DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
The following is a FINAL Office action upon examination of application number 18/989,706 filed on 12/20/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application and have been examined on the merits discussed below.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Application 18/989,706 filed 12/20/2024 is a Continuation of Application 16/894,432, filed 06/05/2020.
Response to Amendment
In the response filed June 03, 2026, Applicant amended claims 1, 6-7, 10-11, 15, 18, and 20, and did not cancel any claims. No new claims were presented for examination.
Applicant's amendments to claims 1, 6-7, 10-11, and 18 are hereby acknowledged. The amendments are sufficient to overcome the previously issued rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b); accordingly, this rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's amendments to claims 1, 15, and 20 are hereby acknowledged. The amendments are not sufficient to overcome the previously issued claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101; accordingly, this rejection has been maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 03, 2026, have been fully considered.
Applicant submits “With respect to Step 2A, Prong One, of the USPTO Patent Eligibility Guidance ("PEG" or "Guidance") the Examiner asserts that the claims recite mental processes, including steps such as "analyzing," "predicting," and "determining." However, when properly considered, the claims recite specific computer-implemented operations that cannot practically be performed in the human mind. For example, claim 1 recites "determining a match efficiency rating based on the dynamically updated, real time location information for each transportation provider device and the one or more ridesharing constraints and comparing the match efficiency rating to a threshold." This recitation involves continuous processing of dynamically updated, real-time GPS data from multiple transportation provider devices and computation of a quantitative rating followed by threshold comparison. A human cannot reasonably track multiple vehicles in real time, continuously update their locations, compute a match efficiency rating, and compare that rating to a threshold in a dynamic dispatch environment. Accordingly, the claims do not recite a mental process.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 06/03/2026, pages 11-12]
With respect to the §101 rejection, Applicant first argues that “With respect to Step 2A, Prong One, of the USPTO Patent Eligibility Guidance ("PEG" or "Guidance") the Examiner asserts that the claims recite mental processes, including steps such as "analyzing," "predicting," and "determining." However, when properly considered, the claims recite specific computer-implemented operations that cannot practically be performed in the human mind.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response, the Examiner maintains that the claims recite an abstract idea that falls under the “Mental Processes” abstract idea grouping set forth in MPEP 2106 since the claims set forth steps that can be performed in the human mind (including observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), including the analyzing, predicting, and determining steps. The Examiner points out that the underlying analysis of the claims may be performed in the human mind and/or with the use of pen and paper. The limitations directed to analyzing one or more current dispatch conditions affecting dispatch of one or more transportation provider devices to the requestor computing device, wherein the analysis comprises determining a match efficiency rating based on the dynamically updated, real time location information for each transportation provider device and the one or more ridesharing constraints and comparing the match efficiency rating to a threshold, predicting a likelihood that the requestor will pay a higher price for less uncertainty in overall ride time based on the current dispatch conditions, and determining, based on the predicted likelihood, that the current dispatch conditions allow for an ephemeral ride mode to be offered on the transportation application when the match efficiency rating meets the threshold may be performed in the human mind and/or with pen and paper. For instance, a person can receive current dispatch conditions affecting dispatch of one or more transportation provider devices through various means such as observations. Similarly, a human can also predict a likelihood that the requestor will pay a higher price for less uncertainty in overall ride time based on the received information. The Examiner maintains that the claims set forth or describe steps that can be accomplished mentally such as via human observation and perhaps with the aid of pen and paper, which fall under the “Mental Processes” abstract idea grouping set forth in MPEP 2106. These limitations recite an abstract idea that falls into the “Mental processes — concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)” group within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas set forth in MPEP 2106. The claim broadly recites evaluating information (i.e., determining a match efficiency rating and comparing it to a threshold), predicting a likelihood of user behavior, and determining whether to offer a ride mode based on the results of those evaluations. These are forms or observation, evaluation, judgement, and decision making that fall with the mental process abstract idea grouping. The use of dynamically updated GPS data as inputs to these steps does not alter the character of the recited operations, which remain directed to the analysis of information and the meaning of decisions based on that information. As claimed, the steps can be practically performed mentally, by a human observing information. The Office maintains that the claims recite an abstract idea. For the reasons detailed above, this argument is found unpersuasive
Applicant submits “With respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, even assuming, arguendo, that the claims recite an abstract idea, the claims integrate any such idea into a practical application. The claims are not directed merely to managing ridesharing interactions, but instead to a specific technological solution for dynamically controlling user interface functionality in a transportation system based on real-time enforceability of constraints. For example, independent claim 1 recites "determining that the current dispatch conditions allow for an ephemeral ride mode to be offered when the match efficiency rating meets the threshold" and "instructing the requestor computing device to at least temporarily present the ephemeral ride mode within a user interface of the transportation application as a selectable option" (with similar elements in the other independent claims). These elements demonstrate that the claims actively control the operation of a user interface in real time based on system-level conditions.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 06/03/2026, page 12]
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional elements in exemplary claim 1 are: a non-transitory memory, one or more hardware processors, a transportation application, a requestor computing device, one or more transportation provider devices, a global positioning system (GPS) radio, and a user interface of the transportation application, which merely serve to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (computer-based operating environment) via generic computing hardware, software/instructions, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application, as noted in MPEP 2106.05. Applicant has provided no facts/evidence, cited any portion of the Specification, nor provided a persuasive line of reasoning showing how the additional elements are integrated with the abstract idea to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Furthermore, it is noted that the claims are devoid of any discernible change, transformation, or improvement to a computer (software or hardware) or any existing technology. Applicant has not shown that any specific technological improvement is achieved within the scope of the claims. It bears emphasis that no memory, processor, transportation application, computing device, user interface, or technological elements are modified or improved upon in any discernible manner. Instead, the result produced by the claims is simply information relating to an ephemeral ride mode, which is not a technical result or improvement thereof.
Lastly, the additional elements 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. Accordingly, this argument is found unpersuasive.
Applicant submits “This integration into a practical application is consistent with USPTO guidance, examples, and caselaw such as DDR Holdings, where claims were found eligible because they provided a solution "necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks." Similarly, the present claims address a technological problem arising in transportation dispatch systems (e.g., the difficulty of satisfying ridesharing constraints in a dynamic environment while maintaining efficiency and profitability) and provide a technological solution by computing a match efficiency rating, enforcing threshold-based gating, and dynamically presenting or removing ride options based on real-time feasibility is not merely the application of an abstract idea in a generic environment, but rather a specific implementation that improves system operation.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 06/03/2026, pages 12-13]
With respect to Applicant’s argument reading “This integration into a practical application is consistent with USPTO guidance, examples, and caselaw such as DDR Holdings, where claims were found eligible because they provided a solution "necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks." Similarly, the present claims address a technological problem arising in transportation dispatch systems (e.g., the difficulty of satisfying ridesharing constraints in a dynamic environment while maintaining efficiency and profitability) and provide a technological solution by computing a match efficiency rating, enforcing threshold-based gating, and dynamically presenting or removing ride options based on real-time feasibility is not merely the application of an abstract idea in a generic environment, but rather a specific implementation that improves system operation,” the Examiner emphasizes that, while the claims in DDR were directed toward addressing problems related to retaining Web site visitors from being diverted from a host's Web site to an advertiser's Web site such that the claimed solution is necessarily rooted in computer technology, DDR’s claims are distinguishable from Applicant’s claims because the steps leading to instructing the requestor computing device to at least temporarily present the ephemeral ride mode within a user interface of the transportation application as a selectable option based on the determination, as recited in Applicant’s claim 1, are not reasonably understood as providing a solution narrowly rooted in computing technology as in DDR. Furthermore, it bears emphasis that Applicant’s claims are not confined to, nor do the claims purport to, provide an improvement to the generation of a web page or to an Internet-centric problem. Instead, the claims merely employ a general purpose computer to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, in contrast to the claims in DDR, there is simply no discernible improvement to any existing technological process, webpage or network, or to a computer itself. Accordingly, Applicant’s suggestion that the claims are eligible for the same reason as set forth in the DDR decision is not persuasive.
Applicant submits “With respect to Step 2B, the claims recite significantly more than any alleged abstract idea. Although the Action characterizes the additional elements as generic computing components, the proper inquiry is whether the claimed combination provides an improvement in technology or a technical field. The ordered combination of elements includes processing dynamically updated, real-time GPS data, computing a match efficiency rating based on ridesharing constraints and the real-time GPS data, comparing that rating to a threshold, and dynamically controlling the presentation and removal of an ephemeral ride mode within a user interface based on real-time enforceability and based on whether the threshold is met. This combination goes beyond merely implementing an abstract idea on a computer.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 06/03/2026, page 13]
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. When evaluated under Step 2B, the additional elements, as recited in exemplary claim 1, are a non-transitory memory, one or more hardware processors configured to execute instructions, a transportation application, a requestor computing device, one or more transportation provider devices, a global positioning system (GPS) radio, and a user interface of the transportation application for implementing the claimed method steps. However, it is clear that a mere general purpose computer (or at least a conventional device of virtually any form factor) is relied on to implement the recited steps, which does not add significantly more to the abstract idea (See, e.g., paragraph [0090] of Applicant’s Specification. Accordingly, the “one or more hardware processors” merely serve to link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, the computer itself is not improved in any way, and the computer does not improve any other technology. Accordingly, the additional elements tying the abstract idea to a computer-based operating environment are not sufficient to amount to significantly more. See, e.g., Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 USPQ2d 1976; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
It is noted that to satisfy the "significantly more" aspect, Applicant would need to argue that the limitations are either 1) improving another technology, 2) improving the functioning of the computer itself, 3) applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, 4) effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, 5) adding a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, or 6) other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
In this case, the claims do not include limitations that meet the criteria listed above. Further, the Examiner points out there is no actual improvement to another technology or technical field, no improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, and no meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment evident in the claims. The Examiner emphasizes that nowhere in Applicant’s Specification is there any discussion or suggestion that the problem or solution is a technical one, nor is there even a hint of any contemplated improvement to technology. The Examiner further points out there is no actual improvement to another technology or technical field, no improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, and no meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment evident in the claims.
It is not clear how the claimed limitations provide an actual improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment evident in the claims.
Applicant provides no specific equation, code or algorithm to alter any computer technology to improve its processing performance, and the limitations recite no technological improvements. Examination of the claims—as a whole and in terms of each claim limitation—reveals that the claims are not directed to improving computer performance and do not recite any
such benefit”). Thus, no elements can be considered improvement to the generic computer technology or routine and conventional functions thereof that are relied on to implement the abstract idea, even in combination. Accordingly, this argument is found unpersuasive.
For the reasons above, Applicant’s arguments concerning the §101 rejection are not persuasive.
Applicant submits “As detailed above, Applicant has amended each independent claim to recite "wherein the analysis comprises determining a match efficiency rating based on the dynamically updated, real time location information for each transportation provider device and the one or more ridesharing constraints and comparing the match efficiency rating to a threshold" and "determining, based on the predicted likelihood, that the current dispatch conditions allow for an ephemeral ride mode to be offered on the transportation application when the match efficiency rating meets the threshold." As discussed in the interview, the art of record, whether alone or in combination, fails to disclose at least these amended features, including determining a match efficiency rating based on dynamically updating real time location information and one or more ridesharing constraints, comparing the match efficiency rating to a threshold, determining that an ephemeral ride mode is allowed to be offered when the match efficiency rating meets the threshold, and presenting the ephemeral ride mode within a user interface. Accordingly, because the art of record fails to disclose, teach, or suggest each and every feature of the independent claims, this art fails to represent art sufficient to establish a prima facie obviousness rejection.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 06/03/2026, page 15]
In response to the Applicant’s argument that “the art of record, whether alone or in combination, fails to disclose at least these amended features, including determining a match efficiency rating based on dynamically updating real time location information and one or more ridesharing constraints, comparing the match efficiency rating to a threshold, determining that an ephemeral ride mode is allowed to be offered when the match efficiency rating meets the threshold, and presenting the ephemeral ride mode within a user interface,” it is noted Applicant's amendments are sufficient to overcome the previously issued rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103; accordingly, this rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s remaining arguments either logically depend from the above-rejected arguments, in which case they too are unpersuasive for the reasons set forth above, or they are directed to features which have been newly added via amendment. Therefore, this is now the Examiner's first opportunity to consider these limitations and as such any arguments regarding these limitations would be inappropriate since they have not yet been examined. A full rejection of these limitations will be presented later in this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
14. 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.
15. Claims 1-20 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.
16. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance with MPEP 2106.
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is first noted that the system (claims 1-14), method (claims 15-19), and non-transitory computer-readable medium (claim 20) are directed to at least one potentially eligible category of subject matter (i.e., machine, process, and article of manufacture, respectively). Thus, Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility test for claims 1-20 is satisfied.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One, it is next noted that the claims recite an abstract idea that falls under the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” and “Mental Processes” abstract idea groupings set forth in MPEP 2106 since the claims set forth steps for managing commercial interactions (e.g., ride-sharing transactions) and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions (e.g., social activities, following rules or instructions) and thus fall under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity,” and steps that can be performed in the human mind (including observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), including the analyzing, predicting, and determining steps, and therefore fall under the “Mental Processes” abstract idea grouping. With respect to independent claim 1, the limitations reciting the abstract idea are indicated in bold below: request a shared ride, the shared ride including one or more ridesharing constraints that are to be maintained throughout the shared ride; analyzing one or more current dispatch conditions affecting dispatch of one or more transportation provider devices to the requestor computing device, wherein each transportation provider device includes a global positioning system (GPS) radio configured to provide dynamically updated, real time location information for each transportation provider device; wherein the analysis comprises determining a match efficiency rating based on the dynamically updated, real time location information for each transportation provider device and the one or more ridesharing constraints and comparing the match efficiency rating to a threshold; according to the analysis, predicting a likelihood that the requestor will pay a higher price for less uncertainty in overall ride time based on the current dispatch conditions; determining, based on the predicted likelihood, that the current dispatch conditions allow for an ephemeral ride mode to be offered on the transportation application when the match efficiency rating meets the threshold; and instructing the computing device to at least temporarily present the ephemeral ride mode within a user interface of the transportation application as a selectable option based on the determination.
Considered together, these steps set forth an abstract idea of managing ridesharing interactions involving a transportation provider and a transportation requestor [See Specification at paragraph 0024 describing “an example scenario 100 in which a transportation requestor 102 requests a traditional shared ride to a destination... In this example, a transportation management system may match transportation requestor 102 with a transportation provider 104 at time A.”], which falls under the under the “Certain methods of organizing human activity,” and also recite an abstract idea falling under the “Mental Processes” abstract idea grouping set forth in MPEP 2106. Independent claims 15 and 20 recite similar limitations as those discussed above and are therefore found to recite the same or substantially the same abstract idea as claim 1.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements recited are: a non-transitory memory, one or more hardware processors configured to execute instructions, a transportation application, a requestor computing device, one or more transportation provider devices, each transportation provider device, a global positioning system (GPS) radio, and a user interface of the transportation application (claim 1), a transportation application, a requestor computing device, one or more transportation provider devices, each transportation provider device, global positioning system (GPS) radio, and a user interface of the transportation application (claim 15), computer-readable instructions, at least one processor of a computer, a transportation application, a requestor computing device, one or more transportation provider devices, each transportation provider device, a global positioning system (GPS) radio, and a user interface of the transportation application (claim 20). These 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 computer-executable 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. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h). Even if the steps for receiving an indication that a transportation application has been initialized on a requestor computing device to request a shared ride and presenting the ephemeral ride mode are not deemed part of the abstract idea, these steps are at most directed to insignificant extra-solution activity, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). In addition, these limitations 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. In addition, these limitations 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.
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 elements recited are: a non-transitory memory, one or more hardware processors configured to execute instructions, a transportation application, a requestor computing device, one or more transportation provider devices, each transportation provider device, a global positioning system (GPS) radio, and a user interface of the transportation application (claim 1), a transportation application, a requestor computing device, one or more transportation provider devices, each transportation provider device, global positioning system (GPS) radio, and a user interface of the transportation application (claim 15), computer-readable instructions, at least one processor of a computer, a transportation application, a requestor computing device, one or more transportation provider devices, each transportation provider device, a global positioning system (GPS) radio, and a user interface of the transportation application (claim 20). These elements have been considered individually and in combination, but fail to add significantly more to the claims 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 and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Notably, Applicant’s Specification suggests that virtually any type of computing device under the sun can be used to implement the claimed invention (Specification at paragraph [0090]). Accordingly, the generic computer involvement in performing the claim steps merely serves to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, which does not add significantly more to the claim. See, e.g., Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 USPQ2d 1976.).
Even if the steps for transmitting and presenting are not deemed part of the abstract idea, this step is at most directed to insignificant extra-solution activity, which has been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional, and thus insufficient to add significantly more to the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d) - 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, 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 generic 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, as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claims 2-14 and 16-19 recite the same abstract idea as recited in the independent claims, and when evaluated under Step 2A Prong One are found to merely recite details that serve to narrow the same abstract idea recited in the independent claims accompanied by the same generic computing elements or software as those addressed above in the discussion of the independent claims, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application or add significantly more, or other additional elements that fail to amount to a practical application or add significantly more, as noted above. In particular, dependent claims 2-14 and 16-19 recite “wherein predicting the likelihood that the requestor will pay a higher price for less uncertainty in overall ride time includes predicting whether the requestor will pay a higher price for fewer detours or shorter detours,” “wherein predicting the likelihood that the requestor will pay a higher price for less uncertainty in overall ride time includes predicting whether the requestor will pay a higher price for a shorter pickup time,” “wherein predicting the likelihood that the requestor will pay a higher price for less uncertainty in overall ride time includes predicting whether the requestor will pay a higher price for a shorter overall estimated time of arrival (ETA),” “provides dynamically updated, real time location information,” “wherein a separate set of additional ridesharing constraints is implemented when determining whether to surface the ephemeral ride mode, the separate set of additional ridesharing constraints including additional restrictions that are only applied in the ephemeral ride mode,” “wherein the ephemeral ride mode is offered only if the one or more ridesharing constraints are determined to be enforceable throughout the duration of the shared ride and only if the separate set of additional ridesharing constraints with the additional restrictions has been met,” “wherein the ephemeral ride mode allows the requestor computing device to share a ride with at least one other requestor computing device based on one or more requestor device-specific constraints,” “wherein the device-specific constraints comprise at least one of: a maximum potential detour time; a maximum potential detour distance; a maximum allowable percentage increase in length of detour time; or a maximum allowable percentage increase in length of detour distance,” “wherein the ephemeral ride mode provides an indication of an estimated time to a selected destination that is customized for the requestor based on the device-specific constraints,” “dynamically remove the ephemeral ride mode upon determining, based on the real time location of the requestor computing device or the real time location of the transportation provider device, that the one or more ridesharing constraints no longer apply, such that the ephemeral ride mode is automatically removed,” “wherein the ephemeral ride mode is presented according to a schedule that is specific to the requestor,” “wherein the schedule is determined automatically based on prior ride-history data associated with the requestor,” “wherein the ephemeral ride mode is presented according to the schedule even if the current dispatch conditions are unmet,” “wherein the current dispatch conditions comprise at least one of: an indication of available transportation provider; an indication of profitability of a shared ride provided through the ephemeral ride mode; a measure of efficiency; a measure of expected conversion rate; a determination that the requestor is currently located in a specified city; a determination that the requestor is currently located on a specified route; or identification of a transportation requestor associated with the requestor computing device,” “wherein the ephemeral ride mode is presented dynamically upon the occurrence of at least one of the current dispatch conditions,” “wherein the step of analyzing the one or more current dispatch conditions affecting the dispatch of the one or more transportation provider based on the requestor includes calculating a match efficiency rating that indicates a determined value of matching the requestor to at least one of the transportation provider,” “further comprising: determining that the calculated match efficiency rating meets a minimum threshold value; and matching the requestor to at least one of the transportation provider,” however these limitations cover organizing human activity since they flow directly from the transportation request management involving human interaction, which encompasses activity for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions (e.g., following rules or instructions), which is part of the same abstract idea as addressed in the independent claims that falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” abstract idea grouping and which are details directly in support of the commercial ride-sharing transaction. Accordingly, these steps are part of the same abstract idea(s) set forth in the independent claims. The additional elements recited in the dependent claims include: wherein the requestor computing device includes a GPS radio (claim 5), other requestor computing device (claim 8), a transportation management system (claim 16). However, these elements are recited at a high level of generality and fail to yield any discernible improvement to the computer or to any technology, nor set forth any additional function or result that provided meaningful limitation beyond linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., automated/computing environment), and thus fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. When evaluated under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B, these additional elements do not amount to a practical application or significantly more since they merely require generic computing devices (or computer-implemented instructions/code) which as noted in the discussion of the independent claims above is not enough to render the claims as eligible.
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 generic computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
For more information, see MPEP 2106.
Allowable Subject Matter
17. Claims 1-20 are allowable over prior art. With respect to independent claim 1, the closest prior art, Gururajan (Patent No.: US 10,248,913 B1) and Klein et al. (Pub. No.: US 2017/0169366 A1, collectively teach features for receiving an indication that a transportation application has been initialized on a requestor computing device to request a shared ride, the shared ride including one or more ridesharing constraints that are to be maintained throughout the shared ride; analyzing one or more current dispatch conditions affecting dispatch of one or more transportation provider devices to the computing device, wherein each transportation provider device includes a global positioning system (GPS) radio configured to provide dynamically updated, real time location information for each transportation provider device; according to the analysis, predicting a likelihood that the requestor will pay a higher price for less uncertainty in overall ride time based on the current dispatch conditions; and instructing the computing device to at least temporarily present the ephemeral ride mode within a user interface of the transportation application as a selectable option based on the determination [See Office Action mailed 02/09/2026 for prior art citations pertinent to the above-noted subject matter].
However, with respect to amended independent claim 1, while Gururajan describes that “the processor is configured to compute objective values for the trip booking options, each trip booking option temporarily assigned to a vehicle to compute a corresponding objective value. Vehicles are temporarily assigned to different trip booking options in order to compute the objective values, as the assigned vehicle may impact the objective value. The objective values provide a change in one or more of level of ride share or efficiency, violation of passenger(s) targeted pickup time, violation of passenger(s) targeted arrive-before time, route deviation, vehicle operating cost, in-transit operating cost, vehicle itinerary and vehicle distance travelled, and time travelled” (col. 1, lines 45-66), a threshold (col. 20, lines 31-35, discussing that passenger may be able to indicate a tolerance threshold for relative delay when establishing a trip booking request. A passenger may be able to incorporate the tolerance threshold as part of a travel window (depart after and arrive before times) included with the trip booking request; col. 34, lines 38-49, discussing that the optimization process may be designed to first optimize the ride-sharing itineraries so as to optimize a first variable, such as total passengers served or total vehicle operating cost, while ensuring that a second variable is within a threshold (e.g., the average relative delay is within 0.5). Gururajan generally discloses an optimization based ridesharing system that computes objective values for candidate trip assignments and, in some cases, apply threshold constraints (i.e., delay tolerance). However, Gururajan does not teach or suggest determining a real-time match efficiency rating derived for dynamically updated vehicle location data and ridesharing constraint and then comparing that match efficiency rating to a threshold to enable an ephemeral ride mode on a transportation application. Instead, Gururajan focuses on iterative optimization of trip booking assignments ad cost/efficiency trade-offs within an optimization framework, without disclosing a predictive likelihood based condition an lysis of conditional activation of a temporary ride mode based on a match efficiency threshold, as require by claim 1. Gururajan, Klein et al., and the other prior art of record does not teach wherein the analysis comprises determining a match efficiency rating based on the dynamically updated, real time location information for each transportation provider device and the one or more ridesharing constraints and comparing the match efficiency rating to a threshold; and determining, based on the predicted likelihood, that the current dispatch conditions allow for an ephemeral ride mode to be offered on the transportation application when the match efficiency rating meets the threshold, as required by amended claim 1.
The Chan-Kroeger combination does not teach the specific process required by claim 1. Chan and Kroeger describe a system for presenting project scheduling information in combination with workflow information and s system for scheduling and document management integration, respectively. In contrast, claim 1 recites a more intricate process including determining a match efficiency rating based on the dynamically updated, real time location information for each transportation provider device and the one or more ridesharing constraints and comparing the match efficiency rating to a threshold; and determining, based on the predicted likelihood, that the current dispatch conditions allow for an ephemeral ride mode to be offered on the transportation application when the match efficiency rating meets the threshold.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The claims are directed to allowable subject matter because the prior art of record either individually or in combination does not teach: “A system comprising: a non-transitory memory; and one or more hardware processors configured to execute instructions from the non- transitory memory to perform operations comprising: receiving an indication that a transportation application has been initialized on a requestor computing device to request a shared ride, the shared ride including one or more ridesharing constraints that are to be maintained throughout the shared ride; analyzing one or more current dispatch conditions affecting dispatch of one or more transportation provider devices to the requestor computing device, wherein each transportation provider device includes a global positioning system (GPS) radio configured to provide dynamically updated, real time location information for each transportation provider device, wherein the analysis comprises determining a match efficiency rating based on the dynamically updated, real time location information for each transportation provider device and the one or more ridesharing constraints and comparing the match efficiency rating to a threshold; according to the analysis, predicting a likelihood that the requestor will pay a higher price for less uncertainty in overall ride time based on the current dispatch conditions; determining, based on the predicted likelihood, that the current dispatch conditions allow for an ephemeral ride mode to be offered on the transportation application when the match efficiency rating meets the threshold; and instructing the requestor computing device to at least temporarily present the ephemeral ride mode within a user interface of the transportation application as a selectable option based on the determination,” as recited in amended claim 1, “A computer-implemented method comprising: receiving an indication that a transportation application has been initialized on a requestor computing device to request a shared ride, the shared ride including one or more ridesharing constraints that are to be maintained throughout the shared ride; analyzing one or more current dispatch conditions affecting dispatch of one or more transportation provider devices to the requestor computing device, wherein each transportation provider device includes a global positioning system (GPS) radio configured to provide dynamically updated, real time location information for each transportation provider device, wherein the analysis comprises determining a match efficiency rating based on the dynamically updated, real time location information for each transportation provider device and the one or more ridesharing constraints and comparing the match efficiency rating to a threshold; according to the analysis, predicting a likelihood that the requestor will pay a higher price for less uncertainty in overall ride time based on the current dispatch conditions; determining, based on the predicted likelihood, that the current dispatch conditions allow for an ephemeral ride mode to be offered on the transportation application when the match efficiency rating meets the threshold; and instructing the requestor computing device to at least temporarily present the ephemeral ride mode within a user interface of the transportation application as a selectable option based on the determination,” as recited in amended claim 15, and “A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising computer-readable instructions that, when executed by at least one processor of a computer, cause the computer to: receive an indication that a transportation application has been initialized on a requestor computing device to request a shared ride, the shared ride including one or more ridesharing constraints that are to be maintained throughout the shared ride; analyze one or more current dispatch conditions affecting dispatch of one or more transportation provider devices to the requestor computing device, wherein each transportation provider device includes a global positioning system (GPS) radio configured to provide dynamically updated, real time location information for each transportation provider device, wherein the analysis comprises determining a match efficiency rating based on the dynamically updated, real time location information for each transportation provider device and the one or more ridesharing constraints and comparing the match efficiency rating to a threshold; according to the analysis, predict a likelihood that the requestor will pay a higher price for less uncertainty in overall ride time based on the current dispatch conditions; determine, based on the predicted likelihood, that the current dispatch conditions allow for an ephemeral ride mode to be offered on the transportation application when the match efficiency rating meets the threshold; and instruct the requestor computing device to at least temporarily present the ephemeral ride mode within a user interface of the transportation application as a selectable option based on the determination,” as recited in amended claim 20, thus rendering claims 1-20 as allowable over prior art. However, these claims are not allowable because they remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hayama et al., Patent No.: US 11,107,019 B2 – describes that the dispatch can determine whether this driver is to be selected to provide transport service for the second user. The dispatch can make this determination by performing score computations that are based, at least in part, on the first pickup location, the second pick up location, the first destination location, and the second destination location. For example, for each candidate driver in the pool, the score compute of the dispatch can determine scores associated with that candidate driver based on the first pickup location (or the current location of that candidate driver if the respective user has been picked up), the second pick up location, the first destination location, and the second destination location.
Vora et al., Patent No.: US 11,238,555 B2 – describes that mid-ride opportunities to switch transportation option may be presented for a limited time (e.g., twenty seconds) before being withdrawn.
Horn, Mark ET. "Fleet scheduling and dispatching for demand-responsive passenger services." Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies 10.1 (2002): 35-63 – describes a software system designed to manage the deployment of a fleet of demand-responsive passenger vehicles.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DARLENE GARCIA-GUERRA whose telephone number is (571) 270-3339. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30a.m.-5:00p.m. EST.
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, Brian M. Epstein can be reached on (571) 270-5389. 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.
/Darlene Garcia-Guerra/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights