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 .
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 abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the following limitations that are considered to be abstract ideas:
Claims 2, 9, 16
receive service provider data associated with a plurality of service providers, wherein each service provider of the plurality of service providers is associated with at least one type of roadside service, at least one time period, at least one geographical region;
determine, based on the service provider data, a composite score for each service provider of the plurality of service providers, the composite score including a plurality of weighted scores, each of the plurality of weighted scores corresponding to one of a plurality of categories;
generate, based on the composite score for each service provider of the plurality of service providers, a ranked list of service providers for the at least one geographical region;
select, based on the ranked list of service providers, at least one service provider to which to offer an incentive to expand a coverage of the selected service provider; and
transmit the incentive to the selected service provider.
The limitations of independent claim 2, 9, and 16 as detailed above, as drafted, falls within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” specifically commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The applicant’s claims are directed to managing service provider relationships and incentivization. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular the claims recite the additional elements of:
processor
Communication interface
memory
non-transitory computer readable media
computing device
The aforementioned additional generic computing elements perform the steps of the claims at a high level of generality (i.e. As a generic medium performing generic computer function of receiving data, determining scores, ranking providers and transmitting incentives) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of the computer, or to any other technology, or technical field. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
Thus, taken individually and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to
significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea).
The dependent claims 3-8,10-15, and 17-21 appear to merely further limit the abstract and as such, the analysis of dependent claims 3-8,10-15, and 17-21 results in the claims “reciting” an abstract idea. For example, claims merely further define or limit cost, ranking, categorization, and scoring. The claims the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application the additional elements do not amount to an inventive concept (significantly more) other than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea).
Thus, based on the detailed analysis above, claims 2 - 21 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 (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)2-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kliland (US 2013/0218802) in view of Haparnas et al. (US 2017/0193419)
Claims 2, 9 and 16: Kliland discloses a roadside assistance computing platform comprising:
at least one processor;
a communication interface communicatively coupled to the at least one processor; and
memory storing computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the roadside assistance computing platform to:
receive service provider data associated with a plurality of service providers, wherein each service provider of the plurality of service providers is associated with at least one type of roadside service, at least one time period, at least one geographical region;( [0022], It must be possible for the users to post their opinion on each company as per city or region. Experience from other similar systems supporting user-based reviews should be considered. [0025] A post-processing system will be based on the user reviews and other parameters outlined further below in this section and automatically rank the various companies top-down within each category as per city, region and country by means of a ranking algorithm.)
determine, based on the service provider data, a composite score for each service provider of the plurality of service providers, the composite score including a plurality of weighted scores, each of the plurality of weighted scores corresponding to one of a plurality of categories; ([0026, he score for a specific parameter is weighted and used in an algorithm for calculating the company rank as a weighted aggregate of scores. The overall rank or rank value can be entered in the database and displayed for a user as an overall indicator of the quality of the company or provider [0028-0032], ] Parameters which will be weighted and parts of the reviews used to identify the best service offerings)
generate, based on the composite score for each service provider of the plurality of service providers, a ranked list of service providers for the at least one geographical region; ([0025], automatically rank the various companies top-down within each category as per city, region and country by means of a ranking algorithm. The input to this algorithm will be weighted scores of each parameter., [0041 -0053] claim 11, n online searchable database of companies providing goods and services in a marketplace, including displaying the result of a search as a list of companies in order of a computed rank value for each company, wherein the rank value is an overall measure of the quality and business performance of that company.)
select, based on the ranked list of service providers, ([0036] ranked list) but does not explicitly disclose at least one service provider to which to offer an incentive to expand a coverage of the selected service provider; and transmit the incentive to the selected service provider.
However Haparnas discloses at least one service provider to which to offer an incentive to expand a coverage of the selected service provider;[0059], backend server 302 selects a particular driver (e.g., based on the driver's locality with respect to the passenger's pick-up location) and sends information associated with the request to the driver.([0076], a set number of equity related rights (e.g., restricted stock units) may be allocated for distribution to drivers of the transportation service over a plurality of compensation time periods (e.g., quarters). in order to incentivize drivers to join the transportation service, the number of shares allocated for distribution may be greater during earlier time periods. After these equity related rights are distributed, they may be subject to vesting terms) and transmit the incentive to the selected service provider. ([0075] Any of the compensation criteria data or information generated therefrom or subsets thereof may be shared with the drivers (e.g., via driver application logic 220 of driver computing devices [0078] the updated performance scores and compensation distribution data is communicated to a driver computing device 108 of the driver. )
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify, Kliland to include at least one service provider to which to offer an incentive to expand a coverage of the selected service provider; and transmit the incentive to the selected service provider in order to incentivize the collective performance of a group of service providers. ([0065], Haparnas)
Claims 3, 10, 17: Kliland discloses the roadside assistance computing platform of claim 2, the memory further storing computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the roadside assistance computing platform to:
estimate a cost corresponding to the at least one type of roadside service for each of the plurality of service providers; [0028, 0029]and
generate the ranked list based on the composite score for each of the plurality of service providers and the cost for the at least one type of roadside service associated with each of the plurality of service providers. [0049]
Claims 4, 11, 18: Kliland discloses the roadside assistance computing platform of claim 2, the memory further storing computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the roadside assistance computing platform to:
determine a likelihood of acceptance corresponding to each of the plurality of service providers; [0050, 0067] and but does not explicitly disclose
generate the ranked list based on the composite score for each of the plurality of service providers and the likelihood of acceptance corresponding to each of the plurality of service providers. However Haparnas discloses generate the ranked list based on the composite score for each of the plurality of service providers and the likelihood of acceptance corresponding to each of the plurality of service providers.[0050, 0067] Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify, Kliland to include a generate the ranked list based on the composite score for each of the plurality of service providers and the likelihood of acceptance corresponding to each of the plurality of service providers. in order to incentivize the collective performance of a group of service providers. ([0065], Haparnas)
Claims 5, 12, 19: Kliland discloses the roadside assistance computing platform of claim 2, the memory further storing computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the roadside assistance computing platform to: but does not explicitly disclose
determine a cancellation rate corresponding to each of the plurality of service providers; and generate the ranked list based on the composite score for each of the plurality of service providers and the cancellation rate corresponding to each of the plurality of service providers. However Haparnas discloses determine a cancellation rate corresponding to each of the plurality of service providers; and generate the ranked list based on the composite score for each of the plurality of service providers and the cancellation rate corresponding to each of the plurality of service providers.[0055, 0067] Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify, Kliland to include adetermine a cancellation rate corresponding to each of the plurality of service providers; and generate the ranked list based on the composite score for each of the plurality of service providers and the cancellation rate corresponding to each of the plurality of service providers. in order to compensate the service providers based on compensation data criteria. ([0056], Kliland)
Claims 6, 13, 20: Kliland discloses the roadside assistance computing platform of claim 2, wherein the plurality of categories includes at least one of an on-time category, a performance category, or a feedback category. [0028-0032, 0050]
Claims 7, 14, 21: Kliland discloses the roadside assistance computing platform of claim 2, wherein the weighted scores are applied based on user preferences associated with the at least one geographical region. [0013, 0025, 0036]
Claims 8, 15: Kliland discloses the roadside assistance computing platform of claim 2, wherein the expanded coverage includes expanding upon the at least one time period or upon the at least one geographical region. [0022]
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARNELL A POUNCIL whose telephone number is (571)270-3509. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 - 6:00.
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, Ilana Spar can be reached at (571) 270-7537. 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.
/D.A.P/Examiner, Art Unit 3622
/ILANA L SPAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3622