and additional transport requests within matching time period, generating edges between nodes, generating edge weights for the plurality of edges, partitioning a geographical area identified by the geohash into non-overlapping subgraphs and generating a transportation match involve collecting/analyzing data and performing mathematical operations in 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 component (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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered relevant but not applied:
O’Mahony et al. (US 2017/0227370) discloses travel coordination system provides information to providers to reduce the wait time between trips. A region is partitioned into zones and generates a score for each zone. A zone score can be generated by estimating the wait time for the zone, which may be determined by a model for the wait time. The model for the wait time may use factors that contribute to the wait time, such as the number of providers in a zone and the trip request rate and assigning providers to riders.
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
Prosecution Insights