DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013 is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Application
This action is a first action on the merits in response to the application filed on 07/08/2025.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 filed on 07/08/2025 are currently pending and have been examined in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/08/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, claims 1-20 are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements to integrate the claims into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 1-20 are directed to a process, machine, or manufacture (Step 1), however the claims are directed to the abstract idea of scheduling a service provider with a client.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the frameworks, claim 1 recites an abstract idea. Claim 1 includes limitations for “receive a request to create a first service object instance of a service object, the request including a selection of the service object and an indication of a first service location; identify a first set of service object instances that are related to the first service object instance based on at least a time associated with the first service object instance and the first service location; encompasses locations associated with the first set of service object instances and the first service location; and update the map, the updating including arranging interface elements of the map interface to display a projected route to the first service location that includes one or more locations associated with service object instances of the identified first set”
The limitations above recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. More particularly, the limitations above recite certain methods of organizing human activity associated with managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people because the claimed elements describe a process for associating a service provider with a client (commercial principles like scheduling appointments, managing merchant services, and route planning).
Claim 11 recites substantially similar limitations to those presented with respect to claim 1. As a result, claim 11 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1. Similarly, claims 2-10 and 12-20 recite certain methods of organizing human activity associated with managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people because the claimed elements describe a process for associating a service provider with a client. As a result, claims 2-10 and 12-20 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea. The additional elements of claim 1 include “A computing system, comprising: a processor; and a memory coupled to the processor, the memory storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed, configure the processor to:”, “via a customer device”, “pre-populate a map region that”, “interface based on causing a graphical representation of previously scheduled appointments to be displayed via the GUI”.
When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the step of “receiving” does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because “receiving” is insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the recited computer elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea.
Claim 1 describes looking at a new appointment request, finding existing appointments nearby in time and location, and displaying them on a map with a route. This is a digital automation of what a delivery coordinator or traveling salesperson does manually.
The claim does not improve the underlying functionality of the computer or the map interface itself. Instead, it uses generic computer functions (receiving data, identifying relationships, rendering an image) to automate a business workflow.
While the claim mentions "arranging interface elements" and "pre-populating data," these limitations focus on what information is displayed to the user (the content of the schedule/route) rather than a novel, technical mechanism for how a GUI operates.
As a result, claim 1 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
As noted above, claim 11 recites substantially similar limitations to those recited with respect to claim 1. Although claim 11 further recites “A computer-implemented method”, when considered in view of the claim as a whole, the recited computer elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claims 11 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
Claims 2-10 and 12-20 include additional elements beyond those recited by independent claims 1and 11. The additional elements in the dependent claims include “GUI comprises a user interface” as in claim 2, “selectable UI elements” as in claim 3, “toggle element” as in claim 5, “interactive map” as in claim 9, and “merchant device” as in claim 10. When considered in view of the claims as a whole, the recited computer elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claims 2-10 and 12-20 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
With respect to Step 2B of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. As noted above, claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea. The additional elements of claim 1 include “A computing system, comprising: a processor; and a memory coupled to the processor, the memory storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed, configure the processor to:”, “via a customer device”, “pre-populate a map region that”, “interface based on causing a graphical representation of previously scheduled appointments to be displayed via the GUI”.
The step of “receiving” does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because “receiving” is well-understood, routine, and conventional computer function in view of MPEP 2106.05(d)(ll). The recited computer elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. The claim explicitly relies on a generic "processor," "memory," "customer device," and "graphical user interface" performing their normal, expected functions.
As a result, claim 1 does not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
As noted above, claim 11 recites substantially similar limitations to those recited with respect to claim 1. Although claim 11 further recites “A computer-implemented method”, the recited computer elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claim 11 does not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claims 2-10 and 12-20 include additional elements beyond those recited by independent claims 1and 11. The additional elements in the dependent claims include “GUI comprises a user interface” as in claim 2, “selectable UI elements” as in claim 3, “toggle element” as in claim 5, “interactive map” as in claim 9, and “merchant device” as in claim 10. The recited computer elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claims 2-10 and 12-20 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
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.
Claims 1, 3-11, and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being un-patentable over Griffin (US 20160117761 A1) in view of Brown, II (US 20150149286 A1) and in further view of DaCosta (US 11182709 B2).
Regarding claim 1. Griffin teaches A computing system, comprising: a processor; and a memory coupled to the processor, the memory storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed, configure the processor to: [Griffin, para. 0052-0053, Griffin teaches “The example computer system 1000 includes a processor 1002 (e.g., a central processing unit (CPU) a graphics processing unit (GPU) or both), a main memory 1004 and a static memory 1006” and “The disk drive unit 1016 includes a machine-readable medium 1022 on which is stored one or more sets of instructions (e.g., software 1024) embodying any one or more of the methodologies or functions described herein. The software 1024 may also reside, completely or at least partially, within the main memory 1004 and/or within the processor 1002 during execution thereof by the computer system 1000, the main memory 1004 and the processor 1002 also constituting machine-readable media”]
Griffin does not specifically teach, however; Brown, II teaches receive, via a customer device, a request to create a first service object instance of a service object, the request including a selection of the service object and an indication of a first service location; identify a first set of service object instances that are related to the first service object instance based on at least a time associated with the first service object instance and the first service location; [Brown, claim 1, Brown teaches “obtaining scheduling information and provider information associated with one or more providers, the scheduling information comprising availability information and location information associated with each of the providers for at least a portion of a plurality of time blocks, and the provider information comprising at least one of goods information or services information associated with each of the providers; receiving a query associated with a consumer specifying at least one of a good or service to be provided to the consumer and a requested location for the providing of the at least one of the good or service; and generating, based on the scheduling information, a response to the query, the response comprising: an identification of a portion of the providers available to provide the good or the service at the location to yield identified providers, and one or more times each of the identified providers is available to provide the good or the service at the location to yield identified times” wherein associating a request with a service object]
Griffin teaches technical field of data processing and, in one specific example, to generating a storefront and Brown teaches matching of providers of goods or service to consumers. The two references are in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention of managing service providing and solve the same problem of connecting user to storefront. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of Griffin to incorporate the teaching of Brown by associating user to a storefront. The motivation to combine Griffin with Brown has the advantage of providing effective means to associate a client with a service provider.
Griffin in view of Brown does not specifically teach, however; DaCosta teaches pre-populate interactive map user interface data in a map interface associated with a graphical user interface (GUI), the interactive map user interface data comprising a map region that encompasses locations associated with the first set of service object instances and the first service location; and update the map interface based on causing a graphical representation of previously scheduled appointments to be displayed via the GUI, the updating including arranging interface elements of the map interface to display a projected route to the first service location that includes one or more locations associated with service object instances of the identified first set [DaCosta, claim 1 and figure 4 , DaCosta teaches “at least one interactive visual representation comprising at least one geographical map and one or more selectable offering options associated with one or a combination of the filtered subset of conveyance service offerings, the one or more preferred conveyance service offerings, and the at least one conveyance client preference, wherein the at least one interactive visual representation is displayed on the at least one terminal, wherein the at least one interactive visual representation comprises a dynamic map that is updated in substantially real time to display updated results for the one or more selectable offering options” see also claim 121 and figure 4 for route planning]
Griffin teaches technical field of data processing and, in one specific example, to generating a storefront and DaCosta teaches interactive conveyance industry for goods and services. The two references are in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention of managing service providing and solve the same problem of connecting user to storefront. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of Griffin in view of Brown to incorporate the teaching of DaCosta of displaying service projected route. The motivation to combine Griffin in view of Brown with DaCosta has the advantage of providing effective and visualized means to associate a client with a service provider.
Regarding claim 3. Griffin in view of Brown and DaCosta teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 (as above). Further, Griffin teaches wherein the instructions, when executed, further configure the processor to: provide the GUI on a merchant device, wherein the providing includes displaying selectable user interface (UI) elements for generating at least one merchant service object and enabling a location-based feature associated with the at least one merchant service object [Griffin, para. 0025, Griffin teaches “The merchant may provide, via a user interface, a title to identify the storefront, a logo for the storefront, a currency accepted by the storefront, and a storefront status (e.g., open or closed). One example of an interface provided by the initialization module 202 is depicted in FIG. 4. The initialization module 202 may receive further information about the storefront such as, for example, seasonality, contact information, shipping location” wherein providing on merchant UI selectable elements for generating a storefront. Also, figure 4 shows a shipping location-based feature] receive, via the GUI on the merchant device, a first request to generate a first service object and enable the location-based feature in connection with the first service object; [Griffin, para. 0032, Griffin teaches “a merchant may request creation of a new storefront in the step 302” wherein receiving merchant request. Also, figure 4 shows a enabled shipping location-based feature].
Regarding claim 4. Griffin in view of Brown and DaCosta teaches all of the limitations of claim 3 (as above). Griffin in view DaCosta does not specifically teach, however; Brown teaches wherein the selectable UI elements include at least one input UI element for receiving merchant definition of service information [Brown, claim 1, Brown teaches “receiving a query associated with a consumer specifying at least one of a good or service to be provided to the consumer and a requested location for the providing of the at least one of the good or service; and generating, based on the scheduling information, a response to the query, the response comprising: an identification of a portion of the providers available to provide the good or the service at the location to yield identified providers, and one or more times each of the identified providers is available to provide the good or the service at the location to yield identified times” wherein receiving a response to the query, the response comprising: an identification of a portion of the providers available to provide the good or the service at the location to yield identified providers, and one or more times each of the identified providers is available to provide the good or the service at the location]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of Griffin in view of DaCosta to incorporate the teaching of Brown by providing an element for receiving service definition. The motivation to combine Griffin in view of DaCosta with Brown has the advantage of providing effective means to associate a client with a service provider.
Regarding claim 5. Griffin in view of Brown and DaCosta teaches all of the limitations of claim 3 (as above). Griffin in view Brown does not specifically teach, however; DaCosta teaches wherein the selectable UI elements include at least one toggle element for enabling location tracking in connection with service object instances of the first service object and wherein the first request includes a selection of the at least one toggle element [DaCosta, see figure 4 and column 60 lines 25-34, DaCosta teaches “A further embodiment of the present invention includes, wherein said at least one conveyance client browses or navigates at least one area of said at least one visual representation to identify and then secure or obtain said at least one preferred conveyance service offering or at least one said filtered conveyance service offering by selecting or accepting said at least one preferred conveyance service offering” wherein a client selects a toggle element]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of Griffin in view of Brown to incorporate the teaching of DaCosta by selecting a toggle element. The motivation to combine Griffin in view of Brown with DaCosta has the advantage of providing effective and visualized means to associate a client with a service provider.
Regarding claim 6. Griffin in view of Brown and DaCosta teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 (as above). Griffin in view Brown does not specifically teach, however; DaCosta teaches wherein the request includes an indication of a service time at which the first merchant service is requested to be performed [DaCosta, see figure 4 and column 60 lines 25-34, DaCosta teaches “wherein conveyance data comprises one or more characteristic of the group consisting of beginning service geographical location, ending service geographical location, pricing information, the at least one conveyance client preference, distance parameter, estimated time of arrival, time to destination” wherein time of service]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of Griffin in view of Brown to incorporate the teaching of DaCosta by providing time of service. The motivation to combine Griffin in view of Brown with DaCosta has the advantage of providing effective and visualized means to associate a client with a service provider.
Regarding claim 7. Griffin in view of Brown and DaCosta teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 (as above). Griffin in view Brown does not specifically teach, however; DaCosta teaches wherein identifying the first set of service object instances comprises determining one or more service object instances having service times falling within a time range that includes a service time associated with the first service object instance [DaCosta, see figure 4 and column 148 lines 15-20, DaCosta teaches “As a non-limiting example, at least one time preference can relate to at least one time range, at least one pick-up time, at least one drop-off time, at least one pre-scheduled time, or the like, during at least one time of at least one day, at least one time of at least one week, at least one time of at least one month, at least one time of at least one year, or a combination thereof” wherein a client service time preference and time range to provide the client with more than one service within a time range]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of Griffin in view of Brown to incorporate the teaching of DaCosta by providing time range of service. The motivation to combine Griffin in view of Brown with DaCosta has the advantage of providing effective and visualized means to associate a client with a service provider.
Regarding claim 8. Griffin in view of Brown and DaCosta teaches all of the limitations of claim 7 (as above). Griffin in view Brown does not specifically teach, however; DaCosta teaches wherein the first set of service object instances comprises at least one service object instance that precedes the first service object instance and at least one service object instance that follows the first service object instance [DaCosta, see figure 4 and column 148 lines 15-20, DaCosta teaches “As a non-limiting example, at least one time preference can relate to at least one time range, at least one pick-up time, at least one drop-off time, at least one pre-scheduled time, or the like, during at least one time of at least one day, at least one time of at least one week, at least one time of at least one month, at least one time of at least one year, or a combination thereof” wherein a client service time preference and time range to provide the client with more than one service within a time range indicates services preceding and following a given service time]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of Griffin in view of Brown to incorporate the teaching of DaCosta by providing more than one service within a time range. The motivation to combine Griffin in view of Brown with DaCosta has the advantage of providing effective and visualized means to associate a client with a service provider.
Regarding claim 9. Griffin in view of Brown and DaCosta teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 (as above). Griffin in view Brown does not specifically teach, however; DaCosta teaches wherein pre-populating the interactive map user interface data comprises: identifying a subset of the first set of service object instances based on geographical proximity to the first service location; and determining a map region that encompasses locations associated with the service object instances of the subset [DaCosta, see figure 4, DaCosta teaches a heat map with convenience service offering 17A, 17B…]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of Griffin in view of Brown to incorporate the teaching of DaCosta by providing more than one service within a geographic area on an interactive map. The motivation to combine Griffin in view of Brown with DaCosta has the advantage of providing effective and visualized means to associate a client with a service provider.
Regarding claim 10. Griffin in view of Brown and DaCosta teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 (as above). Griffin in view DaCosta does not specifically teach, however; Brown teaches wherein the instructions, when executed, further configure the processor to: receive, via the merchant device, user input for confirming acceptance of the first service object instance; and store, in the memory, service details associated with the first service object instance [Brown, para. 0079, Brown teaches “In operation, the scheduling module 314 can receive the selections from the consumer terminal 304 indicating a consumer's desired appointment. The scheduling module 314 can then verify whether the selection is still valid based on the current information in the provider database 310. Thereafter, if the appointment time is still available, the scheduling module can confirm the appointment with the requesting one of consumer terminals 304” wherein receiving client’s selection and confirming service. Further, para. 0012 teaches “the system includes a memory for storing scheduling information”]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of Griffin in view of DaCosta to incorporate the teaching of Brown by confirming and storing a service schedule. The motivation to combine Griffin in view of DaCosta with Brown has the advantage of providing effective means to associate a client with a service provider.
Regarding claims 13-20, claims 13-20 recite substantially similar limitations as claim 3-10, respectively; therefore, claims 13-20 are rejected with the same rationale, reasoning, and motivation provided above for claims 3-10, respectively. Claims 3-10 are system claims while claims 13-20 are directed to a computer to a computer implemented method which is anticipated by Griffin claim 10.
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being un-patentable over Griffin (US 20160117761 A1) in view of Brown, II (US 20150149286 A1), in further view of DaCosta (US 11182709 B2), and in further view of Rathod (US 20170293950 A1).
Regarding claim 2. Griffin in view of Brown and DaCosta teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 (as above). Griffin in view of Brown and DaCosta does not specifically teach, however; Rathod teaches wherein the GUI comprises a user interface for a scheduling tool that is provided on an e-commerce platform for scheduling merchant services associated with the merchant [Rathod, claim 1 and figure 4 , Rathod teaches “providing interface for self-service listing of one or more drivers or vehicles with details or receiving request to list one or more drivers or vehicles with details; (b) registering or make listed drivers or vehicles available including verifying by admin, provided details of vehicle and driver before making them register or available to access; (c) enabling a user at a first geographic location to make a request for transport, wherein request comprise at least one of a pick-up region or a drop-off region” wherein UI to enable user to schedule service]
Griffin teaches technical field of data processing and, in one specific example, to generating a storefront and Rathod teaches Various embodiments of a system, methods, platform, database, search engine, device & marketplace for enabling on-demand service providers to list & present on-demand services to contextual prospective on-demand service consumers on user interface or real-time updated map for enabling prospective or searching on-demand service consumers to search, match, filter, view, select and/or select one or more contextual user actions. The two references are in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention of providing service and solve the same problem of connecting user to storefront. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of Griffin in view of Brown and DaCosta to incorporate the teaching of Rathod by providing a UI for scheduling. The motivation to combine Griffin in view of Brown and DaCosta with Rathod has the advantage of providing effective and visualized means to associate a client with a service provider.
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 2 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Surti et al. (US 20190392357 A1) teaches receive at a first time, over a network from a user device of a first user, query data corresponding to a query for the network-based service, the query data indicating a start location and a service location; in response to receiving the query data, determine whether to perform request optimization for the first user based, at least in part, on the start location, the service location, and the first time; and in response to receiving a first request from the user device of the first user and based on determining to perform request optimization for the first user, perform request optimization for the first user by identifying, at a second time within an optimization time window, a service provider for the first user, wherein the service provider is identified to contemporaneously provide service for the first request and at least a second request for the network-based service from a second user.
Any inquiry concerning this communication from the examiner should be directed to Abdallah El-Hagehassan whose contact information is (571) 272-0819 and Abdallah.el-hagehassan@uspto.gov The examiner can normally be reached on Monday- Friday 8 am to 5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rutao Wu can be reached on (571) 272-6045. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-3734.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the patent application information retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information of published applications may be obtained from either private PAIR or public PAIR. Status information of unpublished applications is available through private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any questions on access to the private PAIR system, contact the electronic business center (EBC) at (866) 271-9197 (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 US or Canada) or (571) 272-1000.
/ABDALLAH A EL-HAGE HASSAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623
Prosecution Insights