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 . Claims 1-20 have been examined.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: Fig. 4, reference number 424. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claims 1-20 are directed toward a system, non-transitory computer-readable medium and method. Therefore, it can be seen that they fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention. However, the claims clearly do not meet the three-prong test for patentability.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and/or
Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A computer system comprising:
one or more processors;
memory resources storing a set of instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computer system to perform operations comprising:
associating an intended destination with a service provider when the service provider operates a vehicle to travel along a route within a geographic region;
receiving multiple service requests for transport from multiple customers, each service request specifying at least one of a pickup location or a destination location that is within the geographic region; and
determining whether the service provider is to fulfill one or more of the multiple service requests, wherein determining whether the service provider is to fulfill one or more of the multiple service requests includes filtering out at least a first service request of the multiple service requests based on the intended destination of the service provider and at least the destination location specified by the first service request.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bold limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” and/or “certain methods of organizing human activity” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “associating an intended destination with a service provider” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally analyzing the data and operating a vehicle to travel along a route within a geographic region. Similarly, the limitation of “determining whether the service provider is to fulfill one or more of the multiple service requests” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally determining whether the service provider is to fulfill one or more of the multiple service requests and filtering out at least a first service request of the multiple service requests based on the intended destination of the service provider and at least the destination location specified by the first service request. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrated the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea , adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A computer system comprising:
one or more processors;
memory resources storing a set of instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computer system to perform operations comprising:
associating an intended destination with a service provider when the service provider operates a vehicle to travel along a route within a geographic region;
receiving multiple service requests for transport from multiple customers, each service request specifying at least one of a pickup location or a destination location that is within the geographic region; and
determining whether the service provider is to fulfill one or more of the multiple service requests, wherein determining whether the service provider is to fulfill one or more of the multiple service requests includes filtering out at least a first service request of the multiple service requests based on the intended destination of the service provider and at least the destination location specified by the first service request.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “receiving multiple service requests for transport from multiple customers, each service request specifying at least one of a pickup location or a destination location that is within the geographic region”, the examiner submits that these limitations are mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract ideal (MPEP § 2106.05). Lastly, the “one or more processors” recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing data. This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, 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, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Notably, there is no actual use or presentation of the motion plans, such as controlling the vehicle.
101 Analysis - Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using one or more processors to perform the determining ... amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “receiving multiple service requests for transport from multiple customers, each service request specifying at least one of a pickup location or a destination location that is within the geographic region”, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities as previously discussed.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well- understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “receiving multiple service requests for transport from multiple customers” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the specification does not provide any indication that the user device is anything other than a conventional computer. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (i.e., further characterizing the receipt of data and the mental processes). Therefore, dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claims 1, 8, and 15.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 6-10, 13-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Denise (US 8,718,926 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Denise discloses a computer system, comprising:
one or more processors (Fig. 3, processor 340);
memory resources storing a set of instructions (Fig. 3, data store 320, memory 370) that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computer system to perform operations comprising:
associating an intended destination with a service provider when the service provider operates a vehicle to travel along a route within a geographic region (Fig. 36 illustrates a system 300 receives a request for directions and identifies the particular user or particular device that is requesting directions based on the requests);
receiving multiple service requests for transport from multiple customers, each service request specifying at least one of a pickup location or a destination location that is within the geographic region (Col. 2, lines 9-16, Fig. 1 includes a user interface of a navigation device that has a mapping display area 101 that provides a display of a map of an area corresponding to a current position of a navigation device. The mapping display area 101 may display streets, points of interest, geographical elements (e.g., lakes, fields, etc.), routing information, coordinates, compass directions, etc.); and
determining whether the service provider is to fulfill one or more of the multiple service requests, wherein determining whether the service provider is to fulfill one or more of the multiple service requests includes filtering out at least a first service request of the multiple service requests based on the intended destination of the service provider and at least the destination location specified by the first service request (Col. 9, lines 2-19, the system 300 determines whether or not the direction was followed (530). After identifying an instance in which an electronic navigation system has provided a direction to follow, the system 300 monitors position data (e.g., using data from the position detector 360) to determine whether the identified direction was or was not properly followed by the user. For example, the system 300 may access GPS position data describing a route taken (or being taken) by the navigation device of the user and compare the GPS position data to the route defined by the direction. In this example, the system 300 determines that the direction was followed when the comparison reveals that the route taken (or being taken) by the navigation device of the user matches the route defined by the direction and determines that the direction was not properly followed when the comparison reveals that the route taken (or being taken) by the navigation device of the user does not match the route defined by the direction).
Regarding claim 2, Denise discloses the computer system of claim 1, as stated above, wherein the operations further comprise:
associating a direction of travel with the service provider; and wherein filtering out at least the first service request is further based at least in part on the direction of travel (Col. 9, lines 20-53, the system 300 may identifies one or more attributes associated with the direction (540). In addition to determining whether or not the direction was followed, the system 300 may identify any attributes associated with the provided direction that may be helpful in assisting users with following similar types of directions in the future).
Regarding claim 3, Denise discloses the computer system of claim 1, as stated above, wherein the operations further comprise:
selecting the service provider for a second service request of the multiple service requests based at least in part on the intended destination, and at least one of a pickup location or a destination location of the second service request (Col. 32, lines 27-37, the system 300 may modify a number of directions presented to a user at one time. For instance, the system 300 may present multiple directions to a user at one time to enable the user to perceive the multiple directions in advance and foreshadow the route that is being followed. Presenting multiple directions in advance may assist a user in following a route because the user may be more prepared for upcoming directions than in an approach that displays one direction at a time, particularly when the system 300 presents a series of directions at a relatively high frequency when providing electronic navigation along the route).
Regarding claim 6, Denise discloses the computer system of claim 1, as stated above, wherein the operations further comprise:
determining the intended destination of the service provider by analyzing historical location data of the service provider (Col. 4, lines 43-67).
Regarding claim 7, Denise discloses the computer system of claim 6, as stated above, wherein determining the intended destination of the service provider includes determining a frequent route of the service provider, based on the historical location data of the service provider (Col. 14, lines 35-43).
Regarding claims 8-10 and 13-14, the elements contained in claims 8-10 and 13-14 are substantially similar to elements presented in claims 1-3 and 6-7, respectively, except that it set forth the claimed invention as a non-transitory computer-readable medium rather than a system and are rejected for the same reasons as applied above.
Regarding claims 15-17 and 19-20, the elements contained in claims 15-17 and 19-20 are substantially similar to elements presented in claims 1-3 and 6-7, respectively, except that it set forth the claimed invention as a method rather than a system and are rejected for the same reasons as applied above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Subject to the resolution of the 35 U.S.C 101 set forth above, claims 4-5, 11-12, and 18 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See attached form PTO-892.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Luke Huynh whose telephone number is 571-270-5746. The examiner can normally be reached Mon 8-5, Tues 8-12, Thurs & Fri 8-2.
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, Hitesh Patel can be reached at 571-270-5442. 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.
/LUKE HUYNH/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
06/16/2026
Prosecution Insights