DETAILED ACTION
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
The following claim(s) is/are pending in this office action: 1-20
The following claim(s) is/are amended: 1-3, 6, 9-12, 16-19
The following claim(s) is/are cancelled: -
The following claim(s) is/are new: 1-20
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected. This rejection is FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed in the amendment filed 6/10/2026, have been fully considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection. The reasons set forth below.
Applicant’s Invention as Claimed
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to data filtering without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) “providing, for display…the plurality of historical requestor device location user interface indicators…and the plurality of provider device location user interface indicators.” Each claim then places a limitation upon the display based upon some parameter – Claims 1, 10, 17 “a device display filter comprising a target number of requestor devices; selecting a time threshold based on the target number of requestor devices; determining a plurality of historical requestor devices transported by provider devices and corresponding historical requestor device pickup locations within the geographic region…generating a plurality of provider device location user interface indicators…” Claim 2 and similar claims, “an additional time threshold; determining a plurality of provided devices based on the plurality of provider device locations of the geographic region…” Claim 3 and similar claims “a density threshold; a time threshold based on the device density threshold; providing for display [] the plurality of historical requestor device location user interface indicators corresponding to the historical requestor device locations…” Claim 4 and similar claims “a distance threshold,” Claim 16 “a plurality of filters comprising a transportation matching mode filter, a vehicle type filter, and a wait-time filter.” The data being determined is a subset of information available to the system and the system merely filters the data to display particular types of data. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not improve technology and the filters control the information that is presented to a human. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the remaining features of the claims merely include providing a user interface for display and then displaying within the interface, which is a conventional computing feature that merely links the abstract idea to a particular field of use. The additional features of the dependent claims do not materially affect the above analysis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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 1-6, 8-15, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (US Pub. 2014/0011522) in view of Wang (US Pub. 2014/0026065) and further in view of Sarawgi (US Pub. 2016/0034828).
With respect to Claim 1, Lin teaches a computer-implemented method comprising: providing, for display via a provider device, a device network balance user interface comprising an interactive map of a geographic region; (paras. 9-14; providers in a real-time on-demand service. Fig. 1, paras. 24-25; provider devices with an application. Figs. 3-4, paras. 40, 54-57; user interface with map of a region. Para. 42, 57; UI has selection features such as selecting a particular region to view.)
generating a plurality of provider device location user interface indicators by determining a plurality of requestor device locations for the geographic region and a plurality of provider device locations for the geographic region; (paras. 28-31; system determines number of requestors and providers in a region and their position within the region.)
But Lin does not explicitly teach device indicators.
Wang, however, does teach selecting a time threshold based on the target number of requestor devices; (Examiner asserts particular queries to a database are obvious over the database. Regardless, see Wang, para. 46; system considers requests within the past two hours. See also Sarawgi, para. 46; system analyzes the most recent 300 or 2000 trips.)
and generating the plurality of historical requestor device location user interface indicators based on the historical requestor device pickup locations; (Determining the indicators will be taught later. For display, see paras. 6, 41, 50-58, 64; System displays a map including the location of one or more of the customers and vehicles.)
and providing, for display within the device network balance user interface, the plurality of historical requestor device location user interface indicators corresponding to the plurality of historical requestor device pickup locations and the plurality of provider device location user interface indicators corresponding to the plurality of provider device locations. (Determining the indicators will be taught later. For display, see paras. 6, 41, 50-58, 64; System displays a map including the location of one or more of the customers and vehicles.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to combine the method of Lin with the device indicators in order to show the exact location of individual devices.
But modified Lin does not explicitly teach historic requestor device location.
Sarawgi, however, does teach generating, based on a device display filter comprising a target number of requestor devices, a plurality of historical requestor device location user interface indicators by: (Examiner asserts particular queries to a database are obvious over the database. Regardless, see Sarawgi, para. 35-37, 45; system has trips database with user and drive ids, pickup location, dropoff location, time, duration. para. 46; predefined amount of trips for analysis such as analysis of 300 trips, 2000 trips. paras. 51, 105; search of database entries in response to criteria.)
determining a plurality of historical requestor devices transported by provider devices and corresponding historical requestor device pickup locations within the geographic region within the time threshold such that the plurality of historical requestor devices satisfies the target number of requestor devices; and generating the plurality of historical requestor device location user interface indicators based on the historical requestor device pickup locations; (para. 35-37, 45; system has trips database with user and drive ids, pickup location, dropoff location, time, duration. A geographic region was previously taught, but see also paras. 41-42; system can map data points to particular geographic regions. paras. 51, 105; search of database entries in response to criteria. para. 46; system analyzes the most recent 300 or 2000 trips. See also Lin, paras. 28-31; system determines number of requestors and providers in a region and their position within the region.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to combine the method of modified Lin with the historic location in order to present past data to the user to suggest future action.
With respect to Claim 2, modified Lin teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, and Sarawgi also teaches further comprising: determining a target number of provider devices for the device display filter; (para. 35-37, 45; system has trips database with user and drive ids, pickup location, dropoff location, time, duration. para. 46; predefined amount of trips for analysis such as analysis of 300 trips, 2000 trips.)
determining a plurality of provider devices based on the plurality of provider device locations for the geographic region within the additional time threshold such that the plurality of provider devices satisfies the target number of provider devices; and generating the plurality of provider device location user interface indicators based on the plurality of provider device locations for the geographic region. (para. 35; drivers periodically transmit their GPS location. para. 35-37, 45; system has trips database with user and drive ids, pickup location, dropoff location, time, duration. A geographic region was previously taught, but see also paras. 41-42; system can map data points to particular geographic regions. paras. 51, 105; search of database entries in response to criteria. para. 46; system analyzes the most recent 300 or 2000 trips. See also Lin, paras. 28-31; system determines number of requestors and providers in a region and their position within the region.)
The same motivation to combine as the independent claim applies here.
and Wang also teaches selecting an additional time threshold based on the target number of provider devices; (para. 46; system considers requests within the past two hours. See also Sarawgi, para. 46; system analyzes the most recent 300 or 2000 trips.)
The same motivation to combine as the independent claim applies here.
With respect to Claim 3, modified Lin teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, and Sarawgi also teaches wherein determining the plurality of requestor device locations comprises further comprising: determining a device density threshold based on the target number of requestor devices (paras. 40-47; system determines if users are part of a cluster, which is a density threshold. See also Lin, para. 28-30; system determines number of requestors in a region, which is a density value.)
and a target number of provider devices; (para. 35-37, 45; system has trips database with user and drive ids, pickup location, dropoff location, time, duration. para. 46; predefined amount of trips for analysis such as analysis of 300 trips, 2000 trips.)
The same motivation to combine as the independent claim applies here.
and Lin also teaches select a time threshold based on the device density threshold; (para. 33; system considers number of people in a given location over the last eight weeks.)
and Wang also teaches and based on the device density threshold and the time threshold, providing for display within the device network balance user interface, the plurality of historical requestor device location user interface indicators corresponding to the historical requestor device locations and the plurality of provider device user interface location indicators corresponding to the plurality of provider device locations. (paras. 6, 41, 50-58, 64; System displays a map including the location of one or more of the customers and vehicles.)
The same motivation to combine as the independent claim applies here.
With respect to Claim 4, modified Lin teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, and Wang also teaches wherein determining the plurality of provider device locations comprises identifying a distance threshold for the geographic region based on at least one of a user interaction with a distance threshold selection element or a target number of provider devices to display. (paras. 59; range of map such as a two mile area.)
The same motivation to combine as the independent claim applies here.
With respect to Claim 5, modified Lin teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 4, and Lin also teaches wherein determining the plurality of provider device locations comprises: determining provider devices that fall within the distance threshold; and identifying locations for the provider devices that fall within the distance threshold. (para. 26; provider location. paras. 35-37; system can determine if devices are within region. See also Wang, para. 60; system determines icons in a bounded area.)
With respect to Claim 6, modified Lin teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, and Wang also teaches wherein providing the plurality of provider device location user interface indicators corresponding to the plurality of provider device locations comprises: generating hashed driver identifiers for provider devices within the geographic region; and providing the hashed driver identifiers to the provider device. (para. 76; cell phone number associated with vehicle. Examiner asserts a phone number is a hash, but to the extent this requires the affirmative act of hashing, Examiner takes official notice of hashing and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to generate hashed driver identifiers in order to provide a consistent-size id for each vehicle to improve ease of understanding.)
The same motivation to combine as the independent claim applies here.
With respect to Claim 8, modified Lin teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, and Lin also teaches further comprising identifying the geographic region by: providing, for display via the interactive map of the device network balance user interface, a plurality of device network balance selectable elements corresponding to a plurality of geographic regions; (Figs. 3-4, paras. 54-59; region has sub-regions with an indicator for each region that includes information of relative number of requestors/providers. With respect to the elements being selectable, see para. 57; zoom in or out to see additional details or smaller sub-regions, which suggests selecting one sub-region to present additional data or break down the sub-region into smaller sub-regions. See also Wang, para. 75-76; selection of an icon in the map to bring additional information.)
And Wang also teaches and receiving a selection of a device network balance selectable element of the plurality of device network balance selectable elements. (para. 75-76; selection of an icon in the map to bring additional information.)
The same motivation to combine as the independent claim applies here.
With respect to Claim 9, modified Lin teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 8, and Lin also teaches further comprising determining the plurality of device network balance selectable elements based on real-time data and historical data of the plurality of requestor device locations and the historical provider device locations for the geographic region. (para. 56; system can provide visualization of service based on current data or predicted data. Paras. 34, 63; prediction is based on current and historical.)
With respect to Claim 10, it is substantially similar to Claim 1 and is rejected in the same manner, the same art and reasoning applying. Further, Lin also teaches a system comprising: at least one processor; and a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, to cause the system to: (para. 62; processor and storage device such as magnetic disk.)
With respect to Claim 11, modified Lin teaches the system of claim 10, and Sarawgi also teaches further comprising instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to determine the historical requestor device locations by identifying the time threshold for the geographic region based on a time threshold selection element via the provider device. (para. 46; system analyzes the most recent 300 or 2000 trips. See also Wang, para. 46; system considers requests within the past two hours. para. 43; input of data via GUI. See also Lin, para. 57; selectable element in interface.)
The same motivation to combine as the independent claim applies here.
With respect to Claims 12-15, they are substantially similar to Claims 2, 4-5, 8 respectively, and are rejected in the same manner, the same art and reasoning applying.
With respect to Claim 17, it is substantially similar to Claim 1 and is rejected in the same manner, the same art and reasoning applying. Further, Lin also teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause a computing device to: (para. 62; processor and storage device such as magnetic disk.)
With respect to Claims 18-20, they are substantially similar to Claims 2-4, respectively, and are rejected in the same manner, the same art and reasoning applying.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lin (US Pub. 2014/0011522) in view of Wang (US Pub. 2014/0026065), in view of Sarawgi (US Pub. 2016/0034828), and further in view of Chalam (US Pub. 2022/0027820).
With respect to Claim 7, modified Lin teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 6, but does not explicitly teach withholding responses.
Chalam, however, does teach further comprising in response to detecting that the provider device has satisfied a threshold number of provider device queries withhold responses to an additional request for provider device locations. (paras 21-22, 30, 32; system may rate-limit and discard requests over a threshold number from vehicle providers such as human-driven vehicles.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to combine the method of modified Lin with the withholding of responses in order to prevent impairing performance. (Chalam, para. 32)
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lin (US Pub. 2014/0011522) in view of Wang (US Pub. 2014/0026065), in view of Sarawgi (US Pub. 2016/0034828) and further in view of Bhadkamkar (US Pub. 2023/0068492).
With respect to Claim 16, modified Lin teaches the system of claim 10, and Wang also teaches and in response to a selection of a filter from the plurality of filters, cause the device network balance user interface to display the historical requestor device location user interface indicators and the plurality of provider device location user interface indicators according to the filter. (paras. 59-60, 62; icons are displayed if they fall within configuration settings such as location or availability, which is a filter. para. 56-57; display of customers/drivers changes based on configuration data.)
The same motivation to combine as the independent claim applies here.
But modified Lin does not explicitly teach a transportation matching mode filter.
Bhadkamkar, however, does teach further comprising instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to: provide, for display within the device network balance user interface, a plurality of filters comprising a transportation matching mode filter, (Fig. 7a, para. 30, 93; system provides interface that displays shared or non-shared type of transportation)
a vehicle type filter, (para. 30, 94; shared or non-shared type of transportation. See also Sarawgi, para. 37; vehicle type.)
and a wait-time filter; (para. 48; system calculates wait-times for requests. Para. 59; pickup times for a request.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to combine the system of modified Lin with the transportation matching mode, vehicle type, and wait-time filters to allow a provider to gauge if it is worth servicing another area by seeing the amount of particular types of requests.
Remarks
Applicant argues at Remarks, pgs. 14-17 that the claims are eligible. Specifically, Applicant argues that other inventions, such as improved menu listings, are eligible improvements to the functioning of a computer, and that the instant claims “delimit[] the type of data to be displayed and how to display it.”
Examiner disagrees. Applicant refers to Core Wireless but does not cite a reporter. Examiner’s best guess as to what Applicant is referring to is Core Wireless Licensing v. LG Electronic Inc., 2016-2684, 2017-1922, CAFC (2018). There the CAFC dealt with a display of an application summary that can be reached directly (The court’s emphasis) from a claimed menu. These claims disclosed “an improved user interface for electronic devices, particularly those with small screens” and allowed user “to see the most relevant data or functions ‘without actually opening the application up’.” Defendants in Core Wireless first asserted any abstract idea for the first time in appeal, and they asserted the claims were directed to an abstract idea of an index or summary of information.
The instant claims are different. Here data filtering is an established abstract idea, and the instant invention is not directed to an improved interface. Rather the invention appears to be the display of non-computer information to a user, including information that the specification admits was previously collected. See Spec, para. 2, Background: “conventional transportation systems can determine the geographic locations of provider devices and requestor devices, generate digital matches between provider devices and requestor devices, and further track, analyze, and manage pick-up, transportation, and drop-off routines through digital transmissions across computer networks.” In other words, conventional systems were already tracking and analyzing pickup, transportation and drop off of one human by another human. All this invention does is take information that was previously tracked and make it available in visual form. Running queries on a database is data filtering, and is ineligible. Presenting the results of those queries is insignificant post-solution activity to performing the filtering.
For example, Spec, paras. 19-23 state that a problem with the prior art was that recommendations to providers to move to a different region were “inaccurate and ineffectual.” Even assuming that this problem was true and that the instant claims solve it, that is not solving a problem of computers or improving the functioning of a computer. It is providing an improved incentive for a contractor to relocate their services. The mechanism by which the inaccuracy problem is solved is merely by making some subset of a historic trip database available, i.e. data filtering. Para. 23 states “the provider network balancing system can provide provider device indicators that indicate current provider devices in a geographic region and requestor device indicators that indicate recent pickup locations of requestor devices transported by provider devices.” All this is doing is presenting two subsets of data (current provider location and recent pickup location) currently known to the system to the user. To the extent that the device presents “selectable elements” those are simply commands to call forth particular data from within the stored data known known to the system. Finally, Applicant provides no technical teaching to solve any theoretical computer functionality problem that exists.
In short, while Examiner agrees that the claims delimit particular types of data, the data is not computer data, is not used for a computer functionality purpose, does not attempt to solve a technical problem, does not provide any particulars in how the data is presented beyond some sort of visual-interface limitations, and the specification provides no technical teaching to solve any issue. The claims merely nominate particular information that Applicants think would be particularly persuasive in encouraging contractors to move to particular areas of service. Databases storing this type of data admittedly preexisted. There appears to have been no technical problem in running the claimed queries on that database. The claims are ineligible, and Examiner maintains the rejection.
At Remarks, pgs. 17-21, Applicant argues the 103 rejection should be withdrawn because Lin/Wang/Starns do not teach the amended claims. Examiner cites new art which moots the complaint, but discusses one argument because it is relevant to the new rejection.
At Remarks, pg. 19, Applicant argues a Starns teaching of how rides have been trending over the past 2 hours does not teach a time threshold. Examiner cites a similar teaching for the current time threshold. When one has a database of events such as stored trip data, and one analyzes a subset of the data, it suggests the ability to search or filter the subset of data, i.e. if one looks at how data has trended for the past 2 hours, or analyzes the most recent 300 trips, it suggests the ability to search throughout the dataset and identify the trips that occurred in the past two hours, which is a time threshold. The instant claim language requires a target number of requestor devices and selecting a time threshold based on that. The teaching for the most recent 300 trips anticipates a target number of requestor devices (300) and suggests a time threshold based on that number because the system can identify which 300 trips were the most recent. Similarly, “the past 2 hours” is a time threshold.
The main thrust of the rejection is as follows: Lin is largely cited for the ability of the art to track current data and report aggregated data in regions. Wang is cited for an interface placing the location of individual elements on a map. Newly cited Sarawgi discloses a searching trips database containing historic data about trips, including the data queried in the claims. The combination teaches querying for the data and presenting it to the user as claimed.
Examiner maintains the 103 rejection over the new art. All claims remain rejected.
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 extension fee 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 NICHOLAS P CELANI whose telephone number is (571)272-1205. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5.
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, Vivek Srivastava can be reached on 571-272-7304. 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.
/NICHOLAS P CELANI/Examiner, Art Unit 2449
