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 the Claims
This action is in response to applicant’s filing on November 26, 2024. Claim 1 has been canceled by the applicant. Claims 2-21 are pending.
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 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In sum, claims 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) and do not include an inventive concept that is something “significantly more” than the judicial exception under the January 2019 patentable subject matter eligibility guidance (2019 PEG) analysis which follows.
Under the 2019 PEG step 1 analysis, it must first be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Applying step 1 of the analysis for patentable subject matter to the claims, it is determined that the claims are directed to the statutory category of a process and a machine. Therefore, we proceed to step 2A, Prong 1.
Revised Guidance Step 2A - Prong 1
Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories of patent ineligible subject matter (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
Here, the claims recite the abstract idea of “determining, by the application server, that a subset of the plurality of routes is associated with a shared route by analyzing the route data; and selecting a first driver of the plurality of drivers to provide the ride sharing service;” as recited in independent claims 2 and 11.
The steps fall within one or more of the three enumerated 2019 PEG categories of patent ineligible subject matter, specifically, a mental process, that can be performed in the human mind since each of the above steps could alternatively be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. This conclusion follows from CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., where our reviewing court held that section 101 did not embrace a process defined simply as using a computer to perform a series of mental steps that people, aware of each step, can and regularly do perform in their heads. 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011); see also In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 840-41 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Meyer, 688 F.2d 789, 794-95 (CCPA 1982); Elec. Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F. 3d 1350, 1354-1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“we have treated analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category”).
Additionally, mental processes remain unpatentable even when automated to reduce the burden on the user of what once could have been done with pen and paper. See CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1375 (“That purely mental processes can be unpatentable, even when performed by a computer, was precisely the holding of the Supreme Court in Gottschalk v. Benson.’’).
Revised Guidance Step 2A - Prong 2
Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the identified abstract idea to which the claim is directed does not include limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since the recited features of the abstract idea are being applied on a computer or computing device or via software programming that is simply being used as a tool (“apply it”) to implement the abstract idea. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)).
In addition, limitations reciting data gathering such as “receiving, by an application server, route data corresponding to a plurality of routes, each route corresponding to one of a plurality of drivers; and receiving, from a mobile user computing device, a request for a ride sharing service for a user, wherein the request for the ride sharing service is associated with the shared route;” are also insignificant pre-solution activity that merely gather data and, therefore, do not integrate the exception into a practical application for that additional reason. See In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 963 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc), aff’d on other grounds, 561 U.S. 593 (2010) (characterizing data gathering steps as insignificant extra-solution activity); see also CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1371-72 (noting that even if some physical steps are required to obtain information from a database (e.g., entering a query via a keyboard, clicking a mouse), such data-gathering steps cannot alone confer patentability); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering). Accord Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (citing MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Furthermore, the limitation “transmitting, by the application server, a communication to the mobile user computing device informing the user that the first driver has been selected for ride sharing; and presenting, at the mobile user computing device, the communication” merely uses generic computing components (“computing platform”) but also constitutes insignificant post-solution activity. The Supreme Court guides that the “prohibition against patenting abstract ideas ‘cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment’ or [by] adding ‘insignificant postsolution activity.’” Bilski, 561 U.S. at 610-11 (quoting Diehr, 450 U.S. at 191-92).
Revised Guidance Step 2B
Under the 2019 PEG step 2B analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea, (i.e., an innovative concept). Here, the additional elements, such as: one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media; at least one processor; and a computing platform do not amount to an innovative concept since, as stated above in the step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the claims are simply using the additional elements as a tool to carry out the abstract idea (i.e., “apply it”) on a computer or computing device and/or via software programming. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). The additional elements are specified at a high level of generality to simply implement the abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05 I.A.); (see also, ¶¶ 95-98, 199-202 of the specification). See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). Thus, these elements, taken individually or together, do not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract ideas themselves.
The additional elements of the dependent claims merely refine and further limit the abstract idea of the independent claims and do not add any feature that is an “inventive concept” which cures the deficiencies of their respective parent claim under the 2019 PEG analysis. None of the dependent claims considered individually, including their respective limitations, include an “inventive concept” of some additional element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims in practice amount to something “significantly more” than patent-ineligible subject matter to which the claims are directed.
The elements of the instant process steps when taken in combination do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. The claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not effect an improvement to another technology or technical field (e.g., the field of computer coding technology is not being improved); the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of an electronic device itself which implements the abstract idea (e.g., the general purpose computer and/or the computer system which implements the process are not made more efficient or technologically improved); the claims do not perform a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (i.e., the claims do not use the abstract idea in the claimed process to bring about a physical change. See, e.g., Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1081), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was imparted by the claimed process; contrast, Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1078), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was not imparted by the claimed process); and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment
As for dependent claims 3-11 and 13-21, these claims include all the limitations of the independent claim from which they depend and therefore recite the same abstract idea. The claims also fail to add additional limitations that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the invention of the claims as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 10 is 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 10, the claim recites “The method of claim 8, wherein communications between the user and the first driver are anonymous.” The examiner believes that the claim was intended to depend on claim 9, not claim 8, as claim 10 comes sequentially after claim 9. More importantly, claim 9 recites “providing communication capabilities to the user and the first driver.” For compact prosecution, the examiner will examiner claim 10 as if it depended on claim 9. However, clarification or amending the claim is required to avoid any ambiguity.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 2-10 and 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tao et al, US 2016/0069694 A1 .
Regarding claim 2, Tao teaches a method comprising:
receiving, by an application server, route data corresponding to a plurality of routes, each route corresponding to one of a plurality of drivers; (Tao, see at least ¶ [0010] “the system can arrange a shared transport service to be provided by a single driver for multiple users. As described herein, a shared transport service refers to a transport service (or trip) in which the driver concurrently provides transport for two or more users for at least a portion of the transport service. In one example, the system can determine a proposed route for a shared transport service for a first user and a second user from the driver's location to the last destination location of the shared transport service (referred to as a “total route”).” And ¶ [0030] “based on the parameters of a request for transport (e.g., when the request is made by a user and/or received by the system 100, the pickup and destination locations, the type of transport requested, etc.), the trip manage 110 can arrange a transport service for a user by selecting a driver to provide the transport service for the user.”)
determining, by the application server, that a subset of the plurality of routes is associated with a shared route by analyzing the route data; (Tao, see at least ¶ [0010] “ the system can determine a proposed route for a shared transport service for a first user and a second user from the driver's location to the last destination location of the shared transport service (referred to as a “total route”). The total route can be based on the order or manner in which the driver is to travel to the first and second users' pickup and destination locations. Based on the state of the shared transport service (and/or the driver's location), the system can determine what portion of the total route to provide to the first user device for presentation and what portion of the total route to provide to the second user device for presentation. The system can transmit data corresponding to the respective route portions to the respective devices. Such respective portions of the total route can correspond to relevant routes that are specific to the first and second users.”)
receiving, from a mobile user computing device, a request for a ride sharing service for a user, wherein the request for the ride sharing service is associated with the shared route; (Tao, see at least ¶ [0029] “For example, the first user can make a request 183 a for a transport service using the client application 181 a, where the request 183 a includes a pickup location for the first user (“first pickup location”), a destination location for the first user (“first destination location”), a vehicle type (which in this example is a shared transport type), and other information, such as the first user identifier (ID) and/or device ID. Similarly, the second user can make a request 183 b for a transport service using the client application 181 b, where the request 183 b includes a pickup location for the second user (“second pickup location”), a destination location for the second user (“second destination location”), a vehicle type (which in this example again is a shared transport type), and other information, such as the second user ID and/or device ID. A user can specify that he or she is willing to share a transport service by selecting the shared transport type as the requested vehicle type. In addition, the users can specify pickup and destination locations by providing input (e.g., entering in an address or landmark, selecting a location frequently traveled, or moving a graphic indicator on a map, etc.) on the respective client applications 181 a, 181 b. Such pickup and destination locations can correspond to a latitude and longitude coordinate and/or an address or landmark. The system 100 can receive the requests 183 a, 183 b via the client device interface 120 and process the requests 183 a, 183 b to arrange the shared transport service for the first and second users.”)
selecting a first driver of the plurality of drivers to provide the ride sharing service; (Tao, see at least ¶ [0030] “According to examples, based on the parameters of a request for transport (e.g., when the request is made by a user and/or received by the system 100, the pickup and destination locations, the type of transport requested, etc.), the trip manage 110 can arrange a transport service for a user by selecting a driver to provide the transport service for the user.”)
transmitting, by the application server, a communication to the mobile user computing device informing the user that the first driver has been selected for ride sharing; (Tao, see at least ¶ [0036] “Once the transport service is arranged for the first user, the trip monitor 114 can monitor the progress of the driver and/or the shared transport service as a whole. The trip monitor 114 can update the trip entry as the shared transport service progresses.”) and
presenting, at the mobile user computing device, the communication. (Tao, see at least ¶ [0036] “Once the transport service is arranged for the first user, the trip monitor 114 can monitor the progress of the driver and/or the shared transport service as a whole. The trip monitor 114 can update the trip entry as the shared transport service progresses.”)
Regarding claim 3, Tao teaches a method, wherein a start and a destination are included for each route of the plurality of routes. (Tao, see at least ¶ [0015] “the system can determine the first route and/or the second route by communicating with one or more map or routing services using the driver's location and the location information of the shared transport service (e.g., the first pickup location, the second pickup location, the first destination location, the second destination location).”)
Regarding claim 4, Tao teaches a method, wherein the route data includes at least two routes associated with each of the plurality of drivers. (Tao, see at least ¶ [0030] “According to examples, based on the parameters of a request for transport (e.g., when the request is made by a user and/or received by the system 100, the pickup and destination locations, the type of transport requested, etc.), the trip manage 110 can arrange a transport service for a user by selecting a driver to provide the transport service for the user.”)
Regarding claim 5, Tao teaches a method, wherein the request for the ride sharing service includes a destination. (Tao, see at least ¶ [0015] “the system can determine the first route and/or the second route by communicating with one or more map or routing services using the driver's location and the location information of the shared transport service (e.g., the first pickup location, the second pickup location, the first destination location, the second destination location).”)
Regarding claim 6, Tao teaches a method, wherein determining that the subset is associated with the shared route further comprises:
determining that each route of the subset share a common segment path. (Tao, see at least ¶ [0010] “ the system can determine a proposed route for a shared transport service for a first user and a second user from the driver's location to the last destination location of the shared transport service (referred to as a “total route”). The total route can be based on the order or manner in which the driver is to travel to the first and second users' pickup and destination locations. Based on the state of the shared transport service (and/or the driver's location), the system can determine what portion of the total route to provide to the first user device for presentation and what portion of the total route to provide to the second user device for presentation. The system can transmit data corresponding to the respective route portions to the respective devices. Such respective portions of the total route can correspond to relevant routes that are specific to the first and second users.”)
Regarding claim 7, Tao teaches a method, wherein determining that the subset is associated with the shared route further comprises:
determining that each route of the subset share a destination. (Tao, see at least ¶ [0030] “According to examples, based on the parameters of a request for transport (e.g., when the request is made by a user and/or received by the system 100, the pickup and destination locations, the type of transport requested, etc.), the trip manage 110 can arrange a transport service for a user by selecting a driver to provide the transport service for the user.”)
Regarding claim 8, Tao teaches a method, wherein determining that the subset is associated with the shared route further comprises:
determining a direction of travel for the request for the ride sharing service matches a direction of travel of the first driver. (Tao, see at least ¶ [0043] “In the example of FIG. 2A, the system 100 has determined that the driver is to provide the shared transport service in the following manner: pick up the first user first at the first pickup location, then pick up the second user at the second pickup location, then drop off the first user at the first destination location, and then drop off the second user at the second destination location.”)
Regarding claim 9, Tao teaches a method, further comprising:
providing communication capabilities to the user and the first driver. (Tao, see at least ¶ [0033] “The driver application 191 can provide information about the first pickup location to the map application 192, which can communicate the driver's current location and the first pickup location to the corresponding map or routing service 170. The map or routing service 170 can use the information to determine the proposed best or most efficient route (e.g., one with the shortest distance and/or shortest duration of time) for the driver.”)
Regarding claim 10, Tao teaches a method, wherein communications between the user and the first driver are anonymous. (Tao, see at least ¶ [0047] “Still further, in some examples, as illustrated in the diagrams 210, 220, while a graphic indicator of the driver can be displayed on the map user interface, only a graphic indicator of a location that is specific to the individual users are displayed on the map user interface. For example, for the first user, a graphic indicator of the first pickup location may be displayed with the first route, but no graphic indicator of the second pickup location is provided on the map user interface, and vice versa for the second user. Because no specific location information, address, or graphic indicators of a user is displayed to another user, the system 100 can preserve the privacy of individual users despite the users sharing in the shared transport.”)
Claim 12-20 are rejected using substantially the same reasoning as claim 2-10 respectively above.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 11 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tao et al, US 2016/0069694 A1 in view of Varoglu et al., US 2014/0082069 A1.
Regarding claim 11, Tao teaches a method. Tao does not specifically teach the following. However, Varoglu teaches wherein selection of the first driver for the ride sharing service is further based on a fuel consumed by a first vehicle associated with the first driver over the shared route. (Varoglu, see at least ¶ [0001]-[0002 “The present disclosure relates generally to automatically coordinating ride-sharing arrangements between members of a social group, by determining a proposed transportation route and/or driver assignment and transmitting the proposed route and/or assignment to a user device of a member of the group.
Frequently, passenger seats remain empty in vehicles being driven. In fact, often, there are no passengers in vehicles. This low vehicle utilization can increase the number of vehicles on a road, increase traffic congestion, increase societal expenditures on vehicles and gas, increase the consumption of natural resources and increase pollution.”])
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Tao with those of Varoglu as both pertain to systems and methods of coordinated ride sharing to streamline transportation. In addition, this would be use of known technique to improve similar devices and methods.
Claim 22 is rejected using substantially the same reasoning as claim 11 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN P SWEENEY whose telephone number is (313)446-4906. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday from 7:30AM to 5:00PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, James J. Lee, can be reached at telephone number 571-270-5965. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/BRIAN P SWEENEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668