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 .
Status of Claim(s)
Claim(s) 1-11 and 13-21 were previously pending and were rejected in the previous office action. Claim(s) 1-2, 11, and 13 were amended. Claim 22 was newly added. Claim(s) 5, 12, and 16 were cancelled. Claim(s) 3-4, 6-10,14-15, and 17-21 were left as previously/originally presented. Claim(s) 1-4, 6-11, 13-15, and 17-22 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s arguments, see page(s) 30-38 of Applicant’s Response, filed September 15, 2026, with respect to 35 USC § 101 rejection of Claim(s) 1-4, 6-11, 13-15, and 17-22 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, Applicant argues, on page 31-32, that the amended Independent Claim(s) 1, 11, and 22, do not fall within the revised Step 2A prong one framework under certain methods of organizing human activity concepts. Examiner, respectively, disagrees with applicant’s arguments.
As an initial matter, courts have provided various sub-groupings within organizing human activity grouping encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. It is also noted that the number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping. Instead, the determination should be based on whether the activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Examiner, respectfully, notes that the specific limitation(s) that fall within the subject matter groupings of the abstract idea for Claim(s) 1 and 11 are recited as “receiving, a first request that includes a first provider object identifier of a first provider object and a first location identifier, the first provider object comprising a data record corresponding to a travel-related service the first request further identifying a vehicle location of a vehicle,” “retrieving, using the first provider object identifier, a first initial time associated with the first provider object, the first initial time comprising a scheduled arrival time of the travel-related service at a destination,” “adjusting, the first initial time based on historical data, to determine a first adjusted time that is different from the first initial time, the first adjusted time determined from data associated with the first provider object, the first adjusted time representing a predicted time of arrival at the vehicle location from the destination,” “receiving, a second request that includes a second provider object identifier of a second provider object, and a second location identifier,” “retrieving, using the second provider object identifier, a second initial time associated with the second provider object, the second initial time comprising a respective scheduled arrival time at the destination,” “adjusting the second initial time based on respective historical data to determine a second adjusted time that is different from the second initial time, the second adjusted time representing a respective predicted time of arrival at the vehicle location,” “accessing, to match the first request with the second request based on the first adjusted time, the second adjusted time, the first location identifier, and the second location identifier the first request and the second request matched when the first adjusted time and the second adjusted time are within a given time period of each other,” “providing, respective notifications of match between the first request and the second request, the respective notifications including the vehicle location and a meeting time period within which the first adjusted time and the second adjusted time are located,” “receiving, a notification that the first initial time has changed to a different first initial time, the different first initial time comprising an updated scheduled arrival time of the travel-related service,” ”updating, based on the different first initial time, the first adjusted time to a first updated adjusted time,” “determining, that the first request and the second request no longer match based on the first updated adjusted time and the second adjusted time no longer being within the given time period of each other,” “cancelling, the match between the first request and the second request,” “accessing, to match the first request with a third request based on the first updated adjusted time and the first location identifier,” and “providing, associated with the first request and the third request, respective notifications of the match between the first request and the third request, the respective notifications of the match between the first request and the third request including the vehicle location and an updated meeting time period within which the first updated adjusted time is located,” step(s)/function(s) are merely certain methods of organizing human activity: commercial or legal interactions (e.g., business relations) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., following rules or instructions). Claim 22 recites “receiving, a first request that includes a first provider object identifier of a first provider object, and a first location identifier, the first provider object comprising a data record corresponding to a travel-related service, the first request further identifying a vehicle location of a vehicle,” “retrieving, using the first provider object identifier, a first initial time associated with the first provider object, the first initial time comprising a scheduled arrival time of the travel-related service at a destination,” “adjusting, the first initial time based on historical data, to determine a first adjusted time that is different from the first initial time, the first adjusted time determined from data associated with the first provider object stored, the first adjusted time representing a predicted time of arrival at the vehicle location from the destination,” “accessing, to match the first request with a second request based on the first adjusted time and the first location identifier, the second request associated with: a second initial time or a second adjusted time and a second location identifier, the first request and the second request matched when the first adjusted time is within a given time period of the second initial time or the second adjusted time,” “tagging the first request and the second request,” “storing,” “enable access to the first request and the second request,” “storing,” “cause prioritization of matching between the first request and the second request over other requests not tagged with the identifier,” “providing, to the first request and the second request, respective notifications of the match between the first request and the second request, the respective notifications including the vehicle location and a meeting time period within which the first adjusted time is located,” “receiving, a notification that the first initial time has changed to a different first initial time, the different first initial time comprising an updated scheduled arrival time of the travel-related service,” “updating, based on the different first initial time, the first adjusted time to a first updated adjusted time,” “determining, that the first request and the second request no longer match based on the first updated adjusted time no longer being within the given time period of the second initial time or the second adjusted time,” “in response: cancelling, the match between the first request and the second request,” “accessing, to match the first request with a third request based on the first updated adjusted time and the first location identifier,” ; and “providing, the first request and the third request, respective notifications of the match between the first request and the third request, the respective notifications of the match between the first request and the third request including the vehicle location and an updated meeting time period within which the first updated adjusted time is located,” function(s) are merely certain methods of organizing human activity: commercial or legal interactions (e.g., business relations) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., following rules or instructions).
Similar to, Credit Acceptance Corp v, Westlake Services, where the court found that processing a credit application between a customer and dealer, where the business relation is the relationship between the customer and the dealer during the vehicle purchase was merely a commercial transaction, which, is a form of certain methods of organizing human activity. In this case, the claim(s) are similar to a business relationship between an entity and a customer, which, the entity determines a ride- share location for a requester, which the entity can match the transportation request to another user. The entity will then determine if the request time matches and if not then the entity will cancel the request. The entity will then rematch the request with a third request and provide a match notification for the first and third request. Thus, the limitations represent a business relationship between a customer and an entity for matching and re-matching rideshare request. Therefore, applicant’s claims fall within at least the enumerated grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity.
Furthermore, as an initial matter, the courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind." Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Similar to, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., when the court provided that a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps, which, were recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind.
Here, applicant’s claim limitations are recited at a high level of generality that can be performed in the human mind when the limitations recite receiving a first request that includes a first provider object identifier of a first provider object and a first location, which the first provider object includes a data record for travel related service (i.e., collecting). The system will retrieve a first initial time associated with the first provider object, the first initial time includes a scheduled arrival time (i.e., collecting). The system will also receive a second request that includes a second provider object identifier of a second provider object and a second location identifier (i.e., collecting). The system will retrieve the second provider object identifier, a second initial time for the second provider object and a second scheduled arrival time (i.e., collecting). The system can receive a notification that the first initial time has changed to a different time (i.e., collecting). The system can then adjust a first and second initial time based on historical data (e.g., analyzing). The system can determine whether the first and second request no longer match and then cancel the match between the first and second request (i.e., analyzing). The system will then match the first request with a third request based on the updated first time adjustment (i.e., analyzing). The system will then provide notifications of the match between the first and third request which includes vehicle location and an updated meeting time (i.e., displaying). Thus, collecting request data and analyzing that request data, which the system will then display matched travel information to the requestors is merely related to a mental processes. Therefore, the claim(s) recite at least an abstract idea of mental processes. However, even assuming arguendo, that applicant has some merit that the claims cannot be performed mentally. The claims would still fall under certain methods of organizing human activity, see the above analysis.
Second, Applicant argues, on page 33-37, that the invention provides that the application is now integrated into a practical application thus sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Examiner, respectfully, disagrees with applicant’s arguments.
As an initial matter, it is important to note that first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an
improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, 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, 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 (e.g., "thereby increasing the bandwidth of the channel"), see MPEP 2106.04(d)(1). An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d at 1102-03; DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1259, 113 USPQ2d at 1107. In this respect, the improvement consideration overlaps with other considerations, specifically the particular machine consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)), and the mere instructions to apply an exception consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Thus, evaluation of those other considerations may assist examiners in making a determination of whether a claim satisfies the improvement consideration.
Here, in this case the specification discloses a solution to enables the system to improve modeling technique to use one vehicle, rather than two, is used by the two travelers, including after a delay, with matching that is less prone to cancellation and more efficient, see applicant’s arguments on page(s) 33-34 and applicant’s specification paragraph(s) 00143-00144, 00162-00163, and 0020. This is at best an improvement to the abstract idea itself (e.g., matching and re-matching travel services) rather than a technological improvement.
First, the step(s) of accomplishing this desired improvement in the specification is made in blanket conclusory manner by merely stating the system improve the efficiency of the computing device see paragraph(s) 00162-00163,, thus when the specification states the improvement in a conclusory manner the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology.
Similar to, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, the court provided that merely “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. In this case, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application when the system to improves the computing device efficiency and carbon footprint and/or pollution when matching and rematching travel services, see applicant’s paragraph(s) 00162-00163 and 00201, since the appending generic computer functionality merely lends to speed or efficiency to the performance of an abstract concept doesn’t meaningfully limit the claim(s) thus as a whole applicant’s limitations merely describe how to generally “apply,” the concept(s) of an existing process of matching and re-matching travel services thus at best are mere instructions to apply the exception.
Also, another important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d at 1102-03; DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1259, 113 USPQ2d at 1107. In this respect, the improvement consideration overlaps with other considerations, specifically the particular machine consideration (see MPEP §2106.05(b)), and the mere instructions to apply an exception consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Thus, evaluation of those other considerations may assist examiners in making a determination of whether a claim satisfies the improvement consideration.
Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv., the court has held that the use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Here, in this case applicant’s limitations merely receiving, retrieving, adjusting, receiving, retrieving, adjusting, accessing, providing, receiving, updating, determining, tagging, cancelling, accessing, and providing, travel service information using computer components that operate in their ordinary capacity (e.g., a computing device, a provider system, a historical database, one or more respective provider systems, request matching database, respective communication devices, a communication interface, a controller, a computer-readable storage medium), which are no more than “applying,” the judicial exception.
Similar to, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, the court provided that merely “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. In this case, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application when the system to improves the computing device efficiency and carbon footprint and/or pollution when matching and rematching travel services, see applicant’s paragraph(s) 00162-00163 and 00201, since the appending generic computer functionality merely lends to speed or efficiency to the performance of an abstract concept doesn’t meaningfully limit the claim(s) thus as a whole applicant’s limitations merely describe how to generally “apply,” the concept(s) of an existing process of matching and re-matching travel services thus at best are mere instructions to apply the exception.
Furthermore, similar to, TLI Communications, where the court found that there was no improvement upon computers or technology when mere gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result. Here, in this case, receiving a first request that includes a first provider object identifier of a first provider object and a first location, which the first provider object includes a data record for travel related service (i.e., gathering). The system will retrieve a first initial time associated with the first provider object, the first initial time includes a scheduled arrival time (i.e., gathering). The system will also receive a second request that includes a second provider object identifier of a second provider object and a second location identifier (i.e., gathering). The system will retrieve the second provider object identifier, a second initial time for the second provider object and a second scheduled arrival time (i.e., gathering). The system can receive a notification that the first initial time has changed to a different time (i.e., gathering). The system can then adjust a first and second initial time based on historical data (e.g., analyzing). The system can determine whether the first and second request no longer match and then cancel the match between the first and second request (i.e., analyzing). The system will then match the first request with a third request based on the updated first time adjustment (i.e., analyzing). The system will then provide notifications of the match between the first and third request which includes vehicle location and an updated meeting time (i.e., displaying) thus merely gathering request information, determining request matches for the travel service, and then presenting the matches for the request are not sufficient to show an improvement in computers or technology of matching and rematching travel services.
Also, see the recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
While applicant argues, applicant’s arguments on page 36 and in applicant’s specification paragraph(s) 00162-00163, is not the speed of a computer but the reduction in cancelled matches, and hence in wasted matching, that results from predicting arrival at the vehicle location rather than relying on the scheduled arrival time, and from using the outcomes of earlier matches to refine later predictions thus not resulting in mere instructions resulting in an improvement. Examiner, respectfully, disagrees with this argument.
In this case, applicants claims fail to recite how the computing device efficiency is improved and how computing devices reduces memory, power, and/or latency or other resources, in an unconventional way (e.g., technical improvement) rather than the business improvement (e.g., reducing cancelled rideshare matches by predicting arrival locations of rideshare vehicles). Therefore, applicants arguments are not persuasive.
Third, Applicant argues, on page 35, that the invention provides an improvement to the technical field of matching travel services when the claim takes an externally supplied and externally updated quantity, repeatedly derives from it a further time, and acts on the derived time by applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Examiner, respectfully, disagrees with applicant’s arguments.
This case is unlike, Diamond v. Diehr, when the claims recited meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. In Diehr, the claim was directed to the use of the Arrhenius equation (an abstract idea or law of nature) in an automated process for operating a rubber-molding press, which, the Court evaluated additional elements such as the steps of installing rubber in a press, closing the mold, constantly measuring the temperature in the mold, and automatically opening the press at the proper time, and found them to be meaningful because they sufficiently limited the use of the mathematical equation to the practical application of molding rubber products, see MPEP 2106.05(e).
As an initial matter, a process that transforms raw, uncured synthetic rubber into precision-molded synthetic rubber products, as discussed in Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 184, 209 USPQ 1, 21 (1981)), provides significantly more (or integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. However, applicant’s limitations seem to merely rearrange data points in a database and send digital rideshare messages, which isn’t enough for integrating a judicial exception into a practical application. See, the nature of the article transformed such as transformation of a physical or tangible object or substance is more likely to provide significantly more (or integrate a judicial exception into a practical application) than the transformation of an intangible concept such as a contractual obligation or mental judgment, MPEP 2106.05(c).
However, similar to, the claims in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, where the court concluded that the additional elements such as the data processing system and communications controllers recited in the system claims did not meaningfully limit the abstract idea because they merely linked the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., "implementation via computers") or were well understood, routine, conventional activity since they were recited at a high level of generality. Here, in this case merely receiving, retrieving, adjusting, receiving, retrieving, adjusting, accessing, providing, receiving, updating, determining, cancelling, accessing, and providing travel information is no more than “applying,” the judicial exception of matching and rematching travel request.
Also, see, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv., use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more; and A commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983 (2014); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 64, 175 USPQ 673, 674 (1972); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Therefore, applicant’s limitations do not satisfy the improvement consideration thus applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Fourth, Applicant argues on page(s) 35-36 of applicants’ arguments, that the Claims are integrated into a practical application similar to Example 42. Examiner, respectfully, disagrees with applicants argument.
As an initial matter, Example 42 Claim 1 was found to be integrated into a practical application based on the transformation of data limitations. It should be noted that Example 42 Claim 1 was also found to be integrated into a practical application based on the other limitations such as what the system did with this updated standardized information by transmitting this information to the users to share this information in real time regardless of the format that was input by the user. Example 42 Claim 1, also, considered the specification’s detailed recitation of a specific improvement over the problems within other prior art systems (see, the second argument, above that explains why applicant’s specification doesn’t recite a specific improvement).
In this case, applicant’s limitations are not as narrowly claimed as Example 42 Claim 1. Applicant has not provided limitations of how the schedule updated information is ‘formatted.’ There is nothing in applicants claims or specification of how the information is formatted and how the formatted information is used for other users to share this information regardless of the format of the received information. Therefore, applicant’s limitations as currently recited do not recite a specific improvement nor are they integrated into a practical application. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Fifth, Applicant argues, on page 36-37, that the invention provides that the application is now integrated into a practical application when tagging, governs how the request of the matching database is accessed and operated thus sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Examiner, respectfully, disagrees with applicant’s arguments.
Similar to, Intellectual Ventures, 850 F.3d at 1327–29, the courts found using XML tags and metadata to organize and store digital records in a database is longstanding conduct that existed well before computers and the internet. In this case, applicant provides that the request are tagged and then the tags are stored in a database is an patent-ineligible abstract ideas. Also, see Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co. held that the '434 patent's claims directed to "creating an index and using that index to search for and retrieve data" are patent-ineligible abstract ideas.
Also, similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv., the court has held that the use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Here, in this case applicant’s limitations merely tagging, storing, enabling, storing, and prioritizing, travel service information using computer components that operate in their ordinary capacity (e.g., request matching database and computing device) are no more than “applying,” the judicial exception. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Sixth, Applicant argues on page(s) 37-38 of applicants’ arguments, that the Claims are not well-understood, routine, or conventional activity and amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Examiner, respectfully, disagrees with applicants argument.
As an initial matter, although the conclusion of whether a claim is eligible at Step 2B requires that all relevant considerations be evaluated, most of these considerations were already evaluated in Step 2A Prong Two. Thus, in Step 2B, examiners should: (1) Carry over their identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two; (2) Carry over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) - (c), (e) (f) and (h): (3) Re-evaluate any additional element or combination of elements that was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP § 2106.05(g), because if such re- evaluation finds that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well- understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, this finding may indicate that the additional element is no longer considered to be insignificant; and (4) Evaluate whether any additional element or combination of elements are other than what is well- understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, per MPEP § 2106.05(d), see MPEP 2106.5(B)(II).
Examiner respectfully notes that in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 06/29/2026 on page(s) 5-8, the Step 2B prong was used to analysis the previous Step 2A Prong Two additional elements that merely amounted to describing how to generally “apply,” the abstract idea in a computer environment thus Examiner carried over the identification of the additional elements and conclusions of the additional elements that were analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, which the analysis also explained how the limitations were not an improvement to the technology. As stated above, any claim elements that were identified as insignificant extra-solution activity should be reevaluated under Step 2B for determining if they are well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv., the court has held that the use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Here, in this case applicant’s limitations merely receiving, retrieving, adjusting, receiving, retrieving, adjusting, accessing, providing, receiving, updating, determining, tagging, cancelling, accessing, and providing, travel service information using computer components that operate in their ordinary capacity (e.g., a computing device, a provider system, a historical database, one or more respective provider systems, request matching database, respective communication devices, a communication interface, a controller, a computer-readable storage medium), which are no more than “applying,” the judicial exception.
It should also be noted that when making a determination whether the additional elements in a claim amount to significantly more than a judicial exception, the examiner should evaluate whether the elements define only well-understood, routine, conventional activity. In this respect, the well-understood, routine, conventional consideration overlaps with other Step 2B considerations, particularly the improvement consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)), the mere instructions to apply an exception consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), and the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). Thus, evaluation of those other considerations may assist examiners in making a determination of whether a particular element or combination of elements is well-understood, routine, conventional activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d). In this case, examiner provided why these limitations are not sufficient to show an improvement (e.g., Affinity Labs v. DirecTv., TLI Communications, and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank) and how the limitations amount to mere instructions to apply an exception, see the above analysis in the argument section(s). Thus, the claims do not provide an improvement to the home maintenance schedule system.
Also, as an initial matter, Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp, found that the “novelty’’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the 35 USC §101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter. Furthermore, the court in, Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp, stated that a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea the search for a 35 USC § 101 inventive concept is distinct from demonstrating 35 USC § 102 novelty rejection. And similar to the court in, BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, the court stated that the search for a 35 USC §101 inventive concept is also different from an obviousness analysis under 35 USC §103. The lack of novelty under 35 USC § 102 or obviousness under 35 USC § 103 of a claimed invention does not necessarily indicate that additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional elements. Because they are separate and distinct requirements from eligibility, patentability of the claimed invention under 35 USC § 102 and 35 USC § 103 with respect to the prior art is neither required for, nor a guarantee of, patent eligibility under 35 USC § 101. Examiner, respectfully, suggest that Applicant refer back to MPEP §2106.05(d). Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are found to be unpersuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, see page 39, filed September 15, 2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 has been withdrawn.
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) 1-4, 6-11, 13-15, and 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A Prong 1: Independent Claim(s) 1, 11, and 22 recites an provider that receives various request. The provider is able to adjust and update the time information for the request. The provider can then cancel the request that do not match and match another request to the first request. Independent Claim(s) 1, 11, and 22 as a whole recites limitation(s) that are directed to the abstract idea(s) of certain methods of organizing human activity: commercial or legal interactions (e.g., business relations) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities and/or following rules or instructions) and/or mental processes (e.g., evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion).
Independent Claim(s) 1 and 11 recites “receiving, a first request that includes a first provider object identifier of a first provider object and a first location identifier, the first provider object comprising a data record corresponding to a travel-related service the first request further identifying a vehicle location of a vehicle,” “retrieving, using the first provider object identifier, a first initial time associated with the first provider object, the first initial time comprising a scheduled arrival time of the travel-related service at a destination,” “adjusting, the first initial time based on historical data, to determine a first adjusted time that is different from the first initial time, the first adjusted time determined from data associated with the first provider object, the first adjusted time representing a predicted time of arrival at the vehicle location from the destination,” “receiving, a second request that includes a second provider object identifier of a second provider object, and a second location identifier,” “retrieving, using the second provider object identifier, a second initial time associated with the second provider object, the second initial time comprising a respective scheduled arrival time at the destination,” “adjusting the second initial time based on respective historical data to determine a second adjusted time that is different from the second initial time, the second adjusted time representing a respective predicted time of arrival at the vehicle location,” “accessing, to match the first request with the second request based on the first adjusted time, the second adjusted time, the first location identifier, and the second location identifier the first request and the second request matched when the first adjusted time and the second adjusted time are within a given time period of each other,” “providing, respective notifications of match between the first request and the second request, the respective notifications including the vehicle location and a meeting time period within which the first adjusted time and the second adjusted time are located,” “receiving, a notification that the first initial time has changed to a different first initial time, the different first initial time comprising an updated scheduled arrival time of the travel-related service,” ”updating, based on the different first initial time, the first adjusted time to a first updated adjusted time,” “determining, that the first request and the second request no longer match based on the first updated adjusted time and the second adjusted time no longer being within the given time period of each other,” “cancelling, the match between the first request and the second request,” “accessing, to match the first request with a third request based on the first updated adjusted time and the first location identifier,” and “providing, associated with the first request and the third request, respective notifications of the match between the first request and the third request, the respective notifications of the match between the first request and the third request including the vehicle location and an updated meeting time period within which the first updated adjusted time is located,” step(s)/function(s) are merely certain methods of organizing human activity: commercial or legal interactions (e.g., business relations) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities and/or following rules or instructions) and/or mental processes (e.g., evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion).
Claim 22 recites “receiving, a first request that includes a first provider object identifier of a first provider object, and a first location identifier, the first provider object comprising a data record corresponding to a travel-related service, the first request further identifying a vehicle location of a vehicle,” “retrieving, using the first provider object identifier, a first initial time associated with the first provider object, the first initial time comprising a scheduled arrival time of the travel-related service at a destination,” “adjusting, the first initial time based on historical data, to determine a first adjusted time that is different from the first initial time, the first adjusted time determined from data associated with the first provider object stored, the first adjusted time representing a predicted time of arrival at the vehicle location from the destination,” “accessing, to match the first request with a second request based on the first adjusted time and the first location identifier, the second request associated with: a second initial time or a second adjusted time and a second location identifier, the first request and the second request matched when the first adjusted time is within a given time period of the second initial time or the second adjusted time,” “tagging the first request and the second request,” “storing,” “enable access to the first request and the second request,” “storing,” “cause prioritization of matching between the first request and the second request over other requests not tagged with the identifier,” “providing, to the first request and the second request, respective notifications of the match between the first request and the second request, the respective notifications including the vehicle location and a meeting time period within which the first adjusted time is located,” “receiving, a notification that the first initial time has changed to a different first initial time, the different first initial time comprising an updated scheduled arrival time of the travel-related service,” “updating, based on the different first initial time, the first adjusted time to a first updated adjusted time,” “determining, that the first request and the second request no longer match based on the first updated adjusted time no longer being within the given time period of the second initial time or the second adjusted time,” “in response: cancelling, the match between the first request and the second request,” “accessing, to match the first request with a third request based on the first updated adjusted time and the first location identifier,” ; and “providing, the first request and the third request, respective notifications of the match between the first request and the third request, the respective notifications of the match between the first request and the third request including the vehicle location and an updated meeting time period within which the first updated adjusted time is located,” step(s)/function(s) are merely certain methods of organizing human activity: commercial or legal interactions (e.g., business relations) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities and/or following rules or instructions) and/or mental processes (e.g., evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion).
Furthermore, as explained in the MPEP and the October 2019 update, where a series of step(s) recite judicial exceptions, examiners should combine all recited judicial exceptions and treat the claim as containing a single judicial exception for purposes of further eligibility analysis. (See, MPEP 2106.04, 2016.05(II) and October 2019 Update at Section I. B.) For instance, in this case, Independent Claim(s) 1, 11, and 22, is similar to an entity receiving request and the entity adjusting the times. The entity can then cancel a request and rematch the request to a third request. The mere recitation of generic computer components (Claim 1: a computing device, one or more of a provider system, a historical database, a provider system, communication devices, and one request matching database; Claim 11: a computing device, a communication interface, a controller, a computer-readable storage medium, a communication interface, one or more provider system, a historical database, one request matching database, and communication devices; and Claim 22: a computing device, a provider system, a historical database, and a request matching database) do not take the claims out of the enumerated grouping certain methods of organizing human activity and/or mental processes. Therefore, Independent Claim(s) 1, 11, and 22 recites the above abstract idea(s).
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical
application because the claims as a whole describes how to generally “apply,” the
concept(s) of “receiving,” “retrieving,” “adjusting,” “accessing,” “tagging,” “providing,” “receiving,” “updating,” “determining,” “cancelling,” “accessing,” and “providing,” respectively, information in a computer environment as applied to Independent Claim(s) 1, 11, and 22. The limitations that amount to “apply it,” are as follows (Claim 1: a computing device, one or more of a provider system, a historical database, a provider system, communication devices, and one request matching database; Claim 11: a computing device, a communication interface, a controller, a computer-readable storage medium, a communication interface, one or more provider system, a historical database, one request matching database, and communication devices; and Claim 22: a computing device, a provider system, a historical database, and a request matching database). Examiner, notes that the computing device, one or more of a provider system, historical database, provider system, communication devices, one request matching database, communication interface, controller, and computer-readable storage medium, are recited so generically that they
represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer.
Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv., the court has held that certain additional elements are not integrated into a practical application or provide significantly more when the additional elements merely use a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) thus they do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process, which, amounts to no more than “applying,” the judicial exception. Here, the above additional elements are not integrated into a practical application or provide significantly more when they are merely receiving, retrieving, adjusting, accessing, tagging, providing, receiving, updating, determining, cancelling, accessing, and providing, provider information which is no more than merely invoking computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process (e.g., determining, cancelling, and matching service providers) thus merely “applying,” the judicial exception
Also, see a recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Furthermore, similar to, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, the court provided that merely “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. In this case, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application when increasing efficiency in determining adjusted times, see applicant’s specification paragraph(s) 0002 and 00162-00163, since the appending generic computer functionality merely lends to speed or efficiency to the performance of an abstract concept doesn’t meaningfully limit the claim(s) thus as a whole applicant’s limitations merely describe how to generally “apply,” the concept(s) of an existing process of determining and updating provider requested information thus at best are mere instructions to apply the exception.
Furthermore, similar to, TLI Communications, where the court found that there was no improvement upon computers or technology when mere gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result. Here, in this case, receiving a first request that includes a first provider object identifier of a first provider object and a first location, which the first provider object includes a data record for travel related service (i.e., gathering). The system will retrieve a first initial time associated with the first provider object, the first initial time includes a scheduled arrival time (i.e., gathering). The system will also receive a second request that includes a second provider object identifier of a second provider object and a second location identifier (i.e., gathering). The system will retrieve the second provider object identifier, a second initial time for the second provider object and a second scheduled arrival time (i.e., gathering). The system can receive a notification that the first initial time has changed to a different time (i.e., gathering). The system can then adjust a first and second initial time based on historical data (e.g., analyzing). The system can determine whether the first and second request no longer match and then cancel the match between the first and second request (i.e., analyzing). The system will then match the first request with a third request based on the updated first time adjustment (i.e., analyzing). The system will then provide notifications of the match between the first and third request which includes vehicle location and an updated meeting time (i.e., displaying) thus merely gathering request information, determining request matches for the travel service, and then presenting the matches for the request are not sufficient to show an improvement in computers or technology of matching and rematching travel services. Also, see FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093–94 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (determining “that the ‘realm of abstract ideas’ includes ‘collecting information, including when limited to particular content’” as well as analyzing and presenting information). Each of the above limitations simply implement an abstract idea that is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, which, is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Therefore, when viewed in combination these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claims are directed to the above abstract idea(s).
Step 2B: The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as noted previously, the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply,” the abstract idea in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are ineligible.
Claim(s) 2-4, 6-10, 13-15, 17, and 19-21: The various metrics of Dependent Claim(s) 2-4, 6-10, 13-15, 17, and 19-21 merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations. For the reasons described above with respect to Independent Claim(s) 1 and 11, these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 18: The additional limitation of “tagging,” “enabling,” “storing,” and “causing,” are further directed to a certain method of organizing human activity and/or mental processes, as described in Claim 11. The computing device and matching database, respectively, are recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. The recitation(s) of “tagging the first request and the second request,” “enable access to the first request and the second request,” “stored,” and “cause prioritization of matching between the first request and the second request over other requests not tagged with the identifier,” step(s)/function(s) falls within the enumerated grouping certain methods of organizing human activity and/or mental processes.
Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv., the court has held that task to receive, store, or transmit data are additional elements that amount to no more than “applying,” the judicial exception. (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Here, the above additional elements merely tagging, enabling, storing, and causing, information which is no more than “applying,” the judicial exception.
Also, similar to BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 889 F.3d 1281, 1287-88, 127 USPQ2d 1688, 1693-94 (Fed. Cir. 2018), where the court found that providing historical usage information to users while they are inputting data, in order to improve the quality and organization of information added to a database, because "an improvement to the information stored by a database is not equivalent to an improvement in the database’s functionality," was not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality. Therefore, for the reasons described above with respect to Claim 18, the judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
The dependent claim(s) 2-4, 6-10, 13-15, and 17-21 above do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) in the dependent claim(s) above are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component(s), which, doesn’t provide an inventive concept. Therefore, Claim(s) 1-4, 6-11, 13-15, and 17-22 are not patent eligible.
Novelty/Non-Obviousness
For the reasons outlined below, Independent Claim(s) 1, 11, and 22 are distinguished from the art.
Kumar et al. (US 2023/0039994 A1). Kumar et al. teaches a network computer system can schedule a future service for transport of the user based on a current service request for the user. The user can input an airport terminal, service time, and flight number. Kumar et al., also, teaches the network computer system can predict a duration for the user to be ready for pickup at a precise location within the mass egress location relative to the time of the scheduled event. This can be determined from historical information, contextual information and/or observed information. The time for the user to be ready for pickup at a pickup location within the egress location can be based on user-specific historical information, general historical information, information inferred or otherwise determined about the particular scheduled event of the user, contextual information such as general congestion of the mass egress location, and/or preferences of the user. If the service provider accepts the fulfillment of the request then the system will then pre-match the service provider with the user. Kumar et al., further, teaches the network system can transmit a pickup request to the service provider device and the user device. The system can provide information and directions for the user to go to the pickup location. Kumar et al. teaches the network computer system can monitor the flight status of the user’s flight. The system can detect a disruption such as a delay in the flight. Kumar et al., further, teaches the user can receive a notification that the flight has been delayed The network computer system can determine delays that exceed the second threshold, the network computer system can present the pre-matched service provider with updated scheduled service information and prompt the pre-matched service provider to accept or decline the pre-match with the request based on the updated information. If the service provider accepts, the fulfillment of the request can proceed in the pre-match mode with the pre-matched service provider. If the service provider declines the prompt, the pre-match of the scheduled request with the pre-matched service provider can be cancelled and the system can determine if it should proceed in the queue mode or in the pre-match mode. Kumar et al., further, teaches this can be based on the updated flight arrival information. Kumar et al., also teaches if the service provide does not accept the updated flight arrival information based on the delay then the system will then re-identify other service providers to be pre-matched with the user scheduled request and once the system determines that the other driver has selected to receive the request, then the system will present information and/or directions for the user to go to the pickup location. However, Kumar et al., doesn’t explicitly teach adjusting a second initial time based on historical data, which is used to determine an second adjusted time that is different from the second initial time. The system will then match the first and second request based on the new second adjusted time. Kumar et al., also, doesn’t explicitly teach tagging the first and second request with an computing device identifier. The system will then enable access of the computing device to the first request and the second request and cause prioritization of matching between the first request and the second request over other request that are not tagged with the identifier of the computing device.
Ogilvie (US 2017/0053370 A1). Ogilvie teaches a user can input the airline name and airline ID. The system can use a historical database that includes historical flight data to refer to data or information for the flight arrival times, flight delays, and airport delays. The system can calculate the curb arrival time based on the information from the database and the flight tracking service such as FlightA-ware. However, Ogilvie, doesn’t explicitly teach adjusting a second initial time based on historical data, which is used to determine an second adjusted time that is different from the second initial time. The system will then match the first and second request based on the new second adjusted time. Ogilvie et al., also, doesn’t explicitly teach tagging the first and second request with an computing device identifier. The system will then enable access of the computing device to the first request and the second request and cause prioritization of matching between the first request and the second request over other request that are not tagged with the identifier of the computing device.
Bansal et al. (US 2021/0004770 A1). Bansal et al. teaches a user's flight is delayed, the affected event determiner can determine that the user's rental car reservation event will be impacted because an attribute specifying a pickup-time window expires before the flight arrival time indicates the flight will land. Bansal et al., further, teaches the flight arrival time may be specified as an arrival time attribute for the now updated event entity for the flight. The system can then determine an conflict with the flight delay and the rental vehicle. A new time can be determined for the car rental. Bansal et al., also, teaches the system can determine the flight is delayed, which affects the car rental. The system can then update the car pickup time based on the flight delay. The system, also, teaches a delayed flight that lands at 1:45PM may directly conflict with a scheduled taxi service set to pick the user up from the airport at 12:45PM. However, Bansal et al., doesn’t explicitly teach adjusting a second initial time based on historical data, which is used to determine an second adjusted time that is different from the second initial time. The system will then match the first and second request based on the new second adjusted time. Bansal et al., also, doesn’t explicitly teach tagging the first and second request with an computing device identifier. The system will then enable access of the computing device to the first request and the second request and cause prioritization of matching between the first request and the second request over other request that are not tagged with the identifier of the computing device.
Dacosta (CA-3071144-A1). Dacosta teaches second paragraph an algorithmic ride-sharing filtering process. It takes individual requests and evaluates those request, filter those request, tag those request, and then sort them against user-defined preferences to determine which requests ultimately become preferred. However, Dacosta, doesn’t explicitly teach adjusting a second initial time based on historical data, which is used to determine an second adjusted time that is different from the second initial time. The system will then match the first and second request based on the new second adjusted time. Dacosta, also, doesn’t explicitly teach tagging the first and second request with an computing device identifier. The system will then enable access of the computing device to the first request and the second request and cause prioritization of matching between the first request and the second request over other request that are not tagged with the identifier of the computing device.
Brinig et al. (US 10,706,659 B2). Brinig et al. teaches a ride-sharing app. The system can log or record the rider-driver pairing in a database. The database will associate the users identifier and the drivers identifier in a trip record or ride log for the requested trip, which will indicate that the requesting user has been matched with the paired driver. However, Brinig et al., doesn’t explicitly teach adjusting a second initial time based on historical data, which is used to determine an second adjusted time that is different from the second initial time. The system will then match the first and second request based on the new second adjusted time. Brinig et al., also, doesn’t explicitly teach cause prioritization of matching between the first request and the second request over other request that are not tagged with the identifier of the computing device.
Bishoff et al. (US 2013/0316159 A1). Bishoff et al. teaches an airport matching system that matches provider devices and priority requester devices in response to time priority airport transportation requests. The system can select a provider device from a pool of available provider devices to match to a priority requester device. However, Bishoff et al., doesn’t explicitly teach adjusting a second initial time based on historical data, which is used to determine an second adjusted time that is different from the second initial time. The system will then match the first and second request based on the new second adjusted time. Bishoff et al., also, doesn’t explicitly teach tagging the first and second request with an computing device identifier. The system will then enable access of the computing device to the first request and the second request and cause prioritization of matching between the first request and the second request over other request that are not tagged with the identifier of the computing device.
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 A HEFLIN whose telephone number is (571)272-3524. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 - 5:00 M-F.
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.
/B.A.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/MICHAEL P HARRINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
