DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This communication is a first action on the merits. Claims 1-20, as originally filed, are pending and have been considered as follows.
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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 (system), claim 9 (non-transitory computer-readable medium), and claim 17 (method) are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over:
Claim 1 (method), claim 8 (system), and claim 15 (non-transitory computer readable medium) of U.S. Patent No. 9,898,791 B1 (App. No. 15/432,766);
Claim 1 (method), claim 8 (system), and claim 15 (non-transitory computer readable medium) of U.S. Patent No. 10,937,115 B2 (App. No. 15/866,284);
Claim 2 (system), claim 18 (method), and claim 21 (non-transitory computer-readable medium) of U.S. Patent No. 11,599,964 B2 (App. No. 17/188,898); and
Claim 1 (system), claim 9 (non-transitory computer-readable medium), and claim 17 (method) of U.S. Patent No. 12,488,408 B2 (App. No. 18/116,803).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are anticipated by the reference claims and are merely a slightly broader version of the parent patent claims, where the differences are not patentably distinct:
Instant Case
Application 19/011,385
Claim 1 (system)
Parent Case
Patent No. 9,898,791
Claim 8 (system)
Parent Case
Patent No. 10,937,115
Claim 8 (system)
Parent Case
Patent No. 11,599,964
Claim 2 (system)
Parent Case
Patent No. 12,488,408
Claim 1 (system)
A network computer system comprising:
one or more processors; a memory to store a set of instructions; wherein the one or more processors execute the set of instructions to perform operations comprising:
A network computer system comprising:
one or more processors; and
one or more memory resources storing instructions that, when
executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
A network computer system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more memory resources storing instructions that, when
executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
A network computer system implementing a transport service, the
network computer system comprising: one or more processors; and
a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the network computer system to:
A network computer system comprising:
one or more processors;
a memory to store a set of instructions;
wherein the one or more processors execute the set of instructions to perform operations comprising:
monitoring a service provider operating a vehicle within a region to determine a current location of the service provider, the service provider being associated with a destination filter mode setting;
receive, over a network, provider data corresponding to a
specified destination and a deadline from a service provider;
track a current location of the service provider through a device
equipped with one or more location-based resources;
receive, over a network, provider data corresponding to a
specified destination and a deadline from a service provider;
track a current location of the service provider through a device
equipped with a location-based resource;
receive, over a network, a specified destination and a deadline corresponding to a service provider;
track a current location of the service provider through a service
provider device equipped with a location-based resource;
communicating, using the provider management interface with a provider device of a service provider to receive provider data, the provider data identifying each of (i) a current location of the service provider though a location-based resource of the provider device, and (ii) a selection of a deadline filter mode by the service provider, the selection of the deadline filter mode indicating a provider-
specified destination and a deadline time;
tracking the current location of the service provider by periodically communicating with the provider device using the provider management interface;
prior to a deadline indicated by the destination filter mode setting, determining that a travel time or distance between the current location of the
service provider and a specified destination of the destination filter mode setting is
within a threshold;
upon determining that the travel time added to a current time is
within a programmed threshold of the deadline,
upon determining that the travel time added to a current time is
within a programmed threshold of the deadline,
(ii) determine whether the service provider is capable of fulfilling the service request and traveling to the specified destination before the deadline
determining whether to implement a deadline filter mode for the service provider based at least in part on the provider-specified destination, the deadline time and the current location of the service provider;
based at least in part on the determination, implementing a destination filter
mode for the service provider by: for each of multiple service requests received after the destination filter mode is implemented, determining an expected time for the service provider to complete the service request and then travel to the specified
destination;
querying one or more mapping resources to determine travel
time on a route from the current location to the specified destination for the service provider in a first mode, wherein the travel time is based at least on a distance between the current location and the specified destination, traffic conditions, and time to perform aspects of one or more services associated with the network computer system; and
transmitting, to the device, a notification to the service provider to change from a first
mode to a second mode in which the network computer system;
query one or more mapping resources to determine travel time
on a route from the current location to the specified destination for the service provider; and
transmit, to the
device, a notification to the service provider to change operation of a
service application running on the device from a first mode to a second mode, wherein when the service application operates in the second mode, the network computer system:
(i) query one or more mapping resources to determine a first expected travel time from the current location to the service start location, a second expected travel time from the service start location to the service destination, and a third expected travel time from the service destination to the specified destination;
based at least in part on the first expected travel time, the second expected travel time, the third expected travel time, and expected additional time to provide services; and
in response to determining to implement the deadline filter mode for service the provider…
while the service provider is in the deadline filter mode, using a mapping engine to repeatedly estimate a duration for the service provider to reach the provider-specified destination while providing services to requesters along the way, including updating the estimate based on the current location of the service provider;
based on the expected time, filtering the multiple service requests to identify a subset of service requests for which the service provider is to be a candidate; and
matching the service provider to at least one of the subset of service
requests.
based on the current location of the service provider, filters out requests for service which have a service start location and a service destination that are not within a threshold distance
from a point on the route between the current location and the specified destination.
based on the current location of the service provider, filters out requests for service which have a service start location and a service destination that are not within a threshold distance
from a point on the route between the current location and the specified destination.
(iii) based at least in part on determining that the service
provider is capable of fulfilling the service request and traveling to the specified destination before the deadline, identify the service provider
as a candidate for fulfilling the service request.
transmitting, over one or more networks, information about the selected service request to the provider device.
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea without significantly more and are merely requiring generic computer implementation, which fails to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. In view of the two-step test regarding determining subject matter eligibility, Examiner submits that the independent claim(s) 1, 9, and 17 recite(s) a system, a non-transitory computer-readable medium, and a method to filter requests by destination and deadline. Therefore, the claims as a whole are considered as being in a statutory category under Step 1 of the test.
Regarding Step 2A, prong 1, Examiner submits that the claims as a whole are directed to a judicially recognized exception that is an abstract idea. The claimed invention is drawn to an abstract idea of filtering requests by destination and deadline, by specifically including one or more processors and a memory to execute the set of instructions to perform operations comprising: “monitoring a service provider operating a vehicle within a region to determine a current location of the service provider, the service provider being associated with a destination filter mode setting”; “prior to a deadline indicated by the destination filter mode setting, determining that a travel time or distance between the current location of the service provider and a specified destination of the destination filter mode setting is within a threshold”; “based at least in part on the determination, implementing a destination filter mode for the service provider by: for each of multiple service requests received after the destination filter mode is implemented, determining an expected time for the service provider to complete the service request and then travel to the specified destination”; “based on the expected time, filtering the multiple service requests to identify a subset of service requests for which the service provider is to be a candidate”; and “matching the service provider to at least one of the subset of service requests”. The limitations of at least “…determining that a travel time or distance between the current location of the service provider and a specified destination of the destination filter mode setting is within a threshold” and “determining an expected time for the service provider to complete the service request and then travel to the specified destination” is drawn to performing calculations relating to determining if a time or distance is within a threshold and determining the total time to complete a request and travel to a particular destination, which is drawn to the abstract idea grouping of Mathematical Concepts (i.e. mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations). Furthermore, the limitations of at least “…implementing a destination filter mode for the service provider by: for each of multiple service requests received after the destination filter mode is implemented, determining an expected time for the service provider to complete the service request and then travel to the specified destination”; “based on the expected time, filtering the multiple service requests to identify a subset of service requests for which the service provider is to be a candidate”; and “matching the service provider to at least one of the subset of service requests”, as drafted are drawn to a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, falls within the abstract idea grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (i.e. commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activity or behaviors; business relations; or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). If a claim limitation/invention, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be construed as describing advertising, marketing or sales activity or behaviors, business relations, or the managing of personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2A, prong 2, Examiner submits that the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Examiner submits that the claims at hand in fact do not include any recitation of additional elements in the claim beyond the judicial exception that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. To be considered statutory, the claims require an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. In this regard, Examiner submits that there are no such additional elements that improve the functioning of a computer to any other technology or technical field, apply or use a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment, apply the judicial exception with or by use of a particular machine, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2B drawn to determining if the claim recites additional elements amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception, Examiner submits that the claims in fact do not include any recitation of additional elements that would constitute anything significantly more. In particular, the claim only recites the additional element of one or more processors and a memory to store a set of instructions to perform the steps of the invention. The processor in the claimed steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of computing or processing) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. 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 and amount(s) to no more than: (i) mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, and/or (ii) recitation of generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Furthermore, Examiner relies on the court decisions discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) as noting the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s). Therefore, these claim limitations, either individually or as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself and do not transform the nature of the claim from the judicial exception into a patent-eligible application. The claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20, the dependent claims do not include any additional elements that constitute statutory matter. The dependent claims are directed to the same abstract idea as recited in the independent claims and have been found to either recite additional details that are part of the abstract idea itself (when analyzed under Step 2A Prong One), or include additional details that, when analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B, recite additional elements that fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A Prong Two) and fail to add significantly more to the abstract idea (Step 2B). The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claims) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The dependent claims also recite steps that together with the independent claims are accomplishing the overall process of filtering requests by destination and deadline, which falls within the abstract idea grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (i.e. commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activity or behaviors; business relations; or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). Furthermore, at least claims 5 and 13 include limitations that as drafted, are drawn to performing calculations regarding determining an expected time to arrival, which is drawn to the abstract idea grouping of Mathematical Concepts (i.e. mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations). Accordingly, the dependent claims are drawn to an abstract idea.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are to be allowed upon the resolution of the pending double patenting and 101 rejections.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sweeney et al. (US 2015/0161564 A1) teaches of a system and method for optimizing selection of drivers for transport requests.
Khanna et al. (US 2015/0206267 A1) teaches of systems and methods for providing a transportation marketplace.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHLEY Y YOUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-5294. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays, Tuesdays, and Thursdays, 9:00a-3:00p, 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, Beth Boswell can be reached at (571) 272-6737. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ASHLEY Y YOUNG/Examiner, Art Unit 3625
/BETH V BOSWELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights