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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/24/2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1 and 5-6 are pending. Claims 1 and 6 are amended. Claims 2-4 are cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 06/24/2026, with respect to the 101 rejection has been considered but is not persuasive.
Applicant argues, on pages 8-10, that the claims should be considered properly in light of the various recent guidance and updates.
Examiner has analyzed the claims under the proper 101 analysis procedure.
Applicant argues, on page 11, that the invention provides a novel vehicle dispatch system and method that technologically mitigates against motion sickness of a particular passenger. Applicant argues that amended claim 1 improves a technology for reducing probability of a user inducing motion sickness, when a user travels to a destination using a vehicle dispatch service.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim limitations as drafted, recite a concept, that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, is a certain method of organizing human activity. The limitations are analogous to managing personal behavior or interactions between people (interactions between people), or a commercial or legal interaction (sales activity) such as assigning drivers based on skill for passenger who have motion sickness (See Specification, Par. 0007). The generic computer implementations do not change the character of the limitations. The additional elements (computer elements, sensors, input device, etc) are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, the additional elements, when viewed individually and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h))
Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea. Furthermore, It is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology. Here, an alleged improvement to reducing probability of a user inducing motion sickness when a utilizing a dispatch service is an improvement to the business practice/interactions between people (abstract idea) and not a technology or technical field.
Novelty/Non-obviousness
The closest prior art of record is included in the previous office action mailed on 04/08/2026. The claims would be considered allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections in this office action.
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 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1 and 5 are directed to a system with multiple components, and therefore is a machine.
Claim 6 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable media and therefore are an article of manufacture.
Independent Claims
Step 2A Prong One
The limitation of Claim 1 recites:
obtain first evaluation values pertaining to the driver of the vehicle which is present within a predetermined distance from a riding point where the user gets on the vehicle, the first evaluation values measuring driving skill in terms of a respective plurality of driving items capable of inducing motion sickness, the first evaluation values measuring driving skills quantify at least one of an acceleration and deceleration during straight driving of the vehicle, acceleration and deceleration of the vehicle during curving, starting and stopping of the vehicle, and braking causing the vehicle to be shaken in a pitch direction at an acceleration of not less than a given threshold when the vehicle stops;
obtain second evaluation values measuring how easily the user gets motion sickness due to the respective plurality of driving items;
obtain, on a basis of the first evaluation values and the second evaluation values, third evaluation values measuring how easily the user gets motion sickness due to driver's driving; and
determine, on a basis of the third evaluation values, the driver to be assigned to the user,
to obtain, …, information pertaining to a feature of the vehicle, and
…, … obtains a riding point of the user and a destination …,
…
… obtains each of the third evaluation values for the respective plurality of driving items on a basis of a product of a corresponding one of the first evaluation values and a corresponding one of the second evaluation values,
wherein … calculates a correction value on a basis of a first parameter relating to the destination of the user and a second parameter determined on a basis of the information pertaining to the feature of the vehicle,
wherein the first parameter increases as the destination of the user from a route along which the vehicle is scheduled to travel, and
wherein … obtains each of the third evaluation values by correcting the product of the corresponding one of the first evaluation values and the corresponding one of the second evaluation values with the correction value.
The limitation of Claim 6 recites:
obtain first evaluation values pertaining to a driver of a vehicle which is present within a predetermined distance from a riding point where a user gets on the vehicle, the first evaluation values measuring driving skill in terms of a respective plurality of driving items capable of inducing motion sickness, the first evaluation values measuring driving skills quantify at least one of an acceleration and deceleration during straight driving of the vehicle, acceleration and deceleration of the vehicle during curving, starting and stopping of the vehicle, and braking causing the vehicle to be shaken in a pitch direction at an acceleration of not less than a given threshold when the vehicle stops;
obtain second evaluation values measuring how easily the user gets motion sickness due to the respective plurality of driving items;
obtain, on a basis of the first evaluation values and the second evaluation values, third evaluation values measuring how easily the user gets motion sickness due to driver's driving;
determine, on a basis of the third evaluation values, the driver to be assigned to the user,
to obtain…, information pertaining to a feature of the vehicle, and
to communicate … and to obtain a riding point of the user and a destination of the user by communicating …; and
calculate a correction value on a basis of a first parameter relating to the destination of the user and a second parameter determined on a basis of the information pertaining to the feature of the vehicle,
…,
wherein each of the third evaluation values for the respective plurality of driving items is obtained on a basis of a product of a corresponding one of the first evaluation values and a corresponding one of the second evaluation values,
wherein the first parameter increases as the destination of the user from a route along which the vehicle is scheduled to travel, and
wherein each of the third evaluation values is obtained by correcting the product of the corresponding one of the first evaluation values and the corresponding one of the second evaluation values with the correction value.
The claim limitations as drafted, recite a concept, that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, is a certain method of organizing human activity. The limitations are analogous to managing personal behavior or interactions between people (interactions between people), or a commercial or legal interaction (sales activity) such as assigning drivers based on skill for passenger who have motion sickness. The generic computer implementations (see below) do not change the character of the limitations. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements:
Claim 1:
A vehicle dispatch device which provides a vehicle dispatch service for assigning, to a user, a driver who drives a vehicle, the vehicle dispatch device comprising:
at least a processor configured to:
plurality of sensors
wherein the plurality of sensors includes a temperature sensor, an odor sensor, an acceleration sensor and a sound collecting sensor
an input device that communicates with at least the processor
Claim 6:
A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium in which a program for causing a computer to function as a vehicle dispatch device is stored, the program causing the computer to perform:
plurality of sensors
wherein the plurality of sensors includes a temperature sensor, an odor sensor, an acceleration sensor and a sound collecting sensor
input device
These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, the additional elements, when viewed individually and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h))
Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements, amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The same analysis applies here in 2B. The additional elements, when considered separately and in combination, do not add significantly more to the exception. They are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claims are ineligible.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claim 5 further narrows the same abstract ideas recited in Claim 1. Therefore, claim 5 is directed to an abstract idea for the reasons given above.
Step 2A Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the dependent claims recite the following additional elements:
Claim 5:
processor
These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, the additional elements, when viewed individually and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h))
Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements, amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The same analysis applies here in 2B. The additional elements, when considered separately and in combination, do not add significantly more to the exception. They are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claims are ineligible.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISMAIL A MANEJWALA whose telephone number is (571)272-8904. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Nathan Uber can be reached at 571-270-3923. 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.
/ISMAIL A MANEJWALA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights