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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/19/2024, 02/20/2025, 05/29/2025 and 09/18/2025 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 have been examined.
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.
101 Analysis - Step 1
Claims 1-7, and 15-20 recite a method/process, therefore claims 1-7 and 15-20 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Claims 8-14 recite an apparatus/machine, therefore claims 8-14 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis - Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong 1 of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 8 includes limitations that recites mental processes and/or mathematical concepts (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 8 recites:
A system comprising:
at least one processor; and
at least one non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to:
generate, utilizing one or more machine learners, a first base modification factor for provider devices responding to transportation requests for a first geographic area;
generate, utilizing the one or more machine learners, a second base modification factor for provider devices responding to transportation requests for a second geographic area; and
provide, for display via one or more graphical user interfaces of one or more provider devices, a digital map comprising:
a first indicator reflecting the first base modification factor as an overlay to the first geographic area; and
a second indicator reflecting the second base modification factor as an overlay to the second geographic area.
These limitations, as drafted, is a system that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a mental process and/or mathematical concept. That is, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed as mathematical concepts. For example, " generate, utilizing one or more machine learners, a first base …" and " generate, utilizing the one or more machine learners, a second base...", and “provide, for display via one or more graphical user interfaces …” encompass subject matter that a human can reasonably perform in the human mind with or without paper and pencil. " generate, utilizing one or more machine learners, a first base …" and " generate, utilizing the one or more machine learners, a second base..." involves a mathematical equation and is a mathematical concept, although this step could also be considered a mental process as well. Thus, the claim recites at least a mathematical concept and a mental process.
101 Analysis - Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a "practical application."
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the "additional limitations" while the bolded portions continue to represent the "abstract idea"):
A system comprising:
at least one processor; and
at least one non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to:
generate, utilizing one or more machine learners, a first base modification factor for provider devices responding to transportation requests for a first geographic area;
generate, utilizing the one or more machine learners, a second base modification factor for provider devices responding to transportation requests for a second geographic area; and
provide, for display via one or more graphical user interfaces of one or more provider devices, a digital map comprising:
a first indicator reflecting the first base modification factor as an overlay to the first geographic area; and
a second indicator reflecting the second base modification factor as an overlay to the second geographic area.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of "at least one processor…" and “at least one non-transitory computer readable storage medium…” the components are merely generic components to perform a function using computer code. The generic components are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. a generic processor and memory) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The examiner submits that these limitations are merely applying the above-noted abstract idea by merely using a general controller to perform the process (MPEP §2106.05).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular process for safety performance evaluation, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use 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 not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis - Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B in the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 12 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of "at least one processor…" and “at least one non-transitory computer readable storage medium…” amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions cannot provide an inventive concept. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 1 and 15 recites analogous limitations to that of claim 8, and are therefore rejected by the same premise.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 specify limitations that elaborate on the abstract idea of claims 1, 8 and 15, and thus are directed to an abstract idea nor do the claims recite additional limitations that integrate the claims into a practical application or amount to “significantly more” for similar reasons.
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 obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321 (b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 of the instant application are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of US Patent No. (12094024B1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because following observation is made:
Instant Application (18829595)
US Patent No. (12094024)
1. A computer-implemented method comprising:
generating, utilizing one or more machine learners, a first base modification factor for provider devices responding to transportation requests for a first geographic area;
generating, utilizing the one or more machine learners, a second base modification factor for provider devices responding to transportation requests for a second geographic area; and
providing, for display via one or more graphical user interfaces of one or more provider devices, a digital map comprising:
a first indicator reflecting the first base modification factor as an overlay to the first geographic area; and
a second indicator reflecting the second base modification factor as an overlay to the second geographic area.
1. A computer-implemented method comprising:
generating, utilizing one or more machine learners, a first set of parameters indicating a first number of transportation requests that can be processed for a geographic area at a first time period;
determining a first multiplier for the geographic area at the first time period based on the first set of parameters;
providing, for display on a provider device, a first graphical indicator of the first multiplier for the geographic area;
generating, utilizing the one or more machine learners, a second set of parameters indicating a second number of transportation requests that can be processed for the geographic area at a second time period;
determining a second multiplier for the geographic area at the second time period based on the second set of parameters; and
providing, for display on one or more provider devices, a second graphical indicator of the second multiplier for the geographic area.
8. A system comprising: at least one processor; and at least one non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to:
generate, utilizing one or more machine learners, a first base modification factor for provider devices responding to transportation requests for a first geographic area;
generate, utilizing the one or more machine learners, a second base modification factor for provider devices responding to transportation requests for a second geographic area; and
provide, for display via one or more graphical user interfaces of one or more provider devices, a digital map comprising:
a first indicator reflecting the first base modification factor as an overlay to the first geographic area; and
a second indicator reflecting the second base modification factor as an overlay to the second geographic area.
8. A system comprising: at least one processor; and at least one non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to:
generate, utilizing one or more machine learners, a first set of parameters indicating a first number of transportation requests that can be processed for a geographic area at a first time period;
determine a first multiplier for the geographic area at the first time period based on the first set of parameters;
provide, for display on a provider device, a first graphical indicator of the first multiplier for the geographic area;
generate, utilizing the one or more machine learners, a second set of parameters indicating a second number of transportation requests that can be processed for the geographic area at a second time period;
determine a second multiplier for the geographic area at the second time period based on the second set of parameters;
and provide, for display on one or more provider devices, a second graphical indicator of the second multiplier for the geographic area.
15. A non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions thereon that, when executed by at least one processor, cause a computing device to:
generate, utilizing one or more machine learners, a first base modification factor for provider devices responding to transportation requests for a first geographic area;
generate, utilizing the one or more machine learners, a second base modification factor for provider devices responding to transportation requests for a second geographic area; and
provide, for display via one or more graphical user interfaces of one or more provider devices, a digital map comprising:
a first indicator reflecting the first base modification factor as an overlay to the first geographic area; and
a second indicator reflecting the second base modification factor as an overlay to the second geographic area.
15. A non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions thereon that, when executed by at least one processor, cause a system to:
generate, utilizing one or more machine learners, a first set of parameters indicating a first number of transportation requests that can be processed for a geographic area at a first time period;
determine a first multiplier for the geographic area at the first time period based on the first set of parameters;
provide, for display on a provider device, a first graphical indicator of the first multiplier for the geographic area;
generate, utilizing the one or more machine learners, a second set of parameters indicating a second number of transportation requests that can be processed for the geographic area at a second time period;
determine a second multiplier for the geographic area at the second time period based on the second set of parameters; and
provide, for display on one or more provider devices, a second graphical indicator of the second multiplier for the geographic area.
As demonstrated, the independent claims of US Patent No. (12094024) disclose the features of the independent claims of 18829595 while the claims are broader in scope and anticipate the claimed invention in the parent. From this comparison it shows that the present application discloses the similar/same/identical limitations with terminology, both method/system/apparatus claim discloses with broader or same but not narrow means as specially in present claim does not further define the method/system/apparatus while similar/same/identical limitations patented in claim. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art having the claims of 18829595 to modify the claims to achieve the features of claims of US 12094024.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 and non-statutory double patenting rejection in this office action.
The reason for indicating allowable subject matter is based on the combination limitations of the independent claims. These limitations are interpreted by the examiner, with the assumption of rewritten or amended to corrected the 35 U.S.C. 101 and non-statutory double patenting rejection.
The reason for indicating allowable subject matter over the prior art of record Tolkin (US20170169535A1).
Tolkin discloses identifying a request for a trip from a client to a destination. A location of the client is determined. A set of location data points near the location of the client is identified. A set of eligible pickup locations is determined. Each eligible pickup location of set of eligible pickup locations is scored for a provider to reach destination from eligible pickup location. A trip pickup location is selected from the set of eligible pickup locations. The trip pickup location is sent to the provider and the client for initiating the trip.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARDUL D PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-7758. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm (IFP).
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, KITO ROBINSON can be reached at (571)270-3921. 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.
/SHARDUL D PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664