DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Status of Claims
Claims 6-8, 10, and 17-19 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1 and 12 recite(s) a system and series of steps for grouping on-demand service orders together, which under broadest reasonable interpretation, is analogous to concepts performed in the human mind (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or commercial or legal interactions, such as advertising, marketing, or sales activities. These concepts are grouped as mental processes and/or certain methods of organizing human activity.
The limitation(s) of, ‘receive an order for the on-demand service…’; ‘receive the order…’; ‘predict an OTE (overall time efficiency) for a predetermined time slot at a predetermined area…’; ‘compare the predicted OTE with a predetermined OTE threshold’; ‘select a batching strategy from one or more batching strategies, based on the comparison of the predicted OTE with the predetermined OTE threshold’; ‘attempt the selected batching strategy to batch the order with at least one other order’, as drafted, recite a process that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, is/are certain methods of organizing human activity. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim(s) recite(s) the additional element(s) of ‘a server’, ‘a memory’, ‘a communication interface’, ‘a computing device’, ‘a processor’. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. In their broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional element(s) comprise(s) only a processor, instructions in memory, a receiver, and a transmitter, being used to implement the functions of the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception in a generic computing environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception). Thus, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim(s) is/are directed to the judicial exception.
Claim(s) 2-11 and 13-20 further recite(s) the system and series of steps for grouping on-demand service orders together, which under broadest reasonable interpretation, is analogous to concepts performed in the human mind (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or commercial or legal interactions, such as advertising, marketing, or sales activities. These concepts are grouped as mental processes and/or certain methods of organizing human activity. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. In their broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional element(s) comprise(s) only a processor, instructions in memory, a display, a receiver, and a transmitter, being used to implement the functions of the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception in a generic computing environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception). Thus, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim(s) is/are directed to the judicial exception.
As analyzed above, the limitations as an ordered combination, are merely applying the abstract idea in a generic computing environment. In addition, the claims do not improve functionality of a computer or improve any other technology. Thus, claims 1-20 are ineligible as the claims do not recite additional elements which result in significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sweeney (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20150161564), in view of Rajkhowa (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20200342517).
In regards to claim 1, Sweeney teaches:
A server for facilitating batching orders of an on-demand service, the server comprising: a memory for storing instructions; a communication interface configured to receive an order for the on-demand service from a computing device; and a processor for executing the stored instructions (Sweeney: ¶21, ¶26-31, ¶136-143 disclose a server comprising processors, communication systems, and memory configured to facilitate grouping on-demand service requests) and configured to:
receive the order from the communication interface (Sweeney: ¶32-35, ¶37, ¶88, ¶137 disclose receiving a service request).
Although Sweeney teaches determining a time-based and distance-based optimization for a request, the reference does not explicitly state determining a time efficiency for a timeslot at a predetermined location.
However, Sweeney and Rajkhowa together teach:
predict an OTE (overall time efficiency) for a predetermined time slot at a predetermined area, based on a market condition signal and a batching configuration parameter (Sweeney: ¶21-23, ¶25, ¶52-53, ¶80, ¶82-86, ¶106 disclose determining a time-based and distance-based optimization for a request, wherein the optimization is based on supply and demand of service providers (i.e., market condition signal) and order grouping optimization (i.e., batching configuration parameter); Rajkhowa: ¶32, ¶49-56, ¶66-70, ¶81-86 disclose determining whether a service request can be completed within a predetermined timeslot at a predetermined destination location, based on a service provider supply (i.e., market condition signal) and a maximum delivery time (i.e., batching configuration parameter));
compare the predicted OTE with a predetermined OTE threshold (Sweeney: ¶16, ¶18, ¶98-99, ¶103-104 disclose comparing the determined time and distance to a predetermined threshold);
select a batching strategy from one or more batching strategies, based on the comparison of the predicted OTE with the predetermined OTE threshold (Sweeney: ¶16, ¶18, ¶54-55, ¶98-99, ¶103-118 disclose comparing the determined time and distance to a predetermined threshold and assigning service requests to service providers based on the comparison); and
attempt the selected batching strategy to batch the order with at least one other order (Sweeney: ¶16, ¶18, ¶54-55, ¶98-99, ¶103-118 disclose comparing the determined time and distance to a predetermined threshold and assigning service requests to service providers based on the comparison).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the efficiency determination, as taught by Rajkhowa, into the system and method of Sweeney. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “improve and/or ensure on-time deliveries, reduce the number of undelivered orders, or more efficiently schedule delivery vehicle drivers… , which may lead to an improvement in customer service and/or a reduction in delivery costs” (Rajkhowa: ¶4).
In regards to claim 2, Sweeney and Rajkhowa teach the server of claim 1. Sweeney further teaches wherein the processor is further configured to: determine whether the predicted OTE is greater than the predetermined OTE threshold; if it is determined that the predicted OTE is greater than the predetermined OTE threshold, select a first batching strategy, and attempt upfront batching upon a receipt of the order based on the selected first batching strategy; and if it is determined that the predicted OTE is equal to or less than the predetermined OTE threshold, select a second batching strategy, and attempt in-transit batching upon the receipt of the order based on the selected second batching strategy (Sweeney: ¶45-47, ¶54-55, ¶91-93, ¶96-99, ¶102-118, ¶132).
In regards to claim 3, Sweeney and Rajkhowa teach the server of claim 2. Sweeney and Rajkhowa further teach wherein, based on the first batching strategy, the processor is further configured to: determine that the upfront batching is attempted upon the receipt of the order; determine if a predetermined upfront pooling duration expires (Rajkhowa: ¶67); and if it is determined that the predetermined upfront pooling duration expires, switch to an alternation mode that alternates between the in-transit batching or an idle allocation (Sweeney: ¶45-47, ¶54-55, ¶91-93, ¶96-99, ¶102-118, ¶132; Rajkhowa: ¶67).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the on-demand order management, as taught by Rajkhowa, into the system and method of Sweeney. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “improve and/or ensure on-time deliveries, reduce the number of undelivered orders, or more efficiently schedule delivery vehicle drivers… , which may lead to an improvement in customer service and/or a reduction in delivery costs” (Rajkhowa: ¶4).
In regards to claim 4, Sweeney and Rajkhowa teach the server of claim 2. Sweeney further teaches wherein, based on the second batching strategy, the processor is further configured to switch to an alternation mode that alternates between the in-transit batching or an idle allocation (Sweeney: ¶45-47, ¶54-55, ¶91-93, ¶96-99, ¶102-118, ¶132).
In regards to claim 5, Sweeney and Rajkhowa teach the server of claim 4. Sweeney further teaches wherein the processor is further configured to: start the alternation mode with tightest constraints; and gradually loosen the constraints with attempts (Sweeney: ¶45-47, ¶54-55, ¶91-93, ¶96-99, ¶102-118, ¶132).
In regards to claim 6, Sweeney and Rajkhowa teach the server of claim 1. Sweeney and Rajkhowa further teach wherein the processor is further configured to adjust the batching configuration parameter using the predicted OTE (Sweeney: ¶21-23, ¶25, ¶52-53, ¶80, ¶82-86, ¶106; Rajkhowa: ¶32, ¶49-56, ¶66-70, ¶81-86).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the on-demand order management, as taught by Rajkhowa, into the system and method of Sweeney. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “improve and/or ensure on-time deliveries, reduce the number of undelivered orders, or more efficiently schedule delivery vehicle drivers… , which may lead to an improvement in customer service and/or a reduction in delivery costs” (Rajkhowa: ¶4).
In regards to claim 7, Sweeney and Rajkhowa teach the server of claim 1. Sweeney and Rajkhowa further teach wherein the batching configuration parameter includes at least one of a batching interval, an order delivery delay, and a maximum amount of time the order can be kept (Sweeney: ¶21-23, ¶25, ¶52-53, ¶80, ¶82-86, ¶106; Rajkhowa: ¶32, ¶49-56, ¶66-70, ¶81-86).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the on-demand order management, as taught by Rajkhowa, into the system and method of Sweeney. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “improve and/or ensure on-time deliveries, reduce the number of undelivered orders, or more efficiently schedule delivery vehicle drivers… , which may lead to an improvement in customer service and/or a reduction in delivery costs” (Rajkhowa: ¶4).
In regards to claim 8, Sweeney and Rajkhowa teach the server of claim 1. Sweeney and Rajkhowa further teach wherein the processor is further configured to: predict an IAR (inter-arrival rate) for the predetermined time slot at the predetermined area; and use the predicted IAR as the market condition signal (Sweeney: ¶21-23, ¶25, ¶52-53, ¶80, ¶82-86, ¶106; Rajkhowa: ¶31-32, ¶49-56, ¶66-70, ¶81-86).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the on-demand order management, as taught by Rajkhowa, into the system and method of Sweeney. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “improve and/or ensure on-time deliveries, reduce the number of undelivered orders, or more efficiently schedule delivery vehicle drivers… , which may lead to an improvement in customer service and/or a reduction in delivery costs” (Rajkhowa: ¶4).
In regards to claim 9, Sweeney and Rajkhowa teach the server of claim 8. Sweeney and Rajkhowa further teach wherein the processor is configured to use an OTE predictor model to predict the OTE, and the processor is further configured to train the OTE predictor model using at least one of the predicted IAR, the predicted OTE, and the batching configuration parameter (Sweeney: ¶21-23, ¶25, ¶52-53, ¶76, ¶80, ¶82-86, ¶106; Rajkhowa: ¶31-32, ¶49-56, ¶66-70, ¶81-86).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the on-demand order management, as taught by Rajkhowa, into the system and method of Sweeney. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “improve and/or ensure on-time deliveries, reduce the number of undelivered orders, or more efficiently schedule delivery vehicle drivers… , which may lead to an improvement in customer service and/or a reduction in delivery costs” (Rajkhowa: ¶4).
In regards to claim 10, Sweeney and Rajkhowa teach the server of claim 1. Sweeney and Rajkhowa further teach wherein the processor is further configured to: predict a reference OTE based on a first market condition signal and a first batching configuration parameter in a reference state, and a target OTE based on a second market condition signal and a second batching configuration parameter in a target state; and obtain a predicted OTE gain based on the predicted reference OTE and the predicted target OTE (Sweeney: ¶21-23, ¶25, ¶52-53, ¶76, ¶80, ¶82-86, ¶106; Rajkhowa: ¶31-32, ¶49-56, ¶66-70, ¶81-86).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the on-demand order management, as taught by Rajkhowa, into the system and method of Sweeney. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “improve and/or ensure on-time deliveries, reduce the number of undelivered orders, or more efficiently schedule delivery vehicle drivers… , which may lead to an improvement in customer service and/or a reduction in delivery costs” (Rajkhowa: ¶4).
In regards to claim 11, Sweeney and Rajkhowa teach the server of claim 10. Sweeney and Rajkhowa further teach wherein the processor is further configured to determine the OTE threshold based on the predicted OTE gain (Sweeney: ¶21-23, ¶25, ¶52-53, ¶76, ¶80, ¶82-86, ¶106; Rajkhowa: ¶31-32, ¶49-56, ¶66-70, ¶81-86).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the on-demand order management, as taught by Rajkhowa, into the system and method of Sweeney. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “improve and/or ensure on-time deliveries, reduce the number of undelivered orders, or more efficiently schedule delivery vehicle drivers… , which may lead to an improvement in customer service and/or a reduction in delivery costs” (Rajkhowa: ¶4).
In regards to claim 12, the claim recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 1 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons set forth above for claim 1. Furthermore, the rationale to combine the prior art set forth above for claim 1 applies to the rejection of claim 12.
In regards to claim 13, Sweeney and Rajkhowa teach the method of claim 12. Additionally, the claim recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 2 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons set forth above for claim 2.
In regards to claim 14, Sweeney and Rajkhowa teach the method of claim 13. Additionally, the claim recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 3 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons set forth above for claim 3. Furthermore, the rationale to combine the prior art set forth above for claim 3 applies to the rejection of claim 14.
In regards to claim 15, Sweeney and Rajkhowa teach the method of claim 13. Additionally, the claim recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 4 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons set forth above for claim 4.
In regards to claim 16, Sweeney and Rajkhowa teach the method of claim 15. Additionally, the claim recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 5 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons set forth above for claim 5.
In regards to claim 17, Sweeney and Rajkhowa teach the method of claim 12. Additionally, the claim recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 6 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons set forth above for claim 6. Furthermore, the rationale to combine the prior art set forth above for claim 6 applies to the rejection of claim 17.
In regards to claim 18, Sweeney and Rajkhowa teach the method of claim 12. Additionally, the claim recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 7 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons set forth above for claim 7. Furthermore, the rationale to combine the prior art set forth above for claim 7 applies to the rejection of claim 18.
In regards to claim 19, Sweeney and Rajkhowa teach the method of claim 12. Additionally, the claim recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 8 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons set forth above for claim 8. Furthermore, the rationale to combine the prior art set forth above for claim 8 applies to the rejection of claim 19.
In regards to claim 20, Sweeney and Rajkhowa teach the method of claim 19. Additionally, the claim recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 9 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons set forth above for claim 9. Furthermore, the rationale to combine the prior art set forth above for claim 9 applies to the rejection of claim 20.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Wayne S Murray whose telephone number is (571)272-4306. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Jeffrey 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.
/Wayne S. Murray/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights