DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the response and amendments filed on 10 March 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, 9-10, 18 have been amended.
Claims 2-8, 11-17 are original / previously presented.
Claims 1-18 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the Applicant’s arguments filed regarding the previous 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 1-18 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 using stream aggregation, 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; determining, in real-time, a number of provider[s]… located in each cell of the plurality of cells based on an aggregating information relating to a location of a driver, each provider… associated with a driver located within the search area; estimating, in real time and in response to the request for a driver, based on the aggregating 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…, display 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 the plurality of cells…, requesting for a driver from a requestor…, determining a number of providers…, estimating in response to the request a time of arrival…, computing the estimated time of arrival as a weighted average…, and display the estimated time of arrival of the driver…; and following rules or instructions includes defining a search area…, generating the plurality of cells…, determining a number of providers…, estimating in response to the request a time of arrival…, computing the estimated time of arrival as a weighted average…, and display 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. 7). 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, ff 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 generated using stream aggregation, 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; determining, in real-time, a number of provider[s]… located in each cell of the plurality of cells based on an aggregating information relating to a location of a driver, each provider… associated with a driver located within the search area; estimating, in real time and in response to the request for a driver, based on the aggregating 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 limitations 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 by also reduces computational cost such as resource utilization by optimizing memory utilization. The claimed method describes that a server defines a search area divided into a plurality of cells generated using stream aggregation, rather than conventional K-nearest neighbor search algorithm. This approach reduces computational cost by aggregating driver information at the cell level instead of storing and updating each driver’s exact ID and location at each point on a map. The server then determines, in real time, the number of provided devices in each cell based on aggregated location information received from driver devices, thereby enabling accurate approximation of driver distribution in a cell and estimates the time of arrival using at least one spatial index based on relative distance between the location of the requestor device as centre and the plurality of cells. This replaces point-to-point ETA caches with index-based estimation, reducing storage consumption and improving scalability. The server computes the estimated time of arrival as a weighted average across the indexed cells and displays the resulted ETA to the requestor device, ensuring that ETA calculations are both accurate and computationally efficient. This improves the functioning of communications servers and transport applications by lowering computational cost, reducing latency and memory consumption, and efficiently managing real-time ETA estimation” (Remarks pg. 7). Examiner disagrees. The claims do not improve a computer itself or technology outside of the judicial exception. 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 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 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 data 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 “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." Similarly, amended independent claim 1 when read in its entirety along with the specification describes how the computer-implemented method reduces computational cost and optimizes memory consumption, and the claim itself recites the components: stream aggregation, spatial indexing, and weighted average computation, that achieve these improvements” (Remarks pg. 7). 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 and lack particular technical details. 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 improvements of reducing computational costs (i.e. fewer or less steps) and reducing storage space (i.e. fewer or less precise data) at best are entrepreneurial / commercial improvements to the judicial exception itself instead of technical improvements. 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 improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements”. However, the claimed additional elements are no more than applying the judicial exception on generic / general purpose computers, and using computers in their ordinary capacity in high-level extra-solution activities (e.g. data gathering, data transmission, data storage); neither of which amount to a practical application or significantly more and thus do not provide a technical improvement. 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 computational framework that combines stream aggregation with spatial indexing to reduce computational load and optimizes memory usage, thereby improving reliability of ETA estimation, and enhances scalability of transport-related systems. These steps require accessing aggregated driver data from memory and executing structured data processing operations to generate real-time ETA outputs that optimize memory utilization. Accordingly, amended independent claim 1 describes a process that goes beyond mere organizing human activity or mental processes, as the claimed steps are rooted in specific computer-implemented data processing techniques that provide a technological improvement in ETA estimation technologies and enhance the functioning of communications servers and transport applications. See Application, paragraphs 37 and 38” (Remarks pg. 7-8). Examiner disagrees. 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 defining a search area…, generating the plurality of cells…, requesting for a driver from a requestor…, determining a number of providers…, estimating in response to the request a time of arrival…, computing the estimated time of arrival as a weighted average…, and display the estimated time of arrival of the driver represent managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. These limitations are all activities performed by a person or people (e.g. a dispatcher defines a search area, a dispatcher generates cells, 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, the claims limitations of defining a search area…, generating the plurality of cells…, determining a number of providers…, estimating in response to the request a time of arrival…, computing the estimated time of arrival as a weighted average…, and display the estimated time of arrival of the driver represent following rules or instructions. These limitations are all activities performed by a person based on information or based on other activities. Fourth, the claims are not ‘rooted in specific computer-implemented data processing techniques‘, since each of the judicial exception activities of defining, generating, determining, estimating, and computing are claimed at a high level and can otherwise be performed by a person. Note that ‘stream aggregation’ is (1) not actively claimed as a method or configured function, (2) is claimed at a high level of detail lacking any technical steps, and (3) is only claimed as a data source used (to generate cells). Hence, the claims are not rooted in a technology and instead represent certain methods of organizing human activities, using computers as a tool and in high level extra-solution activities. Fifth, the alleged improvements in Applicant specification ¶[0037] and ¶[0038] of saving 80% of computational cost compared to computing a K-nearest neighbor, and reducing storage space to 62.5% compared to point-to-point ETA cache are conclusory and do not represent improvements to the functioning of a computer itself or improvements to a technical field. At best, these improvements are conclusory improvements regarding the judicial exception (i.e. using fewer or less steps, using fewer or less precise data) instead of technical improvements. 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 domain of transport systems and are not mere certain methods of organizing human activities or mental processes” (Remarks pg. 8). Examiner disagrees. First, transportation systems also represents business / commercial activities in transportation otherwise performable by a person / people in the absence of technology or computers / machinery. 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 technical field. 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. Thus, 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” (Remarks pg. 8-9). 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 storing information, 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 routine / well known / conventional data gathering (e.g. receiving), record keeping (e.g. aggregating), in a general computer environment (e.g. processor, server). 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. The improvements in Applicant’s Specification ¶[0037-38] (e.g. saving up to 80% computational cost compared to computing K-nearest neighbor, reducing storage space to 62.5% compared to point-to-point cache) 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). 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. Indeed, amended independent claim 1 recites a detailed workflow that integrates stream aggregation, spatial indexing, and weighted average computation to generate ETA results in real time. This integration enables a transport management system or communications server to adapt to real-time driver distributions and efficiently reduce computations” (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 reduced computation is at best associated with an improvement to the judicial exception itself and not a technical improvement. The claims recite certain methods of organizing human activities (e.g. the limitations of defining, generating, determining, estimating, computing, displaying) implemented by general purpose / generic computers (e.g. server, processor), which is not indicative of integration into a practical application or significantly more. The additional element data gathering and record keeping activities (e.g. stream aggregation, aggregating, receiving) 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 generating, determining, estimating steps), which is not a practical application or significantly more. The recited spatial index and weighted average are part of the judicial exception. Hence, the claimed process 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” 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. 10) and “The elements in amended independent claim 1 are not well-understood, routine or conventional in the field because nobody has, before this application, suggested the following elements: defining… determining… estimating… computing… The claimed additional elements qualify as ‘significantly more’ not only because they are not generic computer functions but also because they add specific limitations that are unconventional” (Remarks 11-12). Examiner disagrees. First, the activities of defining… determining… estimating… computing… are identified in Step 2A prong one as part of the judicial exception. Judicial exception activities are not evaluated whether they are routine, well-understood, conventional in Step 2B. The additional element activities are analyzed in Step 2B whether they are well-understood, routine, conventional activities. Second, 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 ¶[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 aggregating (e.g. stream aggregation, an aggregation information relating to a location) 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), electronic record keeping (Alice), storing and retrieving information in memory (Versata; OIP Techs). The additional element of receiving (e.g. a location of a driver received via each provider) 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). This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible in Step 2B in view of BASCOM Global Internet Services v. AT&T Mobility LLC because “the BASCOM court agreed that the additional elements were generic computer, network and Internet components that did not amount to significantly more when considered individually, but explained that the district court erred by failing to recognize that when combined, an inventive concept may be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of the additional elements…” (Remarks pg. 11). Examiner disagrees. Note that the claims in BASCOM were eligible because they presented a non-generic arrangement of additional elements that amounts to significantly more than an abstract idea in an ordered combination to solve a technical problem particular to Internet-content filtering. This is in contrast to the Applicant's claimed invention which only uses generic computers / general computer components (i.e. server, processor, requestor device, provider devices) to implement the invention without detailing a particular arrangement. This is no more than using the words “apply it” with the judicial exception or presenting mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on general purpose computers, and does not present a particular ordered combination of elements. The combination of limitations with the additional elements in the Applicant’s claims 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 (e.g. server, processor), without providing a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of the various computer components to achieve a technical improvement as the eligible claims in BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC (2016). This argument is not persuasive.
Regarding the Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections of claims 1-6, 8-15, 17-18 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection (Zhong in view of Huang in view of Crapis).
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-18:
Step 1:
Claims 1-9 recite a method; and claims 10-18 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 1-18 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 using stream aggregation, 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; determining, in real-time, a number of provider[s]… located in each cell of the plurality of cells based on an aggregating information relating to a location of a driver, each provider… associated with a driver located within the search area; estimating, in real time and in response to the request for a driver, based on the aggregating 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 using stream aggregation, 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; determining, in real-time, a number of provider[s]… located in each cell of the plurality of cells based on an aggregating information relating to a location of a driver, each provider… associated with a driver located within the search area; estimating, in real time and in response to the request for a driver, based on the aggregating 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…, display 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 the plurality of cells…, requesting for a driver from a requestor…, determining a number of providers…, estimating in response to the request a time of arrival…, computing the estimated time of arrival as a weighted average…, and display the estimated time of arrival of the driver…; and following rules or instructions includes defining a search area…, generating the plurality of cells…, determining a number of providers…, estimating in response to the request a time of arrival…, computing the estimated time of arrival as a weighted average…, and display 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, by the server, 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 1-18 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 aggregating and its limitations of …using stream aggregation; an aggregating information related to a location of a driver… are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering / transmitting data and then recording data for the defining and determining), and amounts to mere data gathering / transmitting data and electronic record keeping, 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 aggregating more than using computers as a tool to perform an otherwise manual process (collecting data and storing information). Note that neither ‘stream aggregation’ or ‘an aggregating information’ are actively claimed as either a method step (claim 1) or configured system function (claim 10). 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 receiving location and its steps of a location of a driver received via each provider device of a plurality of provider devices are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for the determining), and amounts to mere data gathering, 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 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.
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 (transmitting data / data gathering, 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 the plurality of cells…, requesting for a driver from a requestor…, determining a number of providers…, estimating in response to the request a time of arrival…, computing the estimated time of arrival as a weighted average…, and display 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 ¶[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 aggregating are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. a general means of gathering / transmitting data and then recording data for the defining / determining / estimating), and amounts to mere data gathering / data transmission and electronic record keeping, which are forms 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). Furthermore, these aggregating limitations are also claimed at a high level of generality, and/or as insignificant extra-solution activities (e.g. data gathering, data storage) 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), electronic record keeping (Alice), storing and retrieving information in memory (Versata; OIP Techs). 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 the determining), 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. 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). 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. 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 2-9 and 11-18. 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). 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 7 and 16: The limitation defining a size of each cell to be inversely proportional to a relative distance between each cell and the centre point of the search area is 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 claim. 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 8 and 17: First, the limitation wherein determining the number of provider devices in each cell further comprises:… determining an eligibility of each provider device based on the status 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. 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 limitations 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; and updating the number of provider devices based on the location of each provider device that is determined to be eligible are additional elements (high level extra-solution activities of data retrieval / data gathering and record keeping) that are 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 and updating steps here are 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 2-9 and 11-18 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 1-18 are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 10-12, 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication 2020/0042885 A1 to Zhong et al. in view of US patent application publication 2020/0279170 A1 to Huang et al. in view of US patent application publication 2020/0082314 A1 to Crapis et al.
Claim 1:
Zhong, as shown, teaches the following:
A method for estimating a time of arrival of a driver at a location (Zhong ¶[0029] details determining an ETA), the method comprising:
With respect to the following:
defining, by a server, a search area divided into a plurality of cells, wherein the plurality of cells are generated using stream aggregation, the search area having a location as a centre point of the search area,
Zhong, as shown in ¶[0046], ¶[0057], ¶[0072] details defining by a server a search area having a selected departure location (or determined departure location of the terminal device from wireless positioning and information relating to the departure location may be time information, service provider information, order information, traffic information per ¶[0023], ¶[0046], ¶[0072], i.e. stream aggregation) as a center point defined by a request from a user device, the area may be determined based on administrative divisions, and the area has providers within, suggesting but not explicitly stating the search area divided into a plurality of cells, wherein the plurality of cells are generated using stream aggregation. To the extent that Zhong may not explicitly state this, Huang teaches this remaining limitation, with a server defining grids (i.e. a plurality of cells) centered around a location defined by a received request from a user device, and the grids can be searched (Huang Fig 13B, ¶[0007], ¶[0052-53], ¶[0107]); and identifying the plurality of indexed regions of grids based on aggregating shape and map data, receiving a shape of a geofence from a user from at least one terminal via wireless communication and receiving map data from the storage medium which communicates through sent out signals, i.e. cells generated using stream aggregation (Huang ¶[0007], ¶[0068]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include defining, by a server, a search area divided into a plurality of cells, wherein the plurality of cells are generated using stream aggregation, the search area having a location as a centre point of the search area as taught by Huang with the teachings of Zhong, with the motivation that “efficiently determining grids in a geographical region is crucial for a number of state-of-the-art technologies” and to provide “an artificial intelligent system configured to identify grids for a geofence in an area of a map that includes a plurality of independent indexed regions of grids” (Huang ¶[0003]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include defining, by a server, a search area divided into a plurality of cells, wherein the plurality of cells are generated using stream aggregation, the search area having a location as a centre point of the search area as taught by Huang in the system of Zhong, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Zhong (in view of Huang) teaches the following:
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 (Zhong Fig 5, ¶[0046], ¶[0052] details obtaining a departure location associated with a terminal device, which may be input / selected on the user interface);
With respect to the following:
determining, by the server, in real-time, a number of provider devices located in each cell of the plurality of cells based on an aggregating information relating to a location of a driver received via each provider device of a plurality of provider devices,
Zhong, as shown in ¶[0023], ¶[0031-32], ¶[0078] details determining the number of service providers in an area (e.g. the area of the departure location), and using GPS / GLONASS for positioning technology to locate user equipment of the service provider / driver terminal sending this information to the server; but does not explicitly state determining, by the server, in real-time, a number of provider devices located in each cell of the plurality of cells based on an aggregating information relating to a location of a driver received via each provider device of a plurality of provider devices. However, Huang teaches this limitation, determining information related to service providers, including the number of service providers in each of the grids, the distribution of drivers, and the number of available service providers; determining the geographical location of the drivers using GPS and the driver terminals (i.e. aggregating information related to a location of a driver received via each provider device) and transmitting this to the server, and GPS provides the driver user terminal locations in real time (Huang ¶[0055], ¶[0125], ¶[0138]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include determining, by the server, in real-time, a number of provider devices located in each cell of the plurality of cells based on an aggregating information relating to a location of a driver received via each provider device of a plurality of provider devices as taught by Huang in the system of Zhong (in view of Huang), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Zhong (in view of Huang, applying that the area includes a plurality of cells, as per Huang above) also teaches the following:
each provider device being a computing device associated with the driver located within the search area (Zhong Fig 1, Fig 7, ¶[0021], ¶[0032], ¶[0098] details driver terminals that are mobile devices carried by the drivers, used for storing orders and locating the service provider);
With respect to the following:
estimating, by the server in real time and in response to the request for a driver, based on the aggregating 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 devices; and
Zhong, as shown in ¶[0027-29], ¶[0078] details a server / processing engine receiving the request and determining the ETA based on the departure location, number of service providers within an area defined by the location and either a circular radius around the departure location (e.g. 5 km) or square area (e.g. 5 km sides) around the departure location, i.e. 5 km cell relative distance; but does not explicitly state estimating by the server in real time and in response to the request for a driver based on the aggregating information a time of arrival of the 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 devices. However, Crapis teaches this limitation with the transportation matching system receiving a transportation request and received location coordinates from the provider client devices (i.e. aggregating information), determining the geocoded area (i.e. cell) in which the provider client devices and the requestor client devices are located (i.e. using at least one spatial index) to offer the requestor client device an estimated time of arrival of a provider; the ETA is an average between a location in an area and providers in the neighborhood of the area, where the neighborhood surrounds the area and includes areas within a geographical distance (i.e. spatial index) or predetermined travel time, and as the number of providers in an area or corresponding neighborhood increase or decrease so does the ETA calculated for the area (Crapis Fig 4B, ¶[0075-76], ¶[0078-79], ¶[0101-102], ¶[0125-126]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include estimating, by the server in real time and in response to the request for a driver, based on the aggregating 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 devices as taught by Crapis with the teachings of Zhong in view of Huang, with the motivation to “better allocate available providers across multiple areas to better match the demand of each area” (Crapis ¶[0004]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include estimating, by the server in real time and in response to the request for a driver, based on the aggregating 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 devices as taught by Crapis in the system of Zhong in view of Huang, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Crapis (of Zhong in view of Huang) also teaches the following:
computing, by the server, 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 device (Crapis Fig 6, ¶[0035], ¶[0078], ¶[0102] details the ETA function provides the estimated average arrival time of a driver as a function of how many available drivers are present in the neighborhood of the area (including number of providers available to fulfil requests for an area including providers beyond the boundary of the neighboring area but still within a travel time threshold or radius), and the ETA function may include a weighted average ETA that favors a shorter ETA over a longer ETA or vice versa; and the ETA is offered to the requestor client device with a price estimate through the requestor client application for the client to select a transportation request option).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include computing, by the server, 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 device as taught by Crapis with the teachings of Zhong in view of Huang (in view of Crapis), with the motivation to “better allocate available providers across multiple areas to better match the demand of each area” (Crapis ¶[0004]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include computing, by the server, 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 device as taught by Crapis in the system of Zhong in view of Huang (in view of Crapis), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 2:
Zhong in view of Huang in view of Crapis, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 1. Crapis also teaches the following:
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 (Crapis ¶[0100-102], ¶[0126], ¶[0150], ¶[0154] details determining an ETA for of providers for an area, e.g. for each area of a region, which may be based on the number of drivers in an area (or closest provider to the area) such that the ETA function is weighted that favors a shorter ETA over a longer ETA, the radius around the first neighborhood (e.g. 2 km, i.e. relative distance) may also be expanded in the search for drivers that are still within a predetermined travel time, and as the drivers in the corresponding areas / neighborhoods will increase / decrease then so does the ETA calculated for the area / neighborhood; and ¶[0187-188] details any movement from drivers from one geocoded area (i.e. outside the surrounding area) to another other may be subject to a total number of available transportation providers in the geocoded region. i.e. a threshold),
wherein a total number of provider devices located in the one or more cells do not exceed the threshold (Crapis ¶[0188], claims 6-7 details ensuring the total number of allocated available transportation providers does not surpass the total number of available transportation providers in the geocoded region).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include 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 as taught by Crapis with the teachings of Zhong in view of Huang (in view of Crapis), with the motivation to “better allocate available providers across multiple areas to better match the demand of each area” (Crapis ¶[0004]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include 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 as taught by Crapis in the system of Zhong in view of Huang (in view of Crapis), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 3:
Zhong in view of Huang in view of Crapis, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 2. Crapis also teaches the following:
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 (Crapis ¶[0101-102], ¶[0121], ¶[0125-126] details providing the average ETA between a location in an area and providers in the neighborhood of the area (or closest provider to the area); the geocoded area may be a square kilometer cell, such as area within 1km / 2km from the center of an area), 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 (Crapis ¶[0102] details providing a weighted average ETA that favors a shorter ETA over a longer ETA, accounting for each of the available drivers located in the neighborhood of the area (or the closest provider to the area)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include 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 as taught by Crapis with the teachings of Zhong in view of Huang (in view of Crapis), with the motivation to “provide efficient, realistic, and accurate results” (Crapis ¶[0162]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include 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 as taught by Crapis in the system of Zhong in view of Huang (in view of Crapis), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 5:
Zhong in view of Huang in view of Crapis, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 1. Huang also teaches the following:
wherein the search area is a square grid (Huang ¶[0052], ¶[0154] details a square grid, and the grid is used for searching), and
defining the search area further comprises defining each cell of the plurality of cells with an index based on a relative spatial location of each cell with the location (Huang ¶[0109-110], ¶[0112] details defining the grid cells such that each cell is independently indexed (0, 1,… n) based on the range of longitudes and latitudes of geographical coordinates, i.e. relative spatial location of each cell).
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the search area is a square grid; and defining the search area further comprises defining each cell of the plurality of cells with an index based on a relative spatial location of each cell with the location as taught by Huang in the system of Zhong (in view of Huang in view of Crapis), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 6:
Zhong in view of Huang in view of Crapis, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 1. Huang also teaches the following:
wherein the search area is a circular grid (Huang ¶[0132-133] details a circle grid with a radius and center, refined into grids and intervals, and the grid is used for searching), and
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 (Huang ¶[0109-110], ¶[0112], ¶[0132-133] details defining the grid cells such that each cell is independently indexed (0, 1,… n), and circular cells into smaller cells based on the radius (i.e. relative distance), sample interval, and sample angle (i.e. angle of each cell with location) corresponding to the sample interval).
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the search area is a circular grid; and 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 as taught by Huang in the system of Zhong (in view of Huang in view of Crapis), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 10:
Claim 10 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 1 and therefore claim 10 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning presented above for claim 1.
Claim 11:
Claim 11 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 2 and therefore claim 11 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning presented above for claim 2.
Claim 12:
Claim 12 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 3 and therefore claim 12 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning presented above for claim 3.
Claim 14:
Claim 14 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 5 and therefore claim 14 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning presented above for claim 5.
Claim 15:
Claim 15 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 6 and therefore claim 15 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning presented above for claim 6.
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication 2020/0042885 A1 to Zhong et al. in view of US patent application publication 2020/0279170 A1 to Huang et al. in view of US patent application publication 2020/0082314 A1 to Crapis et al., as applied to claims 2 and 11 above, and further in view of US patent application publication 2013/0103307 A! to Sartipi et al.
Claim 4:
Zhong in view of Huang in view of Crapis, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 2. Crapis also teaches the following:
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 (Crapis ¶[0032], ¶[0100-102], ¶[0124] details calculating the average ETA between a location and an area, and an ETA of providers located in each area’s neighborhoods, where nearby areas are grouped based on geographical distance; also calculating estimated time of arrival for the closet provider in an area, the providers in each of the neighboring areas),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include calculating an estimated time of arrival value for each of the one or more cells based on the relative distance as taught by Crapis with the teachings of Zhong in view of Huang (in view of Crapis), with the motivation to “provide efficient, realistic, and accurate results” (Crapis ¶[0162]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include calculating an estimated time of arrival value for each of the one or more cells based on the relative distance as taught by Crapis in the system of Zhong in view of Huang (in view of Crapis), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Zhong (in view of Huang in view of Crapis) does not explicitly state, but Sartipi also teaches the following:
sorting the estimated time of arrival values in ascending order (Sartipi ¶[0015], ¶[0077] details a user desires a ride from an acquaintance and performs a search, and the ETA results can be sorted according the ETA of each transportation acquaintance), and
determining the time of arrival based on a percentile of the sorted values (Sartipi ¶[0072-73] details sorting the search results by ETA, and filtering a subset of search results based on the respective ETAs, i.e. a percentile of the sorted values).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include sorting the estimated time of arrival values in ascending order; and determining the time of arrival based on a percentile of the sorted values as taught by Sartipi with the teachings of Zhong in view of Huang in view of Crapis, with the motivation to assist a user “that desires a ride from an acquaintance” and “return search results” (Sartipi ¶[0077]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include sorting the estimated time of arrival values in ascending order; and determining the time of arrival based on a percentile of the sorted values as taught by Sartipi in the system of Zhong in view of Huang in view of Crapis, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 13:
Claim 13 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 4 and therefore claim 13 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning presented above for claim 4.
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication 2020/0042885 A1 to Zhong et al. in view of US patent application publication 2020/0279170 A1 to Huang et al. in view of US patent application publication 2020/0082314 A1 to Crapis et al., as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of US patent application publication 2019/0052728 A1 to Cheng et al.
Claim 8:
Zhong in view of Huang in view of Crapis, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 1. Zhong does not explicitly state, but Cheng teaches the following:
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 (Cheng ¶[0059], ¶[0070] details service provider devices repeating communication of their status and location, including providers indicating their status as being available to provide service);
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 (Cheng ¶[0041], ¶[0043], ¶[0059], ¶[0070] details service providers communicate their availability status to provide service and their current location back to the system, which monitors the total number of available service providers and the total number of available service providers in the vicinity (i.e. location) of an event start location, associating availability signals with geographic areas that encompass service start locations).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include 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; 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 as taught by Cheng with the teachings of Zhong in view of Huang in view of Crapis, with the motivation to “schedule service requests for planned events and activities” (Cheng ¶[0009]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include 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; 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 as taught by Cheng in the system of Zhong in view of Huang in view of Crapis, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 17:
Claim 17 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 8 and therefore claim 17 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning presented above for claim 8.
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication 2020/0042885 A1 to Zhong et al. in view of US patent application publication 2020/0279170 A1 to Huang et al. in view of US patent application publication 2020/0082314 A1 to Crapis et al., as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of US patent application publication 2022/0188365 A1 Zhang et al.
Claim 9:
Zhong in view of Huang in view of Crapis, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 1. Zhong does not explicitly state, but Zhang teaches the following:
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 (Zhang ¶[0030], ¶[0077-78], ¶[0087], ¶[0155-156] details using a breadth-first search algorithm for drivers diving the search area into cells with a defined grid size (i.e. relative distance), starting with the cell in which the query point lies, and gradually searching the neighboring cells, and the BFS terminating at the end of iteration i if the K-nearest objects in the result are found within iteration min_iter, i.e. threshold),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include 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 as taught by Zhang with the teachings of Zhong in view of Huang in view of Crapis, with the motivation to solve the problem that “locating nearest moving objects (e.g. drivers) in real-time is one of the fundamental problems that a ride hailing service needs to address” (Zhang ¶[0003]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include 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 as taught by Zhang in the system of Zhong in view of Huang in view of Crapis, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Crapis (of Zhong in view of Huang in view of Crapis in view of Zhang) also teaches the following:
wherein a total number of drivers located in the one or more cells do not exceed the threshold (Crapis ¶[0188], claims 6-7 details ensuring the total number of allocated available transportation providers does not surpass the total number of available transportation providers in the geocoded region).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein a total number of drivers located in the one or more cells do not exceed the threshold as taught by Crapis with the teachings of Zhong in view of Huang (in view of Crapis in view of Zhang), with the motivation to “better allocate available providers across multiple areas to better match the demand of each area” (Crapis ¶[0004]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein a total number of drivers located in the one or more cells do not exceed the threshold as taught by Crapis in the system of Zhong in view of Huang (in view of Crapis in view of Zhang), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 18:
Claim 18 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 9 and therefore claim 18 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning presented above for claim 9.
Novelty / Non-Obviousness
Claims 7 and 16 are not rejected under 35 USC 102 or 35 USC 103. The Examiner knows of no art which teaches or suggests the features as recited in claim 7 (with all claimed features in the claims which claim 7 is dependent on), and similarly recited in claim 16.
Claims 7 and 16:
wherein the search area is a circular grid, and
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;
defining a size of each cell to be inversely proportional to a relative distance between each cell and the centre point of the search area.
The closet prior art of Huang (US 2020/0279170 A1) details using circular grids with a radius and center, refined into smaller grids (cells) and intervals for searching for service providers / drivers; and defining the grid cells such that each cell is independently indexed (0, 1,… n), and circular cells into smaller cells based on the radius (i.e. relative distance), sample interval, and sample angle (i.e. angle of each cell with location) corresponding to the sample interval (Huang ¶[0109-110], ¶[0112], ¶[0132-133]). 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.
Additional Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Reich et al. “Survey of ETA Prediction Methods in Public Transport Networks”, arXiv preprint arXiv: 1904.05037 (2019).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
/JEFF ZIMMERMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights