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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/17/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and have been entered into the record. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Continuation
This application is a continuation application of U.S. application no. 18/317,524 filed on 05/15/2023 (“Parent Application”). See MPEP §201.07. In accordance with MPEP §609.02 A. 2 and MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), the Examiner has reviewed and considered the prior art cited in the Parent Application. Also in accordance with MPEP §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), all documents cited or considered ‘of record’ in the Parent Application are now considered cited or ‘of record’ in this application. Additionally, Applicant(s) are reminded that a listing of the information cited or ‘of record’ in the Parent Application need not be resubmitted in this application unless Applicants desire the information to be printed on a patent issuing from this application. See MPEP §609.02 A. 2. Finally, Applicants are reminded that the prosecution history of the Parent Application is relevant in this application. See e.g., Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., Inc., 357 F.3d 1340, 1350, 69 USPQ2d 1815, 1823 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (holding that statements made in prosecution of one patent are relevant to the scope of all sibling patents).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claims 1, 7, 10, and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12149598 (Parent) since the claims, if allowed, would improperly extend the "right to exclude" already granted in the patent.
Claims of instant App. dated 10/15/2024
Claims of US Pat. No. 12149598
1
1 and 7
8
10
15
16
The chart above maps claims of the instant application to corresponding claims of U.S. Patent 12149598 that are patentably indistinct, though not identical. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the slight differences between the claim language of the corresponding claims as being directed towards intention, slight variations in terminology, or obvious variants of corresponding claim elements, and therefore these claims are not patentably distinct from one another despite these slight differences. Accordingly, claims 29-48 of the instant application would have been deemed obvious in view of the above-noted claims of the ‘676 patent since "anticipation is the epitome of obviousness." See In re Kalm, 378 F.2d 959, 962 (CCPA 1967).
In addition, as to the use of repeating a number of iterations of a step/function (transmitting “additional” navigational information), while it is asserted that US Patent 10645193 teaches the respective iterative functions encompassed by the claims, these iterative steps/functions nevertheless impose little patentable weight since they substantially duplicate previous steps/functions, though duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unex-pected result is produced (sending/transmitting navigational information to more than one driver does not produce an unexpected result. The claims are merely sending navigational information to drivers based users(s) request. This is taught by the Grandparent case). In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance with the MPEP 2106.
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is first noted that the method (claims 1-7), system (claims 8-14), and CRM (claims 15-18) are directed to potentially eligible categories of subject matter (i.e., process, machine, and article of manufacture respectively). Thus, Step 1 is satisfied.
With respect to Step 2, and in particular Step 2A Prong One, it is next noted that the claims recite an abstract idea by reciting concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), which falls into the “Mental Process” group; and by reciting fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) which falls into the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas set forth in the MPEP 2106 Patent Subject Matter Eligibility [R-10.2019]. The mere nominal recitation of a generic computer does not take the claim limitation out of methods of organizing human activity or the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process for performing certain methods of organizing human activity.
The limitations reciting the abstract idea(s) (Mental process and Certain methods of organizing human activity), as set forth in exemplary claim 1, are: “maintaining…a first queue of driver …and a second queue of driver …wherein the first queue of driver …and the second queue of driver …are utilized to select driver …to fulfill transportation requests from the particular area; generating a first queue credit for a first driver …based on historical transportation information corresponding to the first driver …; assigning the first driver …to the first queue of driver …based on the first queue credit; generating a second queue credit for a second driver …based on historical transportation information corresponding to the second driver …; assigning the second driver …to the second queue of driver …based on the second queue credit; in response to receiving a transportation request from a requester … assigning a driver …to the transportation request based on the first queue of driver …and the second queue of driver …; and transmitting… additional navigation information to direct the driver ….to fulfill the transportation request.”
Independent claim 1 recites the method for performing the system and CRM of independent claims 8 and 15 without adding significantly more. Thus, the same rationale/analysis is applied.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the MPEP 2106, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements are directed to “by at least one server device for a particular area… computing devices… by the at least one server device to the driver computing device…” (as recited in claim 1). The additional elements have been evaluated, but fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to using generic computing elements or instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (generic computing environment). See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h). The elements mentioned fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Even if the acquiring steps are considered as additional elements, these steps at most amount to insignificant extra-solution activity accomplished via receiving/transmitting data, which is not enough to amount to a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry, it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional limitation(s) is/are directed to: “by at least one server device for a particular area… computing devices… by the at least one server device to the driver computing device…” (as recited in claim 1) implementing the claim steps/functions. These elements have been considered, but merely serve to tie the invention to a particular operating environment (i.e., computer-based implementation), though at a very high level of generality and without imposing meaningful limitation on the scope of the claim. Even if the acquiring steps are considered as additional elements, these steps at most amount to insignificant extra-solution activity accomplished via receiving/transmitting data, which is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity and thus insufficient to add significantly more to the claims. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
In addition, Applicant’s Specification (paragraph [0033]) describes generic off-the-shelf computer-based elements for implementing the claimed invention, and which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, which is not enough to transform an abstract idea into eligible subject matter. Such generic, high-level, and nominal involvement of a computer or computer-based elements for carrying out the invention merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which is not enough to render the claims patent-eligible, as noted at pg. 74624 of Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 241, citing Alice, which in turn cites Mayo. See, e.g., Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that the ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Further, the courts have found the presentation of data to be a well-understood, routine, conventional activity, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 (see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
The dependent claims are directed to the same abstract idea as recited in the independent claims, and merely incorporate additional details that narrow the abstract idea via additional details of the abstract idea. For example claims 2-7 “wherein maintaining the first queue of driver computing devices and the second queue of driver computing devices comprises assigning a first priority to the first queue of driver computing devices and a second priority different from the first priority to the second queue of driver computing devices; further comprising assigning the second driver computing device to the second queue of driver computing devices based on the second queue credit and the second priority of the second queue of driver computing devices; further comprising assigning the second driver computing device to the second queue of driver computing devices based comparing the second queue credit to a queue credit threshold corresponding to the second queue of driver computing devices; wherein assigning the driver computing device to the transportation request based on the first queue of driver computing devices and the second queue of driver computing devices comprises assigning the driver computing device according to the first priority of the first queue and the second priority of the second queue; wherein assigning the driver computing device to the transportation request comprises assigning the second driver computing device to the transportation request based on a position of the second driver computing device in the second queue of driver computing devices and based on the second priority of the second queue of driver computing devices; assigning the second driver computing device to the first queue of driver computing devices; and assigning the second driver computing device from the first queue of driver computing devices to the second queue of driver computing devices based on the second queue credit”, without additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and without additional elements that amount to significantly more to the claims.
The remaining dependent claims (9-14 and 16-18) recite the system and CRM for performing the method of claims 2-8. Thus, the same rationale/analysis is applied. Thus, all dependent claims have been fully considered, however, these claims are similarly directed to the abstract idea itself, without integrating it into a practical application and with, at most, a general purpose computer that serves to tie the idea to a particular technological environment, which does not add significantly more to the claims.
The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Biswas; Arpita. DYNAMIC PRICING SYSTEMS AND RELATED METHODS, .U.S. PGPub 20170154348 Embodiments of a dynamic pricing system for determining an optimal commission rate based on a service request being served are disclosed. The dynamic pricing system comprises at least one service device that can communicate with a request device, wherein the at least one service device provides a response for a service request; and a dynamic pricing device interfacing with the at least one service device, wherein the dynamic pricing device determines an optimal commission rate corresponding to a request type for the at least one service device, wherein the optimal commission rate maximizes revenue from the service request.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Arif Ullah, whose telephone number is (571) 270-0161. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 9 AM and 5:30 PM.
If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Beth Boswell, can be reached at (571) 272-6737. The fax telephone numbers for this group are either (571) 273-8300 or (703) 872-9326 (for official communications including After Final communications labeled “Box AF”)./Arif Ullah/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625