DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
YThe present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This is a first office action for application Serial No. 19/223,877 filed on 05/30/2025. Claims 1-20 have been examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites: "A method comprising:
receiving, with at least one processor, a transportation request comprising an origin and a destination within a transportation network;
determining, with the at least one processor, a plurality of routes from the origin to the destination, wherein a first route of the plurality of routes comprises at least one optimal route among the plurality of routes;
determining, for at least a subset of routes of the plurality of routes, an offset value based on traffic demand data in the transportation network, the offset value provided by a system separate and remote from the at least one processor;
determining, with the at least one processor, a selected route of the plurality of routes;
allocating, with the at least one processor, the offset value corresponding to the selected route to the transportation request; and
modifying, with the at least one processor, trip data for the selected route based on the offset value."
This language is vague and indefinite for at least the following reasons:
Intended Use: The claim contains the following language that is vague and indefinite as it is unclear whether the scope of this language is intended to affirmatively require specific performance or whether this language is deliberately articulated as an expression of intended use:
“determining, for at least a subset of routes of the plurality of routes, an offset value based on traffic demand data in the transportation network, the offset value provided by a system separate and remote from the at least one processor”
“trip data for the selected route based on the offset value”
Accordingly, this language does not serve to patentably distinguish the claimed structure over that of the reference. See In re Pearson, 181 USPQ 641; In re Yanush, 177 USPQ 705; In re Finsterwalder, 168 USPQ 530; In re Casey, 512 USPQ 235; In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458; Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2nd 1647.
Subjective/Relative Terms: The term “at least one optimal route” is subjective and/or relative such that the scope of the term is vague and indefinite (i.e. the metes and bounds of the term are insufficiently defined such that persons of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the definitively precise scope of the term and claim as a whole). Furthermore, the term is not defined by the claim, and the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For example, it is unclear how, or what it means for a route would to be “optimal” (e.g. what subjective/objective criteria).
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"A method comprising:
receiving, with at least one processor, a transportation request comprising an origin and a destination within a transportation network;
determining, with the at least one processor, a plurality of routes from the origin to the destination, wherein a first route of the plurality of routes comprises at least one
determining, [intended for at least a subset of routes of the plurality of routes, an offset value based on traffic demand data in the transportation network, the offset value provided by a system separate and remote from the at least one processor];
determining, with the at least one processor, a selected route of the plurality of routes;
allocating, with the at least one processor, the offset value corresponding to the selected route to the transportation request; and
modifying, with the at least one processor, trip data [intended for the selected route based on the offset value]."
Claims 2-8 are further rejected as depending on this claim.
Claim 3 recites: "The method of claim 1, wherein the offset value for each route is based on at least one of the following:
a difference in distance between the route and the at least one optimal route, a difference in travel time between the route and the at least one optimal route, a difference in traffic congestion between the route and the at least one optimal route, or any combination thereof."
This language is rejected as vague and indefinite for at least the following reasons:
Antecedent Basis: The following term(s) lack(s) proper antecedent basis:
“the offset value for each route”
“the route”
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"The method of claim 1, wherein an offset value for each route is based on at least one of the following:
a difference in distance between a route and a route and a route and
Claim 7 recites: "The method of claim 6, wherein the offset value for each route is based on an algorithm configured to iteratively adjust an offset vector based on a determined equilibrium of the first traffic data and the second traffic data, such that each offset value is based on the offset vector."
This language is also rejected as vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Moreover, this language is further rejected as vague and indefinite for at least the following reasons:
Means-Plus-Function Language: The following claim limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
“an algorithm configured to iteratively adjust an offset vector based on a determined equilibrium of the first traffic data and the second traffic data, such that each offset value is based on the offset vector”
However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Intended Use: Alternatively, the underlined language of the claim as discussed above is further vague and indefinite as it is unclear whether the scope of this language is intended to affirmatively require specific performance or whether this language is deliberately articulated to be interpreted as an expression of intended use (as opposed to interpreted under 35 USC 112(f)).
Accordingly, this language does not serve to patentably distinguish the claimed structure over that of the reference. See In re Pearson, 181 USPQ 641; In re Yanush, 177 USPQ 705; In re Finsterwalder, 168 USPQ 530; In re Casey, 512 USPQ 235; In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458; Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2nd 1647.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"The method of claim 6, wherein the offset value for each route is based on an algorithm [intended to iteratively adjust an offset vector based on a determined equilibrium of the first traffic data and the second traffic data, such that each offset value is based on the offset vector]."
Claim 8 recites: "The method of claim 1, wherein the offset value for each route is based on one or more values associated with each segment of a plurality of segments in the transportation network."
This language is also rejected as vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 3 above.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"The method of claim 1, wherein an offset value for each route is based on one or more values associated with each segment of a plurality of segments in the transportation network."
Claim 9 recites: "A system comprising at least one computing device configured to:
receive a transportation request comprising an origin and a destination within a transportation network;
determine a plurality of routes from the origin to the destination, wherein a first route of the plurality of routes comprises at least one optimal route among the plurality of routes;
determine, for at least a subset of routes of the plurality of routes, an offset value based on traffic demand data in the transportation network, the offset value provided by a system separate and remote from the at least one computing device;
determine a selected route of the plurality of routes;
allocate the offset value corresponding to the selected route to the transportation request; and
modify trip data for the selected route based on the offset value."
This language is also rejected as vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claims 1 and 7 above.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"A system comprising at least one computer configured to:
receive a transportation request comprising an origin and a destination within a transportation network;
determine a plurality of routes from the origin to the destination, wherein a first route of the plurality of routes comprises at least one
determine, [intended for at least a subset of routes of the plurality of routes, an offset value based on traffic demand data in the transportation network, the offset value provided by a system separate and remote from the at least one computing device];
determine a selected route of the plurality of routes;
allocate the offset value corresponding to the selected route to the transportation request; and
modify trip data [intended for the selected route based on the offset value]."
Claims 10-16 are further rejected as depending on this claim.
Claim 11 recites: "The system of claim 9, wherein the offset value for each route is based on at least one of the following:
a difference in distance between the route and the at least one optimal route, a difference in travel time between the route and the at least one optimal route, a difference in traffic congestion between the route and the at least one optimal route, or any combination thereof."
This language is also rejected as vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 3 above.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"The system of claim 9, wherein an offset value for each route is based on at least one of the following:
a difference in distance between a route and a route and a route and
Claim 15 recites: "The system of claim 14, wherein the offset value for each route is based on an algorithm configured to iteratively adjust an offset vector based on a determined equilibrium of the first traffic data and the second traffic data, such that each offset value is based on the offset vector."
This language is also rejected as vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 7 above.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"The system of claim 14, wherein the offset value for each route is based on an algorithm [intended to iteratively adjust an offset vector based on a determined equilibrium of the first traffic data and the second traffic data, such that each offset value is based on the offset vector]."
Claim 16 recites: "The system of claim 9, wherein the offset value for each route is based on one or more values associated with each segment of a plurality of segments in the transportation network."
This language is also rejected as vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 8 above.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"The system of claim 9, wherein an offset value for each route is based on one or more values associated with each segment of a plurality of segments in the transportation network."
Claim 17 recites: "A computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable medium including program instructions that, when executed by at least one computing device, cause the computing device to:
receive a transportation request comprising an origin and a destination within a transportation network;
determine a plurality of routes from the origin to the destination, wherein a first route of the plurality of routes comprises at least one optimal route among the plurality of routes;
determine, for at least a subset of routes of the plurality of routes, an offset value based on traffic demand data in the transportation network, the offset value provided by a system separate and remote from the computing device;
determine a selected route of the plurality of routes;
allocate the offset value corresponding to the selected route to the transportation request; and
modify trip data for the selected route based on the offset value."
This language is also rejected as vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claims 1, 7, and 9 above.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"A computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable medium including program instructions that, when executed by at least one computer, cause the computer to:
receive a transportation request comprising an origin and a destination within a transportation network;
determine a plurality of routes from the origin to the destination, wherein a first route of the plurality of routes comprises at least one
determine, [intended for at least a subset of routes of the plurality of routes, an offset value based on traffic demand data in the transportation network, the offset value provided by a system separate and remote from the computing device];
determine a selected route of the plurality of routes;
allocate the offset value corresponding to the selected route to the transportation request; and
modify trip data [intended for the selected route based on the offset value]."
Claims 18-20 are further rejected as depending on this claim.
Claim 19 recites: “The computer program product of claim 17, wherein the offset value for each route is based on at least one of the following:
a difference in distance between the route and the at least one optimal route, a difference in travel time between the route and the at least one optimal route, a difference in traffic congestion between the route and the at least one optimal route, or any combination thereof.”
This language is also rejected as vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 3 above.
“The computer program product of claim 17, wherein an offset value for each route is based on at least one of the following:
a difference in distance between a route and a route and a route and
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1-20 are directed to the abstract idea of a “mental process” and/or “mathematical concepts” as explained in detail below. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea. Independent claims 1, 9, and 17 recite a method of receiving a transportation request, determining a plurality of routes from an origin to a destination, determining an offset value based on traffic data, determining a selected route of the plurality of routes, allocating the offset value corresponding to the selected route, and modifying trip data for the selected route based on the offset value. These steps relate to “mental processes” and/or “mathematical concepts” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind and/or methods for performing mathematical calculation. The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same). Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Here, the determination is a form of decision making and updating data based on traffic information.
Moreover, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims and their dependent claims recite the additional limitations of a processor, network, and system. These claim elements, however, are recited at such a high level of generality and is recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. See also e.g. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (explaining that generic computer components such as a communications network, including an email server, telephone network, telephone unit and general purpose computers performing generic computer functions do not satisfy the inventive concept requirement, but is merely routine and conventional and that implementation of the abstract idea does not improve the functioning of the computer itself). See also e.g. at least Alice Corp v. CLS Bank, 134 S.Ct. 2347, 2359 (describing that the use of a computer to obtain data, adjust account balances, and issue automated instructions, is well understood, routine and conventional).
The use of generic computer components to store, process and transmit information through an unspecified interface does not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of the recited elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Claims 2-8, 10-16, and 17-20 are dependent on claims 1, 9, and 17 and elaborate on the same abstract idea of the independent claims without adding significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore, claims 2-8, 10-16, and 17-20 recite the same abstract idea of “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Uyeki (US 2022/0049967 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Uyeki discloses a method (see e.g. at least Abstract, Fig. 3-8, 11, and related text) comprising:
receiving, with at least one processor, a transportation request comprising an origin and a destination within a transportation network (see e.g. at least ¶ 93-95, 140-141, Fig. 1-2, 4, 9, and related text, responsive to user input, determining and displaying a travel route from a starting point to a destination point);
determining, with the at least one processor, a plurality of routes from the origin to the destination, wherein a first route of the plurality of routes comprises at least one route among the plurality of routes (id., displaying a plurality of alternate routes);
determining, [intended for at least a subset of routes of the plurality of routes, an offset value based on traffic demand data in the transportation network, the offset value provided by a system separate and remote from the at least one processor] (id., see also e.g. at least ¶ 4-6, 83-90, Fig. 1, 4-5, Tables 3-4, and related text, calculating discounts based on traffic data);
determining, with the at least one processor, a selected route of the plurality of routes (id., selecting a safer alternate route 114B);
allocating, with the at least one processor, the offset value corresponding to the selected route to the transportation request (id., determining the discount in case of the selection of the safer alternate route 114B); and
modifying, with the at least one processor, trip data [intended for the selected route based on the offset value] (id., applying the discount to calculate a final trip cost).
Regarding claim 2, Uyeki discloses that the selected route is determined based on a user selection of the selected route from the subset of routes on a user computing device (see e.g. at least ¶ 4-6, 83-90, 93-95, 140-141, Fig. 1-2, 4-5, 9, and related text).
Regarding claim 3, Uyeki discloses that an offset value for each route is based on at least one of the following:
a difference in distance between a route and at least one route, a difference in travel time between a route and at least one route, a difference in traffic congestion between a route and at least one route, or any combination thereof (see e.g. at least ¶ 4-6, 83-90, 93-95, 140-141, Fig. 1-2, 4-5, 9, and related text).
Regarding claim 4, Uyeki discloses that the offset value is at least partially determined by a system separate and remote from the at least one processor (see e.g. at least ¶ 4-6, 83-90, 93-95, 140-141, Fig. 1-2, 4-5, 9, and related text).
Regarding claim 5, Uyeki discloses that modifying the trip data comprises at least one of the following:
adding a credit, reducing a user fee, increasing a user fee, or any combination thereof (see e.g. at least ¶ 4-6, 83-90, 93-95, 140-141, Fig. 1-2, 4-5, 9, and related text).
Regarding claim 8, Uyeki discloses that an offset value for each route is based on one or more values associated with each segment of a plurality of segments in the transportation network (see e.g. at least ¶ 4-6, 83-90, 93-95, 140-141, Fig. 1-2, 4-5, 9, and related text).
Claims 9-16 and 17-20 are directed to substantially similar subject matter as claims 1-8, but in system and computer program product form. These claims are similarly rejected for the same reasons as discussed in the rejection of claims 1-8 above.
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 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.
Claims 6-7 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uyeki (US 2022/0049967 A1) in view of D2 ().
Regarding claim 6, Uyeki discloses that the traffic demand data comprises:
second traffic data associated with vehicles that are not part of a fleet of vehicles (see e.g. at least ¶ 4-6, 83-90, 93-95, 140-141, Fig. 1-2, 4-5, 9, and related text).
Additionally, AuYoung teaches limitations not expressly disclosed by Uyeki including namely: (i) first traffic data associated with a fleet of vehicles assigned transportation requests in a transportation network by at least one processor (see e.g. at least ¶ 59, 99, 105, 107, Fig. 3, 7, and related text), [and (ii) second traffic data associated with vehicles that are not part of the fleet of vehicles] (id.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Uyeki by configuring (i) first traffic data associated with a fleet of vehicles assigned transportation requests in the transportation network by the at least one processor, and (ii) second traffic data associated with vehicles that are not part of the fleet of vehicles as taught by AuYoung in order to identify routes that have the lowest cost or highest benefit for automatically providing routing graph modifications to effectively manage autonomous vehicles (AuYoung: ¶ 37, 47).
Regarding claim 7, Modified Uyeki teaches that the offset value for each route is based on an algorithm [intended to iteratively adjust an offset vector based on a determined equilibrium of the first traffic data and the second traffic data, such that each offset value is based on the offset vector] (Uyeki: see e.g. at least ¶ 4-6, 83-90, 93-95, 140-141, Fig. 1-2, 4-5, 9, and related text).
Claims 14-15 recite substantially similar subject matter as claims 6-7, but in system form. These claims are similarly rejected for the same reasons as discussed in the rejection of claims 6-7 above
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES J HAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3980. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th and every other F (7:30 AM - 5 PM).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christian Chace can be reached on 571-272-4190. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHARLES J HAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights