DETAILED ACTION
This non-final office action is in response to Applicant’s submission filed September 25, 2024. Currently Claims 1-10 are pending. Claims 1 and 8-10 are the independent claims.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on October 28, 2024 and December 17, 2025 are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-10 are objected to because of the following informalities: claims 1 and 8-10 recite the acronyms EV and non-EVs without expanding the acronyms upon their first recitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 9 and 10 are objected because of the following informalities: Claims 9 and 10 appear to be independent claims masquerading as dependent claims. Appropriate correction required.
Examiner interpreted claims 9 and 10 to be independent claims for the purposes of examination.
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 1-10 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.
Regarding independent Claims 1 and 8-10, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of vehicle dispatching. This is a process (i.e. a series of steps) which (Statutory Category – Yes –process).
The claims recite a judicial exception, a method for organizing human activity, vehicle dispatching (Judicial Exception – Yes – organizing human activity). Specifically, the claims are directed to providing a predictive user interface to enable a person to select, configure, train and run a predictive trait model, wherein vehicle dispatching is a fundamental economic practice that falls into the abstract idea subcategories of sales activities and/or commercial interactions. See 2106.04(a). Further all of the steps of “receiving”, “determining”, “determining”, “scheduling”, and “dispatching” recite functions of the vehicle dispatching are also directed to an abstract idea that falls into the abstract idea subcategories of sales activities and/or commercial interactions. The intended purpose of independent claims 1 and 8-10 appears to be to schedule and dispatch a mix of electric and non-electric vehicles in a fleet.
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea – fundamental economic practice, specifically in the abstract idea subcategories of sales activities and/or commercial interactions. The exceptions are the generic computer elements: processor, memory, hardware storage device having computer readable code stored, computer readable medium including instruction. See 2106.04(a).
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong One, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong Two. Considering whether the additional elements set forth in the claim integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (See 2106.04(a)), the previously identified non-abstract elements directed to generic computing components include: processor, memory, hardware storage device having computer readable code stored, computer readable medium including instruction. These generic computing components are merely used to receive and process data as described extensively in Applicant’s specification (Specification: Figure 2). Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Moreover, when viewed as a whole with such additional elements considered as an ordered combination, the claim modified by adding a generic computer would be nothing more than a purely conventional computerized implementation of applicant's vehicle dispatching in the general field of fleet management and would not provide significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Note McRo, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc. (837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016)), guides: "[t]he abstract idea exception prevents patenting a result where 'it matters not by what process or machinery the result is accomplished."' 837 F.3d at 1312 (quoting O'Reilly v. Morse, 56 U.S. 62, 113 (1854)) (emphasis added). The claims are not directed to a particular machine nor do they recite a particular transformation (MPEP § 2106.05(b)).
Additionally, the claims do not recite any specific claim limitations that would provide a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Nor do the claims present any other issues as set forth in the MPEP 2106.04(a) regarding a determination of whether the additional generic elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Rather, the claims merely use instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Thus, under Step 2A, Prong Two (MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c) and (e)- (h)), Claims 1-10 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Regarding the use of the generic (known, conventional) recited processor, memory, hardware storage device having computer readable code stored, computer readable medium including instruction," the Supreme Court has held "the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Alice, 573 U.S. 208, 223. Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims as a whole do not recite more than what was well-known, routine and conventional in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)). In light of the foregoing and under the MPEP 2106.04(a), that each of the claims, considered as a whole, is directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application and does not include an inventive concept.
Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Additionally, the claims recite a judicial exception, a mental processes, which can be performed in the human mind or via pen and paper (Judicial Exception – Yes – mental process).
The claimed steps of determining that information of at least one critical block period is unavailable, determining the at least one critical block period based on at least one block requiring a number of non-EVs greater than an available number of non-EVs, scheduling the fleet of vehicles and dispatching the fleet of vehicles all describe the abstract idea. These limitations as drafted are directed to a process that under its reasonable interpretation covers performance of the steps in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer components. Other than the recitation of a processor, memory, hardware storage device having computer readable code stored, computer readable medium nothing in the claimed steps precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. The claims do not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the steps receiving information associated with a plurality of blocks to be served is directed to insignificant pre-solution activity (i.e. data gathering). The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor/computer does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process. (Judicial Exception recited – Yes – mental process).
The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The generic processor, memory, hardware storage device having computer readable code stored, computer readable medium are each recited at a high level of generality merely performs generic computer functions of retrieving, processing or displaying data. The generic processor/computer merely applies the abstract idea using generic computer components. The elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not recite improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, the claims to do apply the abstract idea with a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (e.g. data remains data even after processing; MPEP 2106.05(c)), the claims no not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the user of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e. a generic computer) such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(e)). The recited generic computing elements are 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. (Integrated into a Practical Application – No).
As discussed above the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than a mere instruction to apply the abstract idea using generic computing components, wherein mere instructions to apply an judicial exception using generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. For the receiving step that was considered extra-solution activity, this has been re-evaluated and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. Applicant’s specification does not provide any indication that the computer/processor is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component, and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is ineligible (Provide Inventive Concept – No).
The claims are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding dependent claims 2-7, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of vehicle dispatching and merely further limit the abstract idea claimed in independent claims 1 and 8-10.
Claim 2 further limits the abstract idea by determining information for at critical block period is available, providing a priority score for the plurality of blocks, scheduling the fleet of vehicles based on the priority score and dispatching the fleet of vehicles (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 3 further limits the abstract idea by maximizing utilization of the plurality of EVs (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 4 further limits the abstract idea by assigning the number of non-EVs required to serve associated the at least one critical block period in operational days that are less than or equal to the number of non-EVs available during day (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 5 further limits the abstract idea by determining the number of EVs and the number of non-EVs based on information associated with the plurality of blocks to be served, comparing the number of EVs and non-EVs during the operational day; determining instances of the number of blocks exceeding the number of non-EVs and determining at least one critical block based on the determined instances (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 6 further limits the abstract idea wherein the proportion of EVs assigned such that the required number of non-EVs is less the number of non-EVs (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 7 further limits the abstract idea by limiting the optimal number of fleet vehicles to an optimal number of EVs and non-EVs to carry out depot operations in the operational day (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea).
None of the limitations considered as an ordered combination provide eligibility because taken as a whole the claims simply instruct the practitioner to apply the abstract idea to a generic computer.
Further regarding Claims 1-10, Applicant’s specification discloses that the claimed elements directed to a processor, memory at best merely comprise generic computer hardware which is commercially available (Specification: Figure 2). More specifically Applicant’s claimed features directed to a system do not represent custom or specific computer hardware circuits, instead the terms merely refers to commercially available software and/or hardware. Thus, as to the system recited, "the system claims are no different from the method claims in substance. The method claims recite the abstract idea implemented on a generic computer; the system claims recite a handful of generic computer components configured to implement the same idea." See Alice Corp. Pry. Ltd., 134 S.Ct. at 2360.
Accordingly, the claims merely recite manipulating data utilizing generic computer hardware (e.g. memory, processor, etc.). Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further the lack of detail of the claimed embodiment in Applicant’s disclosure is an indication that the claims are directed to an abstract idea and not a specific improvement to a machine.
Accordingly given the broadest reasonable interpretation and in light of the specification the claims are interpreted to include the process steps being performed by a human mind or via pen and paper. The claim limitations which recite a computer implemented method is at best recite generic, well-known hardware. However, the recited generic hardware simply performs generic computer function of displaying or processing data. Generic computers performing generic, well known computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further the recited memories are part of every conventional general-purpose computer.
Applicant has not demonstrated that a special purpose machine/computer is required to carry out the claimed invention. A special purpose machine is now evaluated as part of the significantly more analysis established by the Alice decision and current 35 U.S.C. 101 guidelines. It involves/requires more than a machine only broadly applying the abstract idea and/or performing conventional functions.
Applicant’s specification discloses that the claimed elements directed to a processor, memory, hardware storage device having computer readable code stored, computer readable medium including instructions merely comprise generic computer hardware which is commercially available (Specification: Figure 2). More specifically Applicant’s claimed features directed to a system and components do not represent custom or specific computer hardware circuits, instead the term system merely refers to commercially available software and/or hardware. Thus, as to the system recited, "the system claims are no different from the method claims in substance. The method claims recite the abstract idea implemented on a generic computer; the system claims recite a handful of generic computer components configured to implement the same idea." See Alice Corp. Pry. Ltd., 134 S.Ct. at 2360.
Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Further regarding Claim 10, the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because Claim 10 recites a computer readable medium comprising a computer program product comprising code. Specification Paragraphs 34 appears to suggest that the medium may be a propagation medium (signals per se). Clarification requested.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 are allowable over the prior art as the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest a system and method managing dispatch of a fleet of vehicles, the method comprising: receiving information associated with a plurality of blocks to be served by the fleet of vehicles, wherein the fleet of vehicles comprises a plurality of EVs and a plurality of non-EVs; determining that information of at least one critical block period is unavailable based on the information associated with the plurality of blocks; determining the at least one critical block period based on at least one block period requiring a number of non-EVs greater than an available number of non-EVs in the fleet of vehicles; scheduling the fleet of vehicles for serving the plurality of blocks by reducing a proportion of a number of non-EVs to serve the at least one critical block period; and dispatching the fleet of vehicles for serving the plurality of blocks comprising the at least one critical block period as claimed.
The claims are not in condition for allowance as the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 and 35 U.S.C. 101 as discussed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Taguchi et al., U.S. Patent No. 11052780 discloses a fleet management system and method comprising predicting dispatch demand, calculating number of required vehicles, determining a number of waiting/available vehicles; dispatching/scheduled EVs and Plugin Hybrid vehicles wherein EVs are given schedule/dispatch priority/preference in order to avoid shortages-an insufficient number of vehicles (DETX 26, 46, 29)
Sadeghianpourhamami et al., U.S. Patent Publication No. 12400156 system and method for mixed vehicle fleet management, including optimizing assignment of internal combustion vehicles and EVs.
Rahematpura et al., U.S. Patent Publication No. 20220163336 discloses a fleet management system and method comprising managing a mixed vehicle fleet including scheduling/dispatching based on availability of various types of vehicles and visualizing imbalances in supply/demand/availability of vehicles in various areas.
Al Falasi et al., U.S. Patent Publication No. 20190026671 discloses a system and method for scheduling and dispatching vehicles (e.g. taxis) using a dynamic vehicle pool/fleet (Paragraphs 74, 76).
Murakami et al., U.S. Patent No. 6701300 discloses a system and method for managing a fleet of vehicles including allocation, deploying and relocating vehicles associated with time periods and demand (DETX 49; Figure 7)
Balali et al., U.S. Patent Publication No. 20230045381 discloses a fleet management system and method mixed fleet of EV and non-EVs (P87) including optimizing the mix of EVs to replace a portion or all of non-EVs.
Goldman et al., U.S. Patent Publication No. 20190354114 discloses a fleet management system and method comprising identifying and correcting vehicle imbalances/gaps (Paragraphs 19, 38, 44, 115, 121, 128, Claim 19).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT L JARRETT whose telephone number is (571)272-7033. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 6am-4:30PM.
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, Beth Boswell can be reached at (571) 272-6737. 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.
SCOTT L. JARRETT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3625
/SCOTT L JARRETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625