DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4 August 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the response and amendments filed on 14 July 2026, and the request for continued examination filed on 4 August 2026. 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 and 10 have been amended.
Claims 7 and 16 are cancelled.
Claims 2-6, 8-9, 11-15, and 17-18 are original / previously presented.
Claims 1-6, 8-15, and 17-18 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the previous 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 7 and 16, the Applicant has successfully amended and/or cancelled the claims, and accordingly the rejection is rescinded.
Regarding the Applicant’s arguments filed regarding the previous 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 1-6, 9-15, and 17-18, the arguments have been considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible because “Amended independent claims 1 and 10 are not directed to an abstract idea of organizing human activity or mental processes” (Remarks pg. 6). Examiner disagrees. Claims 1 and 10 both recite certain methods of organizing human activities. The limitations of defining, a search area divided into a plurality of cells, wherein the plurality of cells are generated and continuously updated using stream aggregation of location updates of provider[s]… an aggregated count of the plurality of provider[s].. per cell, the search area having a location as a centre point of the search area, the location being indicated in a request for a driver from a requestor, wherein a size of each cell is inversely proportional to a relative distance between each cell and the centre point of the search area; determining, in real-time, a number of provider[s]… located in each cell of the plurality of cells based on aggregated location information… for each cell relating to the location updates of the driver, each provider… associated with a driver located within the search area; estimating, in real time and in response to the request for the driver, based on the aggregated location information, a time of arrival of a driver at the location using at least one spatial index based on a relative distance between the location and the plurality of cells based on the determined number of provider[s]; and computing, the estimated time of arrival as a weighted average across the indexed plurality of cells to display the estimated time of arrival of the driver to the requestor are certain methods of organizing human activities. These limitations each represent at least one sub-grouping including commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, and following rules or instructions. For example, commercial or legal interactions includes requesting for a driver from a requestor…, displaying the estimated time of arrival of the driver to the requestor; managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people includes defining a search area…, generating and updating the plurality of cells…, aggregating location updates…, aggregated counting of the providers per cell…, requesting for a driver from a requestor…, determining a number of providers…, aggregating location information for each cell…, estimating in response to the request and aggregated location information a time of arrival…, computing the estimated time of arrival as a weighted average…, and displaying the estimated time of arrival of the driver…; and following rules or instructions includes defining a search area… the search area having a location as a centre point…, generating and updating the plurality of cells… wherein a size of each cell is inversely proportional to a relative distance between each cell and the centre point of the search area, aggregating location updates…, aggregated counting of the providers per cell…, requesting for a driver from a requestor…, determining a number of providers…, aggregating location information for each cell…, estimating in response to the request and aggregated location information a time of arrival…, computing the estimated time of arrival as a weighted average…, and displaying the estimated time of arrival of the driver. Hence, the claim is directed to certain methods of organizing human activities. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible because “Similar to DDR Holdings, amended independent claim 1 includes computations that are not abstract commercial interactions, but are instead applied to a structured and integrated way that results in an improvement to computer-related technology” (Remarks pg. 6). Examiner disagrees. The courts found that the claims in DDR Holdings did not merely recite the performance of some business practice known from the pore-Internet world along with the requirement to perform it on the Internet, and instead the claims were necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks. First, in the Applicant’s claims, if the technology elements are removed (i.e. a server, requestor device (being a computing device associated with a user), provider devices (being a computing device associated with a driver), processor, memory, program code), the Applicant’s claims still recite an abstract idea and represent certain methods of organizing human activities in the limitations of defining, a search area divided into a plurality of cells, wherein the plurality of cells are generated and continuously updated using stream aggregation of location updates of provider[s]… an aggregated count of the plurality of provider[s].. per cell, the search area having a location as a centre point of the search area, the location being indicated in a request for a driver from a requestor, wherein a size of each cell is inversely proportional to a relative distance between each cell and the centre point of the search area; determining, in real-time, a number of provider[s]… located in each cell of the plurality of cells based on aggregated location information… for each cell relating to the location updates of the driver, each provider… associated with a driver located within the search area; estimating, in real time and in response to the request for the driver, based on the aggregated location information, a time of arrival of a driver at the location using at least one spatial index based on a relative distance between the location and the plurality of cells based on the determined number of provider[s]; and computing, the estimated time of arrival as a weighted average across the indexed plurality of cells to display the estimated time of arrival of the driver to the requestor. Second, even though the claims recite use of a computer, note that all of the claim limitation activities as part of the judicial exception could otherwise be performed manually by a person. This is no more than using the words “apply it” with the judicial exception or presenting mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. As such, the claims are not rooted in technology as the claims in DDR Holdings, and do not present significantly more than a judicial exception / abstract idea. Third, the Applicant claims do not overcome a technical problem that is rooted in a technology. The problem of computing an estimated time of arrival is a business / entrepreneurial problem that exists outside of technology, and has also existed long before the Internet. Hence, the claims do not solve a technical problem like the claims in DDR Holdings LLC. V. Hotels.com (Fed. Cir. 2014). This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible because “In particular, amended independent claim 1 describes a computer implemented method for estimating a time of arrival (ETA) of a driver at a location that not only provides ETA estimation to a user but also improves the manner in which a computing system processes real-time location data. The claimed method describes that a server defines a search area divided into a plurality of cells, the plurality of cells are generated and continuously updated using stream aggregation of location updates received from a plurality of provider devices to maintain an aggregated count of the plurality of provider devices per cell. The claimed method aggregates location updates at the cell level, thereby transforming incoming location data into a structured spatial representation. This enables the system to represent driver distribution using aggregated cell-level data rather than per-driver data. The server then determines, in real time, the number of provider devices in each cell based on aggregated location information maintained for each cell from the received location updates. By maintaining aggregated counts per cell, the server avoids repeated processing of individual driver locations and instead operates on a bounded set of spatial cells representing the search area. The search area further comprises cells whose size is inversely proportional to a relative distance from the center location, thereby providing a non-unform spatial partitioning that ensures accurate ETA predictions near the request location while reducing processing for distant regions. The server estimates the time of arrival using at least one spatial index based on the relative distance between the location and the plurality of cells and based on the determined number of provider devices in each cell. This replaces conventional point-to-point ETA computation based on individual driver locations with a spatially indexed estimation based on aggregated cell-level information. Therefore, the claimed ETA estimation is performed using a structured aggregation model rather than direct driver-level point- to-point computation. The server computes the estimated time of arrival as a weighted average across the indexed plurality of cells and displays the resulting ETA to the requestor device. Accordingly, ETA computation is performed based on aggregated spatial data derived from streaming updates, thereby enabling real-time estimation using a structured representation of driver distribution. This improves the functioning of computing systems, such as communication servers and transport applications, by modifying the underlying data representation and computation model. In particular, the claimed method replaces individual driver-level computation with cell-level aggregation, thereby reducing the need to process each driver separately and enabling scalable real-time processing of streaming location data” (Remarks pg. 6-7). Examiner disagrees. The claims do not improve the functioning of a computer itself or improve a technology. First, regarding the argument that the claims ‘improve the manner in which a computing system processes real-time location data’ and ‘improves the functioning of computing systems, such as communication servers and transport applications by modifying the underlying data representation and computation model’ is at best associated with an improvement of the judicial exception (e.g. defining a search area…, generating and updating the plurality of cells…, aggregating location updates…, aggregated counting of the providers per cell…, requesting for a driver from a requestor…, determining a number of providers…, aggregating location information for each cell…, estimating in response to the request and aggregated location information a time of arrival…, computing the estimated time of arrival as a weighted average…, and displaying the estimated time of arrival of the driver) where computers are merely applied as a tool to implement the judicial exception or in their ordinary capacity (i.e. to receive data, to store data), which is not an improvement to a computer system. No computer or computer system outside of a judicial exception is improved. The server is not improved. Second, regarding the argument that “By maintaining aggregated counts per cell, the server avoids repeated processing of individual driver locations and instead operates on a bounded set of spatial cells representing the search area” and “thereby reducing the need to process each driver separately and enabling scalable real-time processing of streaming location data”, this argued efficiency in the execution of the judicial exception by using a reduced data set as an approximation at the sacrifice of point-to-point driver precision (see Applicant Specification ¶[0037] “a sum of drivers in each cell is stored instead for usage as an approximation of driver distributions in real time. This can advantageously save up to 80% of computational cost compared to computing a K-nearest neighbor”) is also not a technical improvement, i.e. sacrificing accuracy for computational cost / storage space. Also, note BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1288 (2018 "[A]n improvement to the information stored by a database is not equivalent to an improvement in the database's functionality." Third, regarding argued benefit that “The search area further comprises cells whose size is inversely proportional to a relative distance from the center location, thereby providing a non-uniform spatial partitioning that ensures accurate ETA predictions near the request location while reducing processing for distant regions“, configuring the cell sizing to be inversely proportional to a relative distance between each cell and the centre point of the search area as claimed is part of the judicial exception (following rules or instructions). The judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. Also, the specification does not detail how a non-uniform spatial portioning ensures accurate ETA predictions near the request location. Fourth, regarding the argued benefit that this “replaces conventional point-to-point ETA computation based on individual driver locations with a spatially indexed estimation based on aggregated cell-level information”, the alleged improvement of replacing point-to-point ETA calculation (which is an abstract process) for instead using cell-based areas approximating driver distribution with less data for an indexed-based ETA calculation (which is also an abstract process) is still substituting one judicial exception for another, ‘applied’ on computers; which is not a practical application or significantly more. Hence, these alleged process improvements are not technical improvements, because the efficiency of requiring less computer resources to execute one judicial exception for another judicial exception still amounts to ‘applying’ a judicial exception on a general purpose computer; and the efficiency of using less data storage in the execution of a judicial exception (at the sacrifice of point-to-point precision) is also not a technical improvement. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible because “Further, MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) states, "if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. The claim itself does not need to explicitly recite the improvement described in the specification." Amended independent claim 1 satisfies this requirement because the amended independent claim 1 recites stream aggregation of location updates, maintenance of aggregated counts per cell, adaptive spatial partitioning using non-uniform cell sizes, and spatial indexing for ETA estimation. The claimed stream aggregation transforms driver-level data into cell-level aggregated counts. Instead of storing and updating each driver's exact location, the system maintains a count of drivers within each spatial cell, thereby representing driver distribution using aggregated data. This eliminates the need for repeated per-driver distance computations and enables the system to operate on a bounded number of cells. Further, the point-to-point ETA caching is replaced with spatial indexing based on the relative position of each cell with respect to the center location. ETA is computed using the indexed cells and aggregated counts rather than individual driver data. Accordingly, the amended independent claim 1 restructures the underlying data representation and computation model from driver-level processing to cell-level spatial aggregation, thereby enabling scalable real-time ETA estimation using a structured and reduced dataset” (Remarks pg. 7-8). Examiner disagrees. First, the alleged improvements disclosed in the Applicant specification ¶[0037], ¶[0038], ¶[0080] of saving up to 80% of computational cost compared to computing a K-nearest neighbor, using stream aggregation combined with index-based ETA reduces storage space to 62.5% compared to point-to-point ETA cache, improving data storage and computational efficiency are conclusory improvements that lack technical details regarding the improvements. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) “if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. Second, these alleged improvement of replacing K-nearest neighbor searching for point-to-point ETA calculation (which is an abstract process) for instead using cell-based areas approximating driver distribution with spatial positioning based on the relative position of the centre point (i.e. less data) for an indexed-based ETA calculation (which is also an abstract process) is still substituting one judicial exception for another, ‘applied’ on computers. The ‘efficiency’ of requiring less computer resources with a reduced data set to execute one judicial exception for another judicial exception still amounts to ‘applying’ a judicial exception on a general purpose computer which is not a practical application or significantly more. Next, the efficiency of using less storage space in the execution of a judicial exception (at the sacrifice of point-to-point precision) is also not a technical improvement. At best these are improvements to the judicial exception, not an improvement to technology. See MPEP 2106.05(f) citing Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir 2015) stating improved speed and efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f) citing Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir 2015) stating “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept”. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible because “the claimed features are not directed to 'commercial interactions,' which, as defined in MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B), include 'agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations.' They are also not directed to 'managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people,' which under MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) involves 'social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions.' Finally, the claimed features do not recite mental processes, which MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III) characterizes as activities that 'can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. Instead, amended independent claim 1 introduces a data processing technique involving continuous ingestion of streaming data, aggregation of the streaming data into a spatial structure (cell), and computation of ETA using indexed cell-level representations. The claimed features are not mental processes, as the claimed features require processing of streaming continuous location updates from multiple distributed provider devices, maintaining aggregated data (aggregated location count) across a plurality of cells, and performing real-time computations based on the continuously streaming data. Such operations cannot reasonably be performed in the human mind or by pen and paper. Accordingly, amended independent claim 1 introduces a computational framework that combines stream aggregation, spatial indexing, and aggregated data representation to process real-time location updates and compute ETA. This represents a technological improvement in how computing systems process and represent geospatial data for real-time estimation, and enhances the functioning of communication servers and transport-related systems” (Remarks pg. 8). Examiner disagrees. The claims recite certain methods of organizing human activities. First, the claimed limitations of requesting for a driver from a requestor…, display the estimated time of arrival of the driver to the requestor represent commercial interactions. These limitations are analogous to a person requesting transportation to a location by a driver, and a driver or dispatching manager presenting an estimated time of arrival to a requestor. Second, the claimed limitations of defining a search area…, generating and updating the plurality of cells…, aggregating location updates…, aggregated counting of the providers per cell…, requesting for a driver from a requestor…, determining a number of providers…, aggregating location information for each cell…, estimating in response to the request and aggregated location information a time of arrival…, computing the estimated time of arrival as a weighted average…, and displaying the estimated time of arrival of the driver each represent managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. These limitations are all activities performable by a person or people (e.g. a dispatcher defines a search area, a dispatcher generates and updates cells, a dispatcher aggregates driver location information to count drivers in each cell, a person requests a location for transportation by a driver, a dispatcher determines a number of providers, a person / dispatcher / driver estimates an estimated time of arrival, a person / dispatcher / driver computes a weighted average, and a dispatcher / driver presents an estimated time of arrival to a requestor). Third, stream aggregation, spatial indexing, and aggregated data representation to process real-time location updates and compute ETA are part of the judicial exception, and receiving location updates from multiple distributed provider devices, and maintaining aggregated data are high level additional elements that only contribute extra-solution data gathering and data storage / record keeping to the claims, and using a computer as a tool in its ordinary capacity (i.e. to receive data, to store data), which is not a practical application or significantly more. Hence, these claimed computational framework does not represent a technical improvement or improvement to technology, since the technical features amount to implementing a judicial exception with a computer and using a computer as a tool. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible because “the steps described in amended independent claim 1 are a technological improvement in the processing of streaming location data and spatial indexing systems, and are not merely directed to certain methods of organizing human activities or mental processes” (Remarks pg. 8). Examiner disagrees. First, improving the processing of received location data (for ETA calculations) at best is an improvement to a business process. The claims do not represent a new and improved technical way of streaming / receiving the location data from provider devices outside of a judicial exception. Likewise, improving spatial indexing data (for ETA calculations) is also at best an improvement to a business process. The claims do not represent a new and improved database structure outside of a judicial exception. See BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1288 (2018) "[A]n improvement to the information stored by a database is not equivalent to an improvement in the database's functionality." Second, the claims are more directed towards solving / improving a business problem (i.e. how to determine an estimated time of arrival) that is tangentially associated with a technology element (e.g. computers), rather than solving a technology based-problem or improving a technology. See Versata (2015) finding that a common business method aimed at processing business information despite being applied on a general purpose computer does not present enough for eligibility. See Ultramercial (2014) citing Alice (2014), stating “The problem was not that the asserted claims disclosed no innovation, but that it was an entrepreneurial rather than a technological one”, i.e. a business service solution solving a business problem. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible because “It is submitted that some steps of amended independent claim 1 are similar to at least claim 1 of Example 42 provided in ‘Subject Matter Eligibility Examples: Abstract Ideas,’ issued on January 07, 2019… amended independent claim 1 does not merely estimate a time of arrival of a driver at a location, but instead introduces a structured data processing approach that changes how location data is represented and processed in a computing system… In contrast to conventional techniques that rely on processing individual driver locations or performing K-nearest neighbor searches, the claimed method aggregates location data at the cell level, thereby transforming incoming driver location updates into a spatially structured representation of driver distribution” (Remarks pg. 9). Examiner disagrees. First, note that Example 42 claim 1 recites a combination of additional elements including storing information, providing remote access over a network, converting updated information that was input by a user in a non-standardized form to a standardized format, automatically generating a message whenever updated information is stored, and transmitting the message to all of the users with access. The claim as a whole in Example 42 claim 1 integrates a method of organizing human activities into a practical application. Specifically, the combination of additional elements in Example 42 claim 1 recite a specific improvement over prior art systems by allowing remote users to share information in real time in a standardized format regardless of the format in which the information was input by the user. However, the Applicant’s invention does not represent a similar combination of additional elements in particular providing remote access over a network, receiving data in any non-standardized format and converting to a standardized format, automatically generating a message whenever updated information is stored, and transmitting a message in Example 42 claim 1. To contrast Example 42 claim 1, the Applicant’s invention combination of additional elements merely adds high level routine / well known / conventional data gathering (e.g. receiving location updates / location information) and storing data (e.g. maintaining an aggregated count / aggregated location information) in a general computer environment (e.g. processor, server, devices). The Applicant’s invention as claimed does not represent a similar technical improvement as that of Example 42 claim 1 which overcame a technical deficiency regarding format inconsistencies over a network. At best, the Applicant claims are more directed towards solving a business / economic / entrepreneurial problem (i.e. how to determine an estimated time of arrival based on provider / driver location), that is tangentially associated with a technology element (e.g. computers), rather than solving a technology based problem. Second, the improvements in Applicant’s Specification ¶[0037-38] (e.g. saving up to 80% computational cost compared to computing K-nearest neighbor by using the sum of the drivers as an approximation of driver distributions instead, reducing storage space to 62.5% compared to point-to-point) are conclusory, and at best represent improvements regarding the judicial exception instead of technical improvements that may demonstrate a practical application per MPEP 2106.05(a). Also, the efficiency of using less data in the execution of a judicial exception (at the sacrifice of point-to-point precision by using an approximation) is also not a technical improvement. Hence, the Applicant’s claim 1 is not similar to USPTO Example 42 claim 1. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible because “Amended claim 1 reflects ‘an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field,’ and is not limited to a certain method of organizing human activities or mental processes, nor does it apply to generic computer components to abstract concepts, as the amended claim 1 recites a detailed workflow that integrates stream aggregation, spatial partitioning, and spatial indexing, to process real-time location data that results in optimized utilization of the computer resources” (Remarks pg. 10). Examiner disagrees. First, the computer itself is not improved outside of a judicial exception, as the invention does not improve computation processing of a computer outside of the judicial exception. Second, the argued ‘stream aggregation, spatial partitioning, and spatial indexing, to process real-time location data that results in optimized utilization of the computer resources’ at best is associated with an improvement to the judicial exception itself instead of a technical improvement, applying the judicial exception with computers. The recited stream aggregation (e.g. using stream aggregation of location updates… an aggregated count of the plurality of provider[s] per cell), spatial index (e.g. estimating in real time and in response to the request for the driver based on the aggregated location information a time of arrival of a driver at the location using at least one spatial index) and weighted average (e.g. computing the estimated time of arrival as a weighted average across the indexed plurality of cells) are part of the judicial exception. The recited certain methods of organizing human activities (e.g. defining a search area…, generating and updating the plurality of cells…, aggregating location updates…, aggregated counting of the providers per cell…, requesting for a driver from a requestor…, determining a number of providers…, aggregating location information for each cell…, estimating in response to the request and aggregated location information a time of arrival…, computing the estimated time of arrival as a weighted average…, and displaying the estimated time of arrival of the driver) are implemented by general purpose / generic computers (e.g. server, processor, requestor / provider devices), which is not indicative of integration into a practical application or significantly more. The additional element data gathering activities (e.g. stream of location updates received from a plurality of provider devices; location updates of the driver received via each provider device of the plurality of provider devices) and storing data activities (e.g. to maintain an aggregated count of the plurality of provider devices per cell; aggregated location information maintained for each cell) are recited at a high level of detail without any particular, technical details such that these represent insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception (i.e. providing the data used in the aggregation, generating / updating, determining, and estimating steps), and represent using computers in their ordinary capacity for other tasks (i.e. to receive, to store data), which is not a practical application or significantly more. Viewing the receiving location and maintaining count / location information limitations in ordered combination with the other limitations does nothing more than viewing these extra-solution data gathering and data storage activities individually. Hence, the claimed process to process location data to estimate / compute ETA is not an improvement to technology or a technical field since the high level additional elements both alone and in combination do not provide a practical application or significantly more beyond implementing a judicial exception on a computer or using computers as a tool in their ordinary capacity in an extra-solution capacity. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible in Step 2B because “amended independent claims 1 and 10 amount to ‘significantly more’ than an abstract idea” (Remarks pg. 10) and “Independent claim 1 amounts to significantly more at least because the additional elements add 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” (Remarks pg. 11) and “The elements in amended independent claim 1 are not well-understood, routine or conventional in the field because the claimed steps introduce a specific combination of data processing that transforms how real-time location data is represented and efficiently processed within a computing system that also results in an improvement to functionality of the computer system. In particular, the amended independent claim 1 recites: defining by a server a search area… plurality of cells are generated and continuously updated using stream aggregation… location updates received… to maintain an aggregated count… determining by the server in real time a number of provider devices… aggregated location maintained… location updates received… estimating by the server in real time a time of arrival… computing… These additional elements qualify as ‘significantly more’ not only because they are not generic computer functions but instead define a non-conventional arrangement of elements that operate together to process streaming geospatial data in a structured manner” (Remarks 11-12). Examiner disagrees. First, the activities of defining by a server a search area, a plurality of cells are generated and continuously updated using stream aggregation, an aggregated count, determining by the server in real time a number of provider devices, an aggregated location, estimating by the server in real time a time of arrival, and computing are activities identified in Step 2A prong one as part of the judicial exception. Judicial exception activities themselves not evaluated whether they are routine, well-understood, conventional in Step 2B. The additional element implementing these activities (e.g. server) is a generic, general purpose computer. Second, the additional elements are analyzed in Step 2B whether they are well-understood, routine, conventional activities; and whether or not these activities in their ordered combination provide significantly more. None of the additional elements (both individually and in combination) amount to significantly more in Step 2B, and the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional based on court decisions and/or the level of detail provided in the disclosure provided by the Applicant. See the Applicant’s specification Fig 8A-8B, ¶[0017-18], ¶[0104] describing the additional element of a server as a general purpose computer, demonstrating at this level of detail that use of a server is routine, well-understood, conventional. See the Applicant’s specification ¶[0006], ¶[0057] describing the additional element of a requestor device as a computing device associated with a requestor (e.g. desktop computer, smartphone, laptop computer) at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). See the Applicant’s specification ¶[0006], ¶[0060] describing the additional element of a provider device as a computing device associated with a driver (e.g. desktop computer, smartphone, mobile computer) at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). The additional element of receiving (e.g. location updates received from a plurality of provider devices; location updates of the driver received via each provider device of the plurality of provider devices) represents computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec), a computer receives and sends information over a network (buySAFE). The additional element of maintaining (e.g. to maintain an aggregated count of the plurality of provider devices per cell; aggregated location information maintained for each cell relating to the location updates of the driver) represents computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular electronic record keeping (Alice), storing and retrieving information in memory (Versata; OIP Techs). In combination, each of these additional elements and additional element activities provide no more to the judicial exception than they do individually, representing implementing a judicial exception with generic / general purpose computers (e.g. server, processor) with the addition of high level extra-solution data gathering (e.g. receiving location updates) and storing data (e.g. maintaining aggregated count / location information) using computers as a tool in their ordinary capacity and conventional functions (i.e. to receive data, to store data). See the Haber 2021 patent publication (US 11,151,849 B2) demonstrating the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the combination of additional elements (see Haber col 3 ln 58-65 detailing common data pusher GPS devices are used for personnel tracking and vehicle tracking that push the position of the device at regular intervals to a determined server that can store and instantly analyze them). Hence, the arrangement of these additional elements represents no more than a computer-based implementation that is not a practical application or significantly more. This argument is not persuasive.
Regarding the previous 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 1-18, the Applicant has successfully amended and/or cancelled the claims, and accordingly the rejection is rescinded.
Priority
This application 19/103,670 filed on 13 February 2025 is a national stage entry of PCT/SG2023/050585 filed on 28 August 2023, which claims priority from PCT/CN2022/117044 filed on 5 September 2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 13 February 2025 has been acknowledged by the Office.
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 1-6, 8-15, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-6, 8-15, and 17-18:
Step 1:
Claims 1-6, 8-9 recite a method; and claims 10-15, 17-18 recite a system. Since the claims recite either a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, the claims satisfy Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Framework in MPEP 2106 and the 2019 Patent Examination Guidelines (PEG). Analysis proceeds to Step 2A Prong One.
Step 2A – Prong One:
Claims 1-6, 8-15, and 17-18 recite an abstract idea. Independent claims 1 and 10 recite defining, a search area divided into a plurality of cells, wherein the plurality of cells are generated and continuously updated using stream aggregation of location updates of provider[s]… an aggregated count of the plurality of provider[s].. per cell, the search area having a location as a centre point of the search area, the location being indicated in a request for a driver from a requestor, wherein a size of each cell is inversely proportional to a relative distance between each cell and the centre point of the search area; determining, in real-time, a number of provider[s]… located in each cell of the plurality of cells based on aggregated location information… for each cell relating to the location updates of the driver, each provider… associated with a driver located within the search area; estimating, in real time and in response to the request for the driver, based on the aggregated location information, a time of arrival of a driver at the location using at least one spatial index based on a relative distance between the location and the plurality of cells based on the determined number of provider[s]; and computing, the estimated time of arrival as a weighted average across the indexed plurality of cells to display the estimated time of arrival of the driver to the requestor.
The claims as a whole recite certain methods of organizing human activities, and individual limitations also recite mathematical concepts.
First, the limitations of defining, a search area divided into a plurality of cells, wherein the plurality of cells are generated and continuously updated using stream aggregation of location updates of provider[s]… an aggregated count of the plurality of provider[s].. per cell, the search area having a location as a centre point of the search area, the location being indicated in a request for a driver from a requestor, wherein a size of each cell is inversely proportional to a relative distance between each cell and the centre point of the search area; determining, in real-time, a number of provider[s]… located in each cell of the plurality of cells based on aggregated location information… for each cell relating to the location updates of the driver, each provider… associated with a driver located within the search area; estimating, in real time and in response to the request for the driver, based on the aggregated location information, a time of arrival of a driver at the location using at least one spatial index based on a relative distance between the location and the plurality of cells based on the determined number of provider[s]; and computing, the estimated time of arrival as a weighted average across the indexed plurality of cells to display the estimated time of arrival of the driver to the requestor are certain methods of organizing human activities. For instance, these limitations represent the sub-groupings of commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, and following rules or instructions. For example, commercial or legal interactions includes requesting for a driver from a requestor…, displaying the estimated time of arrival of the driver to the requestor; managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people includes defining a search area…, generating and updating the plurality of cells…, aggregating location updates…, aggregated counting of the providers per cell…, requesting for a driver from a requestor…, determining a number of providers…, aggregating location information for each cell…, estimating in response to the request and aggregated location information a time of arrival…, computing the estimated time of arrival as a weighted average…, and displaying the estimated time of arrival of the driver…; and following rules or instructions includes defining a search area… the search area having a location as a centre point…, generating and updating the plurality of cells… wherein a size of each cell is inversely proportional to a relative distance between each cell and the centre point of the search area, aggregating location updates…, aggregated counting of the providers per cell…, requesting for a driver from a requestor…, determining a number of providers…, aggregating location information for each cell…, estimating in response to the request and aggregated location information a time of arrival…, computing the estimated time of arrival as a weighted average…, and displaying the estimated time of arrival of the driver. The presence of generic computer components such as a server, requestor device (being a computing device associated with a user), provider devices (being a computing device associated with a driver), processor, memory, program code does not preclude the steps from reciting certain methods of organizing human activities, since the number of people involved in the activities is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping and instead it is based on whether an activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings. Note that in the judicial exception limitations, the provider devices are computer substitutes for providers / drivers; and the requestor device is a computer substitute for a requestor. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (e.g. commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, following rules or instructions) regardless of the recitation of generic computer components or other machinery in its ordinary capacity, then it falls within the ‘Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity’ grouping of abstract ideas.
Second, the limitation of computing, the estimated time of arrival as a weighted average across the indexed plurality of cells recites a mathematical calculation that is used to compute the estimated time of arrival using an average which is a mathematical function. Thus, the claim recites a mathematical concept. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical concepts (e.g. mathematical relationships, mathematical calculations) but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the ‘Mathematical Concepts’ grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. Analysis proceeds to Step 2A Prong Two.
Step 2A – Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. First, claims 1-6, 8-15, and 17-18 as a whole merely describes how to generally ‘apply’ the concept of certain methods of organizing human activities in a computer environment. The claimed computer components (i.e. a server, requestor device (being a computing device associated with a user), provider devices (being a computing device associated with a driver), processor, memory, program code) are recited at a high-level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform manual process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on generic / general purpose computers is not a practical application of the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2016.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Next, the additional element of receiving location and its steps of stream… of location updates received from a plurality of provider devices; the location updates of the driver received via each provider device of the plurality of provider devices are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for generating and updating cells, as a general means of gathering data for aggregating counts of providers, as a general means of gathering data for aggregating location information), and amounts to mere data gathering / transmitting data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity and not a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the provider devices / computing devices (generic computers) are only being used as a tool in the receiving, which is also not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f). Note that there are no particular technical steps regarding receiving location more than using computers as a tool to perform an otherwise manual process (collecting data / information). 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.
Next, the additional element of maintaining aggregated count / location information and its steps to maintain an aggregated count of the plurality of provider devices per cell; and aggregated location information maintained for each cell relating to the location updates of the driver are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of storing results of the number of provider devices / aggregated count; as a general means of storing data for subsequent estimating), and amounts to mere storing data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity and not a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g). Note that there are no particular technical steps regarding maintaining more than using computers as a tool to perform an otherwise manual process (storing / recording information). 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.
Also, while identified above as an organizing human activity in Step 2A Prong One, note that the activity of requesting a driver (e.g. the location being indicated in a request for a driver from a requestor device) is/are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for the defining), and also amounts to mere data gathering / transmitting data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity and not a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the requestor device / computing device (generic computer) is only being used as a tool in the requesting a driver, which is also not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f). Note that there are no particular technical steps regarding requesting more than using computers as a tool to perform an otherwise manual process (communicating a request / order). Accordingly, this element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Also, while identified above as an organizing human activity in Step 2A Prong One, note that the activity of displaying the estimated time of arrival (e.g. to display the estimated time of arrival of the driver to the requestor device) is/are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of outputting the result of the computing), and also amounts to mere transmitting data / outputting data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity and not a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the requestor device / computing device (generic computer) is only being used as a tool in the displaying, which is also not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f). Note that there are no particular technical steps regarding displaying more than using computers as a tool to perform an otherwise manual process (presenting information). Accordingly, this 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 combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computers / general computer components (a server, requestor device (being a computing device associated with a user), provider devices (being a computing device associated with a driver), processor, memory, program code); and adding high-level extra-solution activities (data gathering / transmitting data, storing data). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. Hence, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Analysis proceeds to Step 2B.
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a server, requestor device (being a computing device associated with a user), provider devices (being a computing device associated with a driver), processor, memory, program code to perform defining a search area…, generating and updating the plurality of cells…, aggregating location updates…, aggregated counting of the providers per cell…, requesting for a driver from a requestor…, determining a number of providers…, aggregating location information for each cell…, estimating in response to the request and aggregated location information a time of arrival…, computing the estimated time of arrival as a weighted average…, and displaying the estimated time of arrival of the driver amounts to no more than mere instructions to ‘apply’ the exception using generic computers. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e. mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Note that in the judicial exception limitations, the provider devices are computer substitutes for providers / drivers; and the requestor device is a computer substitute for a requestor. See the Applicant’s specification Fig 8A-8B, ¶[0017-18], ¶[0104] describing the additional element of a server as a general purpose computer, demonstrating at this level of detail that it is routine, well-understood, conventional. See the Applicant’s specification ¶[0006], ¶[0057] describing the additional element of a requestor device as a computing device associated with a requestor (e.g. desktop computer, smartphone, laptop computer) at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). See the Applicant’s specification ¶[0006], ¶[0060] describing the additional element of a provider device as a computing device associated with a driver (e.g. desktop computer, smartphone, mobile computer) at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more.
As discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements regarding receiving location are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for generating and updating cells, as a general means of gathering data for the aggregating counts of providers, as a general means of gathering data for aggregating location information), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e. adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception does not provide integration into a practical application in Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The use of the computer (i.e. server, provider devices / computing devices) in these steps merely represents using a generic / general purpose computer as a tool, and is not indicative of an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, these receiving location steps are also claimed at a high level of generality, and/or as insignificant extra-solution activities (e.g. data gathering) representing computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec), a computer receives and sends information over a network (buySAFE). See the Haber 2021 patent publication (US 11,151,849 B2) demonstrating the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of a server receiving location data from a device (see Haber col 3 ln 58-65 detailing common data pusher GPS devices are used for personnel tracking and vehicle tracking that push the position of the device at regular intervals to a determined server that can store and instantly analyze them). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more.
As discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements regarding maintaining aggregated count / location information are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of storing the aggregated count / number of devices and aggregated location information; as a general means of storing data for subsequent estimating), and amounts to mere storing data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e. adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception does not provide integration into a practical application in Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The use of the computer (i.e. server) in these steps merely represents using a generic / general purpose computer as a tool, and is not indicative of an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, these maintaining an aggregated count / aggregated location information limitations are also claimed at a high level of generality, and/or as insignificant extra-solution activities (e.g. data gathering) representing computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular storing and retrieving information in memory (Versata; OIP Techs). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more.
Also, as discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the Step 2A Prong One organizing human activity elements regarding the requesting a driver are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for the defining), and also amounts to the extra-solution activity of data gathering / transmitting data, which is not a practical application or an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The use of the computer (i.e. requestor device / computing device) in these steps merely represents using a generic / general purpose computer as a tool, and is not indicative of an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, these requesting steps are also claimed at a high level of generality, and/or as insignificant extra-solution activities (e.g. data gathering) representing computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec), sending messages over a network (OIP Techs), a computer receives and sends information over a network (buySAFE), recording a customer’s order (Apple). See the Applicant’s specification ¶[0065] describing the element of a request message including a location at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more.
Also, as discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the Step 2A Prong One organizing human activity elements regarding the displaying estimated time of arrival are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of outputting the result of the computing), and also amounts to the extra-solution activity of transmitting data / outputting data, which is not a practical application or an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The use of the computer (i.e. requestor device / computing device) in these steps merely represents using a generic / general purpose computer as a tool, and is not indicative of an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, these displaying steps are also claimed at a high level of generality, and/or as insignificant extra-solution activities (e.g. transmitting data) representing computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec), sending messages over a network (OIP Techs), a computer receives and sends information over a network (buySAFE). See the Applicant’s specification ¶[0011], ¶[0112] describing the element of showing an ETA via a user interface, and a GUI at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more.
The claims do not improve another technology or technical field. Instead, the claims represent a generic implementation of organizing human activities ‘applied’ by generic / general purpose computers, and using general computer components in extra-solution capacities such as data gathering, transmitting data, and storing data. The claims do not provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the user of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. At best, the claims are more directed towards solving a business / economic / entrepreneurial problem (i.e. how to determine an estimated time of arrival based on provider / driver location), that is tangentially associated with a technology element (e.g. computers), rather than solving a technology based problem. See MPEP 2106.05(a). The claims do not improve the functioning of a computer itself. Note that the alleged improvements in the Applicant’s specification ¶[0037] “This can advantageously save up to 80% of computational cost compared to computing a K-nearest neighbor” and ¶[0038] “using stream aggregation combined with index-based ETA reduces storage space to 62.5% compared to point-to-point ETA cache” are (1) conclusory statements that do not provide sufficient detail to support a technical improvement and (2) at best reflect improvements to the judicial exception and not a technical improvement. See MPEP 2106.05(a) stating “if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology”. See MPEP 2106.05(a) citing Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187 and 191-92, 209 USPQ 1, 10 (1981) “It is important to note the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The claims are more directed towards improving the commercial / entrepreneurial process rather than improving a computer outside of a business use, i.e. using computers a tool. The claims do not apply the judicial exception with or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction to a particular article to a different state or thing. The claims do not add a specific limitation other than what is well understood, routine, and conventional in a way that confines the claim to a particular useful application.
Viewing the claim limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at each of the claim limitations individually, both with respect to the independent claims 1 and 10, and further considering the addition of dependent claims 2-6, 8-9, 11-15, 17-18. Note that the combination of limitations and claim elements add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately, simply reciting implementation as performed by using generic computers / general computer components, see Alice (2014), and does not provide a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of various computer components to achieve a technical improvement, see BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC (2016). See the Haber 2021 patent publication (US 11,151,849 B2) demonstrating the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the combination of the additional elements (see Haber col 3 ln 58-65 detailing common data pusher GPS devices are used for personnel tracking and vehicle tracking that push the position of the device at regular intervals to a determined server that can store and instantly analyze them). Hence, the ordered combination of elements does not provide significantly more. With respect to the dependent claims:
Dependent claims 2 and 11: The limitations wherein estimating the time of arrival of the driver at the location further comprises identifying one or more cells of the plurality of cells based on the relative distance and a threshold, wherein a total number of provider devices located in the one or more cells do not exceed the threshold are further directed to a method of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior or interactions between people, following rules or instructions) as described in the independent claims. The recitation of the provider devices represents a computer component recited at a high level of generality as a subject of the judicial exception, and amounts to ‘applying’ the abstract idea with generic computers. Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 3 and 12: The limitations wherein estimating the time of arrival of the driver at the location further comprises: calculating an estimated time of arrival value for each of the one or more cells based on the relative distance, and calculating a weighted average of the calculated estimated time of arrival values based on the determined number of provider devices located in each cell of the one or more cells are further directed to methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior or interactions between people, following rules or instructions); and the calculating limitations are mathematical concepts (mathematical calculations) as described in the independent claims. The recitation of the provider devices represents a computer component recited at a high level of generality as a subject of the judicial exception, and amounts to ‘applying’ the abstract idea with generic computers. Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 4 and 13: The limitations wherein estimating the time of arrival of the driver at the location further comprises: calculating an estimated time of arrival value for each of the one or more cells based on the relative distance, sorting the estimated time of arrival values in ascending order, and determining the time of arrival based on a percentile of the sorted values are further directed to methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior or interactions between people, following rules or instructions) as described in the independent claims; and calculating an estimated time of arrival is also a mathematical concept (mathematical calculation). Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 5 and 14: First, the limitation wherein the search area is a square grid merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations. Second, the limitation defining the search area further comprises defining each cell of the plurality of cells with an index based on a relative distance and angle of each cell with the location is further directed to methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior or interactions between people, following rules or instructions) as described in the independent claims. Similar to the independent claims, these recitations do not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and are not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 6 and 15: First, the limitation wherein the search area is a circular grid merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations. Second, the limitation defining the search area further comprises defining each cell of the plurality of cells with an index based on a relative distance and angle of each cell with the location is further directed to methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior or interactions between people, following rules or instructions) as described in the independent claims. Similar to the independent claims, these recitations do not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and are not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 8 and 17: First, the limitations of wherein determining the number of provider devices in each cell further comprises:… determining an eligibility of each provider device based on the status, and updating the number of provider devices based on the location of each provider device that is determined to be eligible are further directed to methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior or interactions between people, following rules or instructions) as described in the independent claims. The recitation of the provider device represents a computer component recited at a high level of generality as a subject of the judicial exception, and amounts to ‘applying’ the abstract idea with generic computers. Second, the limitation of wherein determining the number of provider devices in each cell further comprises:… retrieving information from each provider device of the plurality of provider devices indicating a location and a status of the provider device is an additional element (high level extra-solution activity of data retrieval / data gathering) that is not indicative of a practical application or significantly more. The provider device in the retrieving step represents using a computer as a tool in its ordinary capacity (i.e. to transmit data), which is not a practical application or significantly more. The retrieving step here is claimed at a high level of detail, and represent computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec), a computer receives and sends information over a network (buySAFE), electronic record keeping (Alice), storing and retrieving information in memory (Versata; OIP Techs). Similar to the independent claims, these recitations do not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and are not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 9 and 18: The limitation identifying one or more cells having at least one number of provider device based on a breadth-first search, the breadth-first search being based on the relative distance and a threshold, wherein a total number of drivers located in the one or more cells do not exceed the threshold are further directed to methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior or interactions between people, following rules or instructions) as described in the independent claims. The recitation of the provider devices represents a computer component recited at a high level of generality as a subject of the judicial exception, and amounts to ‘applying’ the abstract idea with generic computers. Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore claims 1 and 10, and the dependent claims 2-6, 8-9, 11-15, 17-18 and all limitations taken both individually and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor do they include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claims 1-6, 8-15, and 17-18 are ineligible.
Novelty / Non-Obviousness
Claims 1-6, 8-15, and 17-18 are not rejected under 35 USC 102 or 35 USC 103. The Examiner knows of no art which teaches or suggests the limitation: “defining, by a server, a search area divided into a plurality of cells, wherein the plurality of cells are generated and continuously updated using stream aggregation of location updates received from a plurality of provider devices to maintain an aggregated count of the plurality of provider devices per cell, the search area having a location as a centre point of the search area, the location being indicated in a request for a driver from a requestor device, the requestor device being a computing device associated with a user, wherein a size of each cell is inversely proportional to a relative distance between each cell and the centre point of the search area” as recited in claim 1, and similarly recited in claim 10.
The closest prior art of Huang (US 2020/0279170 A1) details a server defining grids (i.e. a plurality of cells) centered around a location defined by a received request from a user device, updating the boundaries of the grid series to generate a final boundary grid series, transmitting the GPS location data of the passenger and the drivers to the storage device for processing; using circular grids with a radius and center; grids are refined / divided into smaller grids (cells) which may be the same or different sizes and using intervals for searching for service providers / drivers; identifying the number of service providers in each of the grids (i.e. aggregated count of plurality of drivers per cell) and the distribution of the available drivers; defining the grid cells such that each cell is independently indexed (0, 1,… n) (Huang Fig 13B, ¶[0007], ¶[0052-53], ¶[0107-112], ¶[0125], ¶[0130-133], ¶[0138], ¶[0154-155]). However, Huang does not define the size of each cell to be inversely proportional to a relative distance between each cell and the center point of the search area.
The prior art of Zhong (US 2020/0042885 A1 ) details a server defining a search area having a selected departure location or a determined departure location of the terminal device from wireless positioning and from a GPS system (i.e. stream aggregation); the departure location is the center point defined by the request from a user device of an area and may be a circular area with a predetermined radius, and the area may be determined based on administrative divisions (i.e. plurality of cells), and the area has providers to service the request (Zhong Fig 5, ¶[0023], ¶[0046], ¶[0057], ¶[0072]). However, Zhong also does not define the size of each cell to be inversely proportional to a relative distance between each cell and the center point of the search area.
The prior art of “TSQL Execution Plan Operator – Stream Aggregate” to ByteScout Academy <https://academy.bytescout.com/essentials-in-2-minutes/19-tsql-execution-plan-operator-stream-aggregate/> (<https://web.archive.org/web/20220705061634/https://academy.bytescout.com/essentials-in-2-minutes/19-tsql-execution-plan-operator-stream-aggregate/> captured on 5 July 2022 using Wayback Machine) details using stream aggregation operator groups to perform aggregation queries with the most common functions include SUM and COUNT (ByteScout ¶1-2). However, ByteScout also does not define the size of each cell to be inversely proportional to a relative distance between each cell and the center point of the search area.
The prior art of Mattelaer (US 2024/0071217 A1, with priority support in European patent application 22191824.6 filed 23 August 2022) details a searching system (e.g. route searching), and the system can operate using a grid / cell array, which may be partially overlapping; the cells may have a radius of at most 1km, at most 0.9 km, at most 0.8 km, at most 0.7 km, at most 0.6 km, at most 0.5 km…, at most 0.2 km, at most 0.1 km or 0.1 km; the cells may have greater radii. For illustration, the cells may have a radius of at most 50 km, at most 40 km, at most 30 km, at most 20 km, at most 15 km…, at most 3 km, at most 2 km, without being limited thereto (Mattelaer ¶[0215], ¶[0218]). However, Mattelaer also does not define the size of each cell to be inversely proportional to a relative distance between each cell and the center point of the search area.
Thus, the art on record fails to collectively teach “defining, by a server, a search area divided into a plurality of cells, wherein the plurality of cells are generated and continuously updated using stream aggregation of location updates received from a plurality of provider devices to maintain an aggregated count of the plurality of provider devices per cell, the search area having a location as a centre point of the search area, the location being indicated in a request for a driver from a requestor device, the requestor device being a computing device associated with a user, wherein a size of each cell is inversely proportional to a relative distance between each cell and the centre point of the search area” as substantially required by independent claims 1 and 10.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN TALLMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3198. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeff Zimmerman can be reached at (571) 272-4602. 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.
BRIAN TALLMAN
Examiner
Art Unit 3628
/BRIAN A TALLMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/MICHAEL P HARRINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
