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 .
Status of Claims
This is a first office action for application Serial No. 18/892,090 filed on 09/20/2024. Claims 1-20 have been examined.
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.
Claims 1-20 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites: "A network computing system for managing a transport service for a geographic region, comprising:
one or more processors; and
a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the network computing system to:
based on transport demand data for one or more sub-regions of the geographic region, classify at least one sub-region of the one or more sub-regions as an undersupplied sub-region;
provide, to a computing device of a service provider over one or more networks, one or more proposals on a user interface of the computing device, each proposal being associated with an undersupplied sub-region in which transport requests having start locations within the undersupplied sub-region are to be fulfilled by the service provider over for a given amount of time;
initiate a proposal of the one or more proposals for the corresponding undersupplied sub-region for the service provider by:
matching the service provider with one or more transport requests having start locations within the undersupplied sub-region; and
transmitting, to the computing device of the service provider, route data causing the user interface on the computing device to display route information for sequential locations that correspond to at least one transport request of the one or more transport requests enable the service provider to fulfill the at least one transport request of the one or more transport requests."
This language is vague and indefinite for at least the following reasons:
Intended Use: The claim contains the following language that is vague and indefinite as it is unclear whether the scope of this language is intended to affirmatively require specific performance or whether this language is deliberately articulated as an expression of intended use:
“for one or more sub-regions of the geographic region”
“are to be fulfilled by the service provider over for a given amount of time”
“for sequential locations”
Accordingly, this language does not serve to patentably distinguish the claimed structure over that of the reference. See In re Pearson, 181 USPQ 641; In re Yanush, 177 USPQ 705; In re Finsterwalder, 168 USPQ 530; In re Casey, 512 USPQ 235; In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458; Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2nd 1647.
Antecedent Basis: The following term(s) lack(s) proper antecedent basis:
“the one or more proposals for the corresponding undersupplied sub-region for the service provider”
Idiomatic Language: The language of the claim is generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. This language appears to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and is replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. For example, the language “transmitting, to the computing device of the service provider, route data causing the user interface on the computing device to display route information for sequential locations that correspond to at least one transport request of the one or more transport requests enable the service provider to fulfill the at least one transport request of the one or more transport requests,” is vague and indefinite as it is unclear if the transport requests are intended to enable the service provider to perform a function, or if the transmission of the route data enables to service provider.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"A network computing system for managing a transport service for a geographic region, comprising:
one or more processors; and
a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the network computing system to:
based on transport demand data of one or more sub-regions of the geographic region, classify at least one sub-region of the one or more sub-regions as an undersupplied sub-region;
provide, to a computing device of a service provider over one or more networks, one or more proposals on a user interface of the computing device, each proposal being associated with an undersupplied sub-region in which transport requests having start locations within the undersupplied sub-region are [intended to be fulfilled by the service provider over for a given amount of time];
initiate a proposal of regarding a corresponding undersupplied sub-region of the service provider by:
matching the service provider with one or more transport requests having start locations within the undersupplied sub-region; and
transmitting, to the computing device of the service provider, route data causing the user interface on the computing device to display route information of and enable the service provider to fulfill the at least one transport request of the one or more transport requests."
Claims 2-10 are further rejected as depending on this claim.
Claim 2 recites: "The network computing system of claim 1, wherein the executed instructions further cause the network computing system to:
monitor progress of the service provider against a set of progression constraints for the proposal; and
at expiration of the given amount of time, determine whether the service provider has satisfied the set of progression constraints for the proposal."
This language is also rejected as vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"The network computing system of claim 1, wherein the executed instructions further cause the network computing system to:
monitor progress of the service provider against a set of progression constraints of a proposal; and
at expiration of the given amount of time, determine whether the service provider has satisfied the set of progression constraints of a proposal."
Claims 6-8 are further rejected as depending on this claim.
Claim 4 recites: "The network computing system of claim 3, wherein the executed instructions cause the network computing system to sequentially route the service provider to fulfill additional transport requests of the one or more transport requests based on the determined driving trajectory."
This language is also rejected as vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"The network computing system of claim 3, wherein the executed instructions cause the network computing system to sequentially route the service provider [intended to fulfill additional transport requests of the one or more transport requests based on the determined driving trajectory]."
Claim 5 recites: "The network computing system of claim 1, wherein the executed instructions further cause the network computing system to:
based on historical data collected for the transport service, forecast a service provider supply and a transport demand from requesting users of the transport service for each of the one or more sub-regions representing the geographic region;
wherein the executed instructions cause the network computing system to classify the at least one sub-region as an undersupplied sub-region based on the forecasted service provider supply and transport demand for the particular sub-region."
This language is also rejected as vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"The network computing system of claim 1, wherein the executed instructions further cause the network computing system to:
based on historical data collected [intended for the transport service], forecast a service provider supply and a transport demand from requesting users of the transport service for each of the one or more sub-regions representing the geographic region;
wherein the executed instructions cause the network computing system to classify a particular sub-region."
Claim 10 recites: "The network computing system of claim 1, wherein the transport requests correspond to at least one of passenger transport, food delivery, or package delivery."
This language is also rejected as vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"The network computing system of claim 1, wherein a transport request corresponds to at least one of passenger transport, food delivery, or package delivery."
Claims 11 and 20 are directed to substantially similar subject matter as claim 1, but in non-transitory computer readable medium and computer-implemented method form. These claims are similarly rejected for the same reasons and interpreted for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103 as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Claims 12-19 are directed to substantially similar subject matter as claims 2-9, but in non-transitory computer readable medium and computer-implemented method form. These claims are similarly rejected for the same reasons and interpreted for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103 as discussed in the rejection of claim 2-9 above.
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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1 – 20 are directed to the abstract idea of an idea of itself and/or certain methods of organizing human activities as explained in detail below. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea. Independent claims 1, 11, and 20 recite a network computing system for managing a transport service for a geographic region (and corresponding non-transitory computer readable medium and method) comprising memory and processors performing operations including, classifying geographic data, providing proposals regarding geographic data, matching server providers with requests by geographic area, and transmitting route data. These steps relate to an idea of itself and/or certain methods of organizing human activities which corresponds to concepts identified as abstract ideas by the courts such as “collecting information (e.g. geographic data, proposals regarding geographic data), analyzing it (e.g. classifying geographic data, matching server providers with requests by geographic area), and “displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (e.g. transmitting route data)," as described in Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstrom S.A. 830 F. 3d 1350. As such, the description in claims 1-20 of collecting, analyzing, and displaying information is an abstract idea (Note: The fact that the recited claims does not expressly display information is not determinative to whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea. Rather, the abstract idea is identified in the step of analyzing information. If the claim as a whole, is limited to, “collecting, analyzing, and displaying information,” without “significantly more” the claim is an abstract idea as held by the Federal Circuit in Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstrom S.A. 830 F. 3d 1350).
Moreover, the specification does not provide any particulars of the claim elements that would alter the claims from being interpreted as directed to an abstraction of “collecting information (e.g. geographic data, proposals regarding geographic data), analyzing it (e.g. classifying geographic data, matching server providers with requests by geographic area), and “displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (e.g. transmitting route data)." As such, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims and their dependent claims recite the additional limitations of a processor, memory, and computing device. These claim elements, however, are recited at such a high level of generality and is recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. See also e.g. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (explaining that generic computer components such as a communications network, including an email server, telephone network, telephone unit and general purpose computers performing generic computer functions do not satisfy the inventive concept requirement, but is merely routine and conventional and that implementation of the abstract idea does not improve the functioning of the computer itself). See also e.g. at least Alice Corp v. CLS Bank, 134 S.Ct. 2347, 2359 (describing that the use of a computer to obtain data, adjust account balances, and issue automated instructions, is well understood, routine and conventional).
The use of generic computer components to store, process and transmit information through an unspecified interface does not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the abstract idea. 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 the recited elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Claims 2-10 and 12-19 are dependent on claims 1 and 11 and elaborate on the same abstract idea of the independent claims without adding significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore, claims 2-10 and 12-19 recite the same abstract idea of “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis.”
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 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haque (US 10,304,027) in view of Scicluna (US 2016/0247247 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Haque discloses a network computing system for managing a transport service for a geographic region (see e.g. at least Abstract, Fig. 1-3, and related text), comprising:
one or more processors (e.g. at least processor, CPU 106, see e.g. at least 4:45-5:10, Fig. 1, and related text); and
a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors (e.g. at least RAM, id.), cause the network computing system to:
based on transport demand data of one or more regions of the geographic region, classify at least one region of the one or more regions (see e.g. at least 3:35-47, 5:58-6:23, 11:5-44, identifying each of the locations where a vehicle or driver is to be picked up or dropped off as well as what type of tasks are to be completed at each location, e.g. repair, fueling, pick-up, drop-off);
provide, to a computing device of a service provider over one or more networks, one or more proposals on a user interface of the computing device, each proposal being associated with a region in which transport requests are [intended to be fulfilled by the service provider over for a given amount of time] (see e.g. at least 1:53-2:50, 11:22-12:4, Fig. 1-2, 5-6, and related text, disclosing a trip-scheduling system and method, including providing for display on a user interface a destination selection page operable to receive input of a plurality of locations from a user including a plurality of pick-up and drop-off locations for the vehicle, wherein tasks to be completed are assigned for each segment of the journey and provided estimated completion times for each segment);
initiate a proposal of one or more proposals regarding a corresponding region of the service provider (id., see also e.g. at least Fig. 6, and related text) by:
matching the service provider with one or more transport requests (id.); and
transmitting, to the computing device of the service provider, route data causing the user interface on the computing device to display route information of sequential locations that correspond to at least one transport request of the one or more transport requests and enable the service provider to fulfill the at least one transport request of the one or more transport requests (id.).
Additionally, Scicluna teaches limitations not expressly disclosed by Haque including namely: [based on transport demand data of one or more] sub-regions [of a geographic region, classify at least one] sub-region [of the one or more] sub-regions as an undersupplied sub-region (e.g. at least priority locations, high demand areas, hot spots 202, 204, 206, 208, extended priority zones 205, 209, see e.g. at least ¶ 18, 107, Fig. 2, and related text);
[provide, to a computing device of a service provider over one or more networks, one or more proposals on a user interface of the computing device (see e.g. at least Fig. 1, 8a-8b, 12, and related text), each proposal being associated with] an undersupplied sub-region [in which transport requests] having start locations within the undersupplied sub-region are [intended to be fulfilled by the service provider over for a given amount of time] (see e.g. at least ¶ 18-24, Fig. 2-5, and related text, requesting and dispatching first responder assistance (e.g. police, fire, EMT), or other vehicles (e.g. cars, trucks, taxis, construction equipment, watercraft, aircraft) to priority locations, point of interests, patrol waypoints, high demand areas, hot spots, priority zones, or extended priority zones);
[initiate a proposal of one or more proposals regarding a corresponding] undersupplied sub-region [of the service provider (id.) by]:
[matching the service provider with one or more transport requests] having start locations within the undersupplied sub-region (id.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Haque by configuring that [based on transport demand data of one or more] sub-regions [of the geographic region, classify at least one] sub-region [of the one or more] sub-regions as an undersupplied sub-region; [provide, to a computing device of a service provider over one or more networks, one or more proposals on a user interface of the computing device, each proposal being associated with] an undersupplied sub-region [in which transport requests] having start locations within the undersupplied sub-region are [intended to be fulfilled by the service provider over for a given amount of time]; [initiate a proposal of one or more proposals regarding a corresponding] undersupplied sub-region [of the service provider by]: [matching the service provider with one or more transport requests] having start locations within the undersupplied sub-region as taught by Scicluna in order to minimize distances travelled by the vehicles of the fleet, reducing fuel costs, improving vehicle utilization, reducing vehicle wear and tear and reducing driver fatigue, by providing an efficient vehicle resource allocation system that automatically creates/identifies priority locations (Scicluna: ¶ 20).
Regarding claim 2, Modified Haque teaches that the executed instructions further cause the network computing system to:
monitor progress of the service provider against a set of progression constraints of a proposal (Haque: see e.g. at least 10:12-11:4, 12:5-39, Fig. 5, and related text); and
at expiration of the given amount of time, determine whether the service provider has satisfied the set of progression constraints of a proposal (Haque: id., see also e.g. at least 11:22-12:4, Fig. 5-6, and related text).
Regarding claim 3, Modified Haque teaches that the executed instructions cause the network computing system to match the service provider with the one or more transport requests based on a determined driving trajectory of the service provider (Haque: see e.g. at least 2:27-41, 10:36-12:38, Fig. 5-6, and related text).
Regarding claim 4, Modified Haque teaches that the executed instructions cause the network computing system to sequentially route the service provider [intended to fulfill additional transport requests of the one or more transport requests based on the determined driving trajectory] (Haque: see e.g. at least 1:53-2:50, Fig. 1-2, 5-6, and related text).
Regarding claim 5, Modified Haque teaches that the executed instructions further cause the network computing system to:
based on historical data collected [intended for the transport service], forecast a service provider supply and a transport demand from requesting users of the transport service for each of the one or more sub-regions representing the geographic region (Scicluna: see e.g. at least ¶ 18, 26, 236, 244);
wherein the executed instructions cause the network computing system to classify at least one sub-region as an undersupplied sub-region based on the forecasted service provider supply and transport demand for a particular sub-region (Scicluna: see e.g. at least ¶ 50-59, 69-77, 283).
Regarding claim 6, Modified Haque teaches that the route information comprises real-time route recommendations from the network computing system, and wherein executed instructions cause the network computing system to monitor the progress of the service provider against the set of progression constraints by (i) receiving real-time location data from a positioning system of the computing device of the service provider (Haque: see e.g. at least 1:53-2:50, 10:12-11:4, Fig. 1-2, 5, and related text), and (ii) based on the real-time location data, determining whether the service provider follows the real-time route recommendations (Haque: id., see also e.g. at least 11:22-12:4, Fig. 5-6, and related text).
Regarding claim 7, Modified Haque teaches that the set of progression constraints comprises a temporal constraint, and wherein the executed instructions cause the network computing system to further determine whether the service provider follows the real-time route recommendations based on the temporal constraint and current traffic conditions along the real-time route recommendations (Haque: see e.g. at least 1:53-2:50, 10:12-11:4, 11:22-12:4, Fig. 1-2, 5, and related text).
Regarding claim 8, Modified Haque teaches that the temporal constraint comprises a minimum average speed of the service provider along the real-time route recommendations given the current traffic conditions (Scicluna: see e.g. at least ¶ 173, 291, Fig. 8a-8b, and related text).
Regarding claim 9, Modified Haque teaches that the proposal is associated with an increased imbursement amount for the service provider for fulfilling transport requests having start locations within the undersupplied sub-region (Scicluna: see e.g. at least ¶ 18-24, 138, 148-149, 174, Fig. 2-6, and related text).
Regarding claim 10 Modified Haque teaches that a transport request corresponds to at least one of passenger transport, food delivery, or package delivery (Haque: see e.g. at least 3:29-35, 5:58-6:22, 6:51-7:16, Fig. 2, and related text).
Claims 11 and 20 are directed to substantially similar subject matter as claim 1, but in non-transitory computer readable medium and computer-implemented method form. These claims are similarly rejected for the same reasons as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Claims 12-19 are directed to substantially similar subject matter as claims 2-9, but in non-transitory computer readable medium and computer-implemented method form. These claims are similarly rejected for the same reasons as discussed in the rejection of claim 2-9 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES J HAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3980. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th and every other F (7:30 AM - 5 PM).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christian Chace can be reached on 571-272-4190. 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 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://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHARLES J HAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662