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 Final action on the merits in response to communications filed on 04/08/2026.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 11, 13, 15, 17 and 18 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.
The Terminal Disclaimer dated 04/08/2026 is acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks have been considered.
In the remarks Applicant argues,” …do not recite a mental process or certain methods of organizing human activity as characterized by MPEP § 2106.04(a).” (pgs. 15-16).
The encompass Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities related to managing behavior. 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 by selecting providers. 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.
Applicant argues, “ the disclosed system determines "optimal provider and requestor assignments in a dynamic and/or substantially real-time approach" to "improve the computer-related technology of at least network-based transportation matching systems by increasing computational efficiency and computer resource allocation of the computer systems.” (pgs. 17-18)
Examiner notes Courts have found “[M]erely adding computer functionality to increase the speed or efficiency of the process does not confer patent eligibility on an otherwise abstract idea”); 2019 Revised Guidance at 55. See also Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1090 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“This invention makes the
trader faster and more efficient, not the computer. Here, the claim is directed to receiving a transportation request, generated a directed graph from the transport request and additional requests including nodes and edges, generating a virtual geographic boundary based on the edges, generating a transportation match and providing the transportation using generic computer components. The computer is behaving as it normally would. There is no demonstrated improvement to a technology (a computer) or a technical field.
Applicant argues, “ similar to the allowable claims in McRO, the current independent claims are patent eligible under Alice Step 2A Prong Two because they provide a specific, rules-based implementation of a non-abstract improvement in an existing technological process.” (pgs. 17-19)
In McRO the claims were directed to an improvement in computer related technology by allowing computers to produce accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters. The court in McRo looked to the specification which described the invention as improving computer animation through the use of specific rules and how the claimed rules enabled the automation of specific animation tasks that previously could not be automated, utilizing rules in a specific technological way (e.g. a particular way to achieve a desired outcome). The McRO court also noted that the claims described a specific way to solve the problem of producing accurate and realistic lip synchronization and animation.
The instant application focuses on the claim is directed to receiving a transportation request, generated a directed graph from the transport request and additional requests including nodes and edges, generating a virtual geographic boundary based on the edges, generating a transportation match and providing the transportation using generic computer components, involving collecting and analyzing data. This functionality demonstrates abstract concepts (e.g. organizing information into categories and mental processes) and may provide a better way match requestors and providers, but does not necessarily demonstrate an improvement to technology or a solution to a technical problem.
Applicant argues, “Thus, similar to the claims in BASCOM, the claims recite a non-conventional ordered combination that utilizes a virtual geographic boundary to generate a transportation match in a manner that constitutes significantly more than the alleged abstract idea.” (pgs. 20-21)
In Bascom the court found that although the additional elements were generic computer elements when considered individually, when considered in combination an inventive concept was found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of the additional elements. The claims in Bascom did not merely recite the abstract idea of
filtering content along with the requirement to perform it on the Internet, or to perform it on a set of generic computer components. The inventive concept is in the technical feature of network technology in a filtering system by associating individual accounts with their own filtering scheme and elements while locating the filtering.
Here, the generic computer components are performing collecting and analyzing data including receiving a transportation request, generated a directed graph from the transport request and additional requests including nodes and edges, generating a virtual geographic boundary based on the edges, generating a transportation match and providing the transportation using generic computer components, which is generic functionality routinely performed by a computer. The independent claims do not amount to significantly more nor do they provide an inventive concept.
Further, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Therefore the claims are ineligible.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pgs. 21-23, filed 04/08/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection related to Biswas has been fully considered and is persuasive. The rejection has been withdrawn.
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, [by one or more server devices, ] a virtual geographic boundary based on edges of the directed graph that intersects 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 the virtual geographic boundary, [a provider computing device] from a subset of available provider computing devices within the virtual geographic boundary 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 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered relevant but not applied:
El Dean (US 2018/0293544) discloses at least one client user computing device adapted for generating transportation service requests for individual user accounts as requested by a respective user, for selecting the service provider, and for executing an agreement with the service provider.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new 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 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