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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in response to amendment filed on 16 April 2026. Claims 21, 22, 28 and 29 have been amended. Claims 1-20 have been cancelled. Claims 21-40 are currently pending and have been examined.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 16 April 2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of patent application number of 12,190,297 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
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.
Step 1: The claims 21-27 are a method , claims 28-34 are a system and claims 35-40 are medium. Thus, each independent claim, on its face, is directed to one of the statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. §101. However, the claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A-Prong 1: independent claims (21, 28 and 35) recite “ identifying a virtual queue of one or more vehicles scheduled for service at a vehicle service center comprising a set of sequential stations for servicing vehicles in a sequential order, the one or more vehicles comprising a vehicle associated with a transportation matching system”; determining, for the virtual queue, a predefined progression rate defining a per-station maximum amount of time to perform a station service; determining, in response to adding the vehicle associated with the transportation matching system to the virtual queue, a set of resources associated with the vehicle service center for performing one or more station services at the set of sequential stations on the one or more vehicles; dispatching the vehicle associated with the transportation matching system to the vehicle service center in accordance with a position of the vehicle in the virtual queue. These limitation, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers managing a queue and allocating resources based on predefined rates and complexities. This is a fundamental management, logistics, and scheduling principle that has been in use in various forms. These limitations fall within “Certain Methods Of
Organizing Human Activity” for commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the
form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors;
business relations). Futher the claims also covers in principle managing a simplified version of this system (e.g., manager at a service a service center making decision based on vehicle types, skill level of workers and task lists) performance of the limitation in the mind, the claims also recite a mental process. Simply put, these limitation merely describe facilitating the completion of transportation requests each day, which is clearly a business arrangement in its purest form.
Claims 22-27, 29-34 and 36-40, merely provide additional abstract concepts and narrow the abstract idea of claims 21, 28 and 35. Further, claims 21-40 are recited at such a high level that the claimed steps amount to no more than a mental processes, such as concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) because a human can instruct to dispatching the vehicle to the vehicle service center in accordance with the vehicle’s position.
Step 2A-Prong 2: The claims recited additional elements of a “computer-implemented method” and “executing on a processor” , which uses a generic computer component (processor , memory) is recited at high level of generality , i.e., as a generic processor and memory for performing the generic functions of identifying, determining and dispatching steps. The recited
recites conventional computer components and generic software functions to implement the abstract idea. The "transportation matching system" and "vehicle service center" are mentioned as the environment for the abstract process, but the claim doesn't focus on a specific, unconventional technological solution to a technical problem. Merely stating the method is "computer-implemented" or "executing on a processor" with a memory is considered a generic use of a computer and does not add an inventive concept. The claims does not recite an improvement to the computer's functionality itself (e.g., a specific improvement to memory storage, data retrieval speed, or network communication).
The dynamically allocating resources based on rate and complexity limitation is also recited at high level of generality but as viewed a result-oriented limitation using a known optimization or scheduling algorithm without describing a specific, inventive application or improvement in computer technology itself. The claims does not recite an improvement to the computer's functionality itself beyond the abstract logic. The "predefined progression rate" is a mathematical or business rule, not a technical improvement. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claims are ineligible.
The closest prior to the applicants’ claimed invention:
Wu (US Pub., No., 2010/0293030 A1) focused on a vehicle-dispatching system includes a service center and a plurality of hosts disposed in respective vehicles. For equally distributing the chances of accepting a reserved vehicle service task, a vehicle-dispatching method is provided. Firstly, the service center is in communication with the hosts of respective vehicles, thereby establishing a database and a dispatching priority ranking table (abstract), select the vehicle matching one or more specified vehicle-requiring conditions according to the dispatching priority ranking table (Fig. 7, 702), dispatching priority ranking table in the service center (paragraphs [0005]-[0008]) , dispatching priority ranking table is shown in table 1 (paragraphs [0031] and the priority value is directed to the priority ranking in inquiring the received vehicle service task-taking (paragraph [0032]) and vehicles matching the one or more specified vehicle-requiring conditions are selected according to the dispatching priority ranking table (Step 702) (paragraph [0037]).
Slattery et al (US Pub., No., 2019/0139258 A1) discloses systems and methods for determining the amount of time that an object occupies a predetermined space are provided. In one implementation, a system comprises a sensor configured to determine a start time when a recognizable object enters a predetermined space. The sensor is further configured to determine an end time when the recognizable object leaves the predetermined space. The system also includes a processing device configured to determine an elapsed time, based on the start time and the end time, when the recognizable object remains in the predetermined space(abstract), determine that service time are too long, the business (e.g., quick oil change facilitates, ASRs or other stores or shops) (paragraph [0025]), locations or zones may include service bays of a quick lubrication oil change business (paragraph [0031]) and an oil change shop, the object/ space tracking module 42 can monitor whether a vehicle is positioned in a bay where an oil change can be conducted (paragraph [0034])
Briggs et al (US Patent No., 9, 940,596 B1) discloses methods, computer-readable media, software, and apparatuses provide a system for establishing base stations and allocating service vehicles to the base stations in order to provide roadside assistance. The system may include computing devices associated with customer vehicles and service vehicles as well as network computing devices. The system may receive a service request from a customer regarding a disabled vehicle. The system may then identify an appropriate service vehicle to assist the customer and assign the service request to the identified service vehicle.
Kovach et al (US Pub., No., 2019/0080274 A1) discloses a device may receive video of a facility from an image capture system. The video may show an individual within the facility, an object within the facility, or an activity being performed within the facility. The device may process the video using a technique to identify the individual within the facility, the object within the facility, or the activity being performed within the facility.
None of the above reference either alone or in combination teaches or suggests that identifying a virtual queue of one or more vehicles scheduled for vehicle maintenance service at a vehicle service center comprising a set of sequential stations for performing vehicle maintenance services on vehicles that physically progress station-by-station within the vehicle service center in a sequential order, the one or more vehicles comprising a vehicle associated with a transportation matching system; determining, for the virtual queue, a predefined progression rate defining a per-station maximum amount of time to perform a station service wherein the statin service comprises an oil change, a tire rotation, brake work, a filter replacement, or routine vehicle maintenance service and dispatching the vehicle associated with the transportation matching system to the vehicle service center for vehicle maintenance servicing in accordance with a position of the vehicle in the virtual queue the vehicle maintenance servicing comprising at least one station service for dynamically allocating during progression of the one or more vehicles through the set of sequential station.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments of 35 U.S.C 101 rejections with respect to claim 21-40 filed on 16 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants’ arguments of in the specification, the claimed system improves operation of vehicle service system by managing a virtual queue of vehicles schedule for vehicles maintenance server at a vehicle server center having sequentially station through which vehicles physically progress and by enforcing a predefined progression rage a per-station maximum service time is not persuasive. The claims as drafted is, a process, under its broadest reasonable intepration the clams covers queue-tracking, vehicle scheduling and maintenance systems, as well as managing virtual queue falls into organizing human activity rather than a concrete technical improvement. Simply put, these limitation merely describe managing wait time(like taking a “take-a-number” ticket) using a generic software or hardware which is clearly a business arrangement in its purest form. In order to overcome the 35 U.S.C 101 rejection, the claims must integrate the idea into a practical, technological application.
Applicants’ arguments of among other advantage lays out how the system evaluates service complexity across multiple vehicles and determines whether to and executes an operation to dispatch a vehicle based on whether the vehicle and other vehicles can proceed through the sequential station in accordance with the predefined progression rate is not persuasive. The above concept interpreted as performing mental processes or basic data organization. Because the claim focuses on the concept of managing traffic/dispatching, rather than how the computer specifically achieves this, and lacks a specific technological improvement.
Applicant further argued that the system dynamically allocates resources (e.g., technician equipment) across the sequentially stations during progression of vehicles based on service complexity, thereby maintaining the predefined progression rate and improving thought put and predictability of the service progress is not persuasive. The dynamic allocation of resources and monitoring of progression rates as a mental process, an economic principle, or a mathematical algorithm for managing business/service operations. Furthermore, which is merely automating this abstract process by stating it happens on generic "technician equipment" or a standard computer is not enough. The law dictates that simply applying known technology to an abstract idea does not make it patent-eligible.
Applicants’ arguments of the claimed system improves operation of a vehicle service center performing physical maintenance service on vehicles by coordinating progression of vehicles through sequentially service station and dynamically allocating resource to maintenance a controlled server flow rather than merely implanting a method of organizing human activity is not persuasive. In order to overcome the 35 U.S.C 101 rejection the applicant must amend the claims to recite specific, concrete mechanisms and technical improvements rather than just functional results rather than coordinating vehicle progression through service stations and allocating resources using a server. To make applicants’ system patent-eligible, the claims must reflect a specific improvement to computer/machine functionality or require tangible, unconventional physical actions.
Applicants’ arguments of the currently amended independent claims cannot be practically performed by human mind is not persuasive. As indicated above, the claims are directed to an abstract idea, the amended limitation provide no improvement to specific improvement to computer/machine functionality or require tangible, unconventional physical actions. Thus, the 35 U.S.C 101 rejections with respect to claims 21-40 is maintained.
Due to amendment to the claims the 35 U.S.C 103 rejections has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SABA DAGNEW whose telephone number is (571)270-3271. The examiner can normally be reached 9-6:45.
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, Waseem Ashraf can be reached at (571) 270 -3948. 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.
/SABA DAGNEW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621
Prosecution Insights