DETAILED ACTION
This FINAL office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed June 15, 2026. Applicant’s June 15th amendment amended claims 1 and 9 and canceled claim 10. Currently Claims 1-9 are pending. Claims 1, 8 and 9 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.
Response to Amendment
The Objections to claims 1-10 in the previous office action are withdrawn in response to Applicant's amendments to the claims.
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 1-9 in the previous office action is maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 15, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues that the claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the claims are not directed to an abstract idea (e.g. overly board, involve none of financial/commercial concepts or fundamental economic practices or principles, addresses a technical fleet management problem - ensuring block fulfillment during critical periods of mixed EV/non-EV fleet; dispatching a fleet cannot be performed in the human mind; Remarks: Pages 6, 7) and the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (e.g. requires determine critical block periods across an entire operational day comparing EV/Non-EV demand against supply, optimally scheduling an entire fleet, solution employs a Mixed Integer Linear Programing model, improves fleet management technology - ensures fulfillment/coverage of all blocks, improvement over conventional systems; Remarks: Pages 8, 9).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., Mixed Integer Linear Programing model, MILP; Remarks: Paragraph 2, Page8)) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Examiner notes that MILP and LP are well-known, widely practiced and conventional mathematical problem-solving techniques/approaches.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
As argued by Applicant, the claims are directed to (vehicle) fleet management or specifically vehicle dispatching/schedule (Title: “Method and System for Managing Dispatch of Vehicle Fleet”, wherein both fleet management and vehicle dispatching are well-known, ordinary, conventional and routine business practices (i.e. fundamental economic practice) performed using generic computer recited at a high level of generality for its conventional and routine purposes/performing generic routine and conventional computer functions. The claims are directed to scheduling and dispatching a fleet of electric and non-electric vehicles, 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).
While the claims may represent an improvement to the fundamental economic process of scheduling and dispatching a fleet of vehicles, the claims in no way either claimed or disclosed represent a practical application (e.g. provide a technical solution to a technical problem; improve any of the underlying technology (processor, computer readable medium, hardware device, display, database, control devices).
Additionally, the claims are directed to a mental processing practically capable of being performed in the human mind via observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion. Representative claim 1: The step of receiving information associated with a plurality of blocks to be serviced may be performed in the human mind using observation of data. The step of determining that information of at least one critical block period is unavailable may be performed in the human mind via evaluation. The step of determining the at least one critical block period requires a number of non-EVs greater than a number of non-EVs available encompasses both a well-known mathematical concept/operation (comparing numbers) and can be performing practically by a human evaluation. The step of scheduling the fleet of vehicles may be performed in the human mind via judgement. Dispatching (assigning, allocating, sending, instructing, etc.) the fleet of vehicles for servicing the blocks maybe performed by the human mind via evaluation. Additionally, this step is directed to an insignificant application of the abstract idea and/or extra solution activity. As described in MPEP § 2106.05(f), additional elements that invoke computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process will generally not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception. See, e.g., Versata Development Group v. SAP America, 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (explaining that in order for a machine to add significantly more, it must “play a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed, rather than function solely as an obvious mechanism for permitting a solution to be achieved more quickly”). Also as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g) Insignificant application: i. Cutting hair after first determining the hair style, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1016-1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
Examiner notes claims 1-7 fail to recite positively in the body of the claims who or what performs any of the method steps. Accordingly, the claims have been interpreted to include performance by a human. As claims 1-7 do not recite any technological elements in the body of the claims the claims cannot possibly integrate the abstract idea into a practical application by improving an underlying technology nor recite a technical solution to a technical problem nor improve another technical field as no technological elements are recited in the body of the claims. Fleet scheduling/dispatching/management are not technical fields.
Other than the recitation of a system, processor, memory and computer readable hardware storage device having computer readable code (Claims 8 and 9 ONLY) 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. The limitations directed to a hardware device including a system, processor, memory and computer readable hardware storage device having computer readable cod are each recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The mere nominal recitation of a generic computer (system, processor, memory and computer readable hardware storage device having computer readable code) each used for their well-understood, conventional, ordinary and routine purpose does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping.
The claims use “conventional or generic technology in a nascent but well-known environment” to implement the abstract idea of managing/dispatching/schedule a fleet of vehicles. In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Pat. Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 612 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The recited technology (processor, memories, etc.), are used as a “conduit for the abstract idea,” not to provide a technological solution to a specific technological problem. Id.; see also id. at 611–13 (holding claims reciting the use of a cellular telephone and a network server to classify an image and store the image based on its classification to be abstract because the patent did “not describe a new telephone, a new server, or a new physical combination of the two” and did not address “how to combine a camera with a cellular telephone, how to transmit images via a cellular network, or even how to append classification information to that data”).
Nothing in Applicant’s disclosures suggests that the Applicant intended to accomplish any of the steps recited in the claims through anything other than well understood technology used in a routine and conventional manner. Therefore, the claims lack an inventive concept. See also, e.g., Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1355 (holding claims lacked inventive concept where “[n]othing in the claims, understood in light of the specification, requires anything other than off-the-shelf, conventional computer, network, and display technology for gathering, sending, and presenting the desired information”); Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1348 (holding claims lacked an inventive concept where the claims recited the use of “existing scanning and processing technology”).
Reevaluating the steps of receiving and dispatching which are considered insignificant extra solution activity, these limitations are mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality and amount to nothing more than receiving or outputting data which are both well-understood, routine and conventional activities. The limitations remain insignificant extra solution activity even upon reconsideration. Even when considered in combination the additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra solution activity which cannot provide an inventive concept.
Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claims are directed to a well-known business practice – vehicle dispatching/scheduling as discussed in detail above. While the claims may represent an improvement to the business process of vehicle scheduling/dispatching they in no way either claimed or disclosed represent a practical application.
Under the see MPEP § 2106.05, the claims are evaluated to determine if additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see Manual of Patent Examining Procedure ("MPEP") §§ 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)- (h)). A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application applies, relies on, or uses the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.
For example, limitations that are indicative of "integration into a practical application" include:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP § 2106.05(a);
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP § 2106.05(b);
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP § 2106.05(c); and
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP § 2106.05(e).
In contrast, limitations that are not indicative of "integration into a practical application" include:
Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP § 2106.05(±);
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception- see MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use - see MPEP 2106.05(h).
In view of the MPEP § 2106.05, one must consider whether there are additional elements set forth in the claims that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The identified additional non-abstract elements recited in the independent claims are the generic system, processor, memory and computer readable hardware storage device having computer readable code. This generic computer hardware merely performs generic computer functions of receiving, processing and providing data and represent a purely conventional implementation of applicant’s fleet scheduling/dispatching in the general field of fleet management and do not represent significantly more than the abstract idea. See at least MPEP § 2106.05(a) ("Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or to Any Other Technology or Technical Field").
These recited additional elements are merely generic computer components. The claims do present any other issues as set forth in the MPEP § 2106.05 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.
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.
Thus, under Step 2A, Prong Two (MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c) and (e)- (h)), the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
There is a fundamental difference between computer functionality improvements, on the one hand, and uses of existing computers as tools to perform a particular task, on the other — a distinction that the Federal Circuit applied in Enfish, in rejecting a § 101 challenge at the first stage of the Mayo/Alice framework because the claims at issue focused on a specific type of data structure, i.e., a self-referential table, designed to improve the way a computer stores and retrieves data in memory, and not merely on asserted advances in uses to which existing computer capabilities could be put. See Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335-36. Here the claims simply use a computer as a tool and nothing more.
For the reasons outlined above, that the claims recite a method of organizing human activity, i.e., an abstract idea, and that the additional element recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea (i.e., system, processor, memory and computer readable hardware storage device having computer readable code) is no more than a generic computer component used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As such, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223-24 (“[Wholly generic computer implementation is not generally the sort of ‘additional featur[e]’ that provides any ‘practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea] itself.’” (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77)).
Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step Two of the Mayo/Alice Framework (Step 2B)
Having determined under step one of the Mayo/Alice framework that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, we next consider under Step 2B of the Guidance, the second step of the Mayo/Alice framework, whether the claims include additional elements or a combination of elements that provides an “inventive concept,” i.e., whether an additional element or combination of elements adds specific limitations beyond the judicial exception that are not “well-understood, routine, conventional activity” in the field (which is indicative that an inventive concept is present) or simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05.
Under step two of the Mayo/Alice framework, the elements of each claim are considered both individually and “as an ordered combination” to determine whether the additional elements, i.e., the elements other than the abstract idea itself, “transform the nature of the claim” into a patent-eligible application. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 217 (citation omitted); see Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73 (requiring that “a process that focuses upon the use of a natural law also contain other elements or a combination of elements, sometimes referred to as an ‘inventive concept,’ sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the natural law itself’ (emphasis added) (citation omitted)).
Here the only additional element recited in the claims beyond the abstract idea are “system, processor, memory and computer readable hardware storage device having computer readable code” i.e., generic computer component. 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.”). Applicant has not identified any additional elements recited in the claim that, individually or in combination, provides significantly more than the abstract idea.
Similar to the discussion in Uniloc USA, Inc. v. LG Electronics USA, Appeal No. 19-1835 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 30, 2020), where the Federal Circuit reaffirmed that software inventions are patentable in the U.S. with a bright-line statement: “Our precedent is clear that software can make patent-eligible improvements to computer technology, and related claims are eligible as long as they are directed to non-abstract improvements to the functionality of a computer or network platform itself.” the instant application merely applies the abstract idea using a generic computer as a conduit/tool for the abstract idea and does not improve the functioning of a computer or computer networks, does not improve another technical field and does not provide a technical solution to a technical problem.
With regards to Applicant’s arguments that the claimed invention requires determining critical block periods across an entire operational day comparing EV/Non-EV demand against supply, optimally scheduling an entire fleet, improves fleet management technology and/or is improvement over conventional systems, the examiner respectfully disagrees. All of the argued ‘improvements’ are at best improvements to the fundamental economic practice of vehicle scheduling/dispatching and/or more generally fleet management. None of the argued ‘improvements’ improve any of the underlying technology (e.g. no technology is recited in claims 1-8 there no technological improvements are possible in unrecited elements), none of the argued improvements improve another technology or technical field (vehicle scheduling/dispatching is a well-known business practice and not a technical field or technology). At best the argued ‘improvements’ are business improvements in the business problem of vehicle schedule/dispatching and in no way represent an improvement in the functioning of a computer or computer network, do not represent an technical solution to a technical problem inherent in computers or another technical field.
Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 1-9 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, 8 and 9, 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, 8 and 9 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 1-9 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, 8 and 9.
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 1-9, Applicant’s specification discloses that the claimed elements directed to system, processor, memory and computer readable hardware storage device having computer readable code 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9 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. 101 as discussed above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights