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 Claims
Claims 1-20 were previously pending. Claims 1-2, 7-9, and 14-16 were amended in the reply filed November 18, 2025. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the rejection made under § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the claims "improve a graphical user interface by increasing the navigation speed and decreasing the amount of interaction required by both the requestor device and proxy rider device to generate a proxy transportation request." Remarks, 17. While this may make the interface more useful to the person using the device, it does not solve any technological problem or improve the device itself. "[I]mproving a user's experience while using a computer application is not, without more, sufficient to render the claims directed to an improvement in computer functionality." Customedia Technologies v. Dish Network, 951 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2020). See also Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (the purported improvement in user experience from an interface did not "improve the functioning of the computer, make it operate more efficiently, or solve any technological problem.").
Although Applicant argues that in conventional systems "provider devices and rider devices are unable to communicate" (Remarks, 17), the only possible conclusion is that this is a business operational choice and process problem in the ridesharing industry. One of ordinary skill would have recognized that all modern mobile devices are technologically able to communicate with one another as this is arguably their primary purpose.
"For example, as outlined in the Specification, 'when a provider arrives at a pickup location expecting to pick up a requestor, [and is] met with an unidentified stranger (i.e., a person that does not match the requestor)... the provider device cannot verify the identity or trustworthiness of the unknown rider.'" Remarks, 18. This is a problem with organizing human activities, not one borne out of technology.
Although Applicant compares the invention to the one in Core Wireless, the court in Core Wireless emphasized two aspects of the improved interface that contributed to eligibility: that the application summary can be reached directly from the menu, and that the application summary is displayed while the applications are in an un-launched state. Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics, 880 F.3d 1356, 1362-63 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Thus, the method was integrated with improved computer-specific capabilities rather than merely using generic display technology. No similar technological integration can be found in Applicant's invention, which instead merely uses generic devices and interfaces to display information about a ride to two people. Similar arguments with respect to navigational efficiency and coordinated interfaces were raised in the appeal of the parent application 16/834,158 and were not persuasive. See Ex Parte Cho, PTAB Appeal 2024-002700, May 9, 2025. Accordingly, the rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In the final limitation, claim 1 recites "a proxy rider device," "a requestor device," and "a requestor user interface." However, all of these elements have been previously introduced in the claim. It is therefore unclear if these are the same elements or different ones. If they are meant to be the same they should be referenced with a definite article, and if they are meant not to be the same they should be somehow differentiated. The other independent claims contain analogous limitations. The dependent claims inherit the rejections of their respective base claims and, as such, are rejected for the same reasons.
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 (abstract idea without significantly more). Claims are eligible for patent protection under § 101 if they are in one of the four statutory categories and not directed to a judicial exception to patentability. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). Claims 1-20, each considered as a whole and as an ordered combination, are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A – Prong 1:
The claims recite an abstract idea reflected in the representative functions of the independent claims—including:
With respect to claim 1:
detecting, based on user interaction of a requestor, initiation of a transportation request;
detecting a proxy rider user trigger event based on analyzing previous requestor behavior patterns with historical proxy transportation requests of the requestor;
based on detecting the proxy rider user trigger event, providing for display a proxy rider selectable element for initiating a proxy transportation request for a proxy rider;
based on user interaction with the proxy rider selectable element, initiating a proxy transportation match between the proxy rider and a provider; and
automatically providing, for display, [to the requestor and the proxy rider], synchronously display[ed] transportation information associated with the proxy transportation match.
With respect to claim 8:
detecting, based on user interaction of a requestor, initiation of a transportation request;
detecting a proxy rider user trigger event based on comparing a location of a candidate proxy rider with a pickup location indicated by the user interaction;
based on detecting the proxy rider user trigger event, providing for display a proxy rider selectable element for initiating a proxy transportation request for a proxy rider;
based on user interaction with the proxy rider selectable element, initiating a proxy transportation match between the proxy rider and a provider; and
automatically providing, for display, [to the requestor and the proxy rider], synchronously display[ed] transportation information associated with the proxy transportation match.
With respect to claim 15:
detecting, based on user interaction of a requestor, initiation of a transportation request;
detecting a proxy rider user trigger event based on determining, based on global position system information, that the requestor device is traveling within a vehicle associated with a regular transportation request;
based on detecting the proxy rider user trigger event, providing for display a proxy rider selectable element for initiating a proxy transportation request for a proxy rider;
based on user interaction with the proxy rider selectable element, initiating a proxy transportation match between the proxy rider and a provider; and
automatically providing, for display, [to the requestor and the proxy rider], synchronously display[ed] transportation information associated with the proxy transportation match.
These limitations taken together qualify as a certain method of organizing human activities because they recite collecting, analyzing, and outputting information for planning and monitoring the transportation riding behaviors of persons by other people, and also structuring related commercial/behavioral relationships among transportation service providers, ride requestors, and proxy riders (i.e., in the terminology of the 2019 Revised Guidance, commercial interactions (including sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities and following rules or instructions)).
It shares similarities with other abstract ideas held to be non-statutory by the courts (see Accenture Global Services, GmbH v. Guidewire Software, 728 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013)—interface for generating tasks based on rules to be completed upon the occurrence of an event, similar because at another level of abstraction the claims could be characterized as generating coordinated interfaces for display based on rules upon the occurrence of a trigger event; Sanderling Management Ltd. v. Snap Inc., 65 F.4th 698 (Fed. Cir. 2023)—distributing information upon matching GPS location, similar because at another level of abstraction the claims could be characterized as distributing coordinated interfaces based upon rider location; see also the PTAB decision in Ex Parte Hughes, Appeal No. 2024-002700, May 9, 2025, from the parent application 16/834,158).
These cases describe significantly similar aspects of the claimed invention, albeit at another level of abstraction. See Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1240-41 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("An abstract idea can generally be described at different levels of abstraction. As the Board has done, the claimed abstract idea could be described as generating menus on a computer, or generating a second menu from a first menu and sending the second menu to another location. It could be described in other ways, including, as indicated in the specification, taking orders from restaurant customers on a computer.").
MPEP 2106 Step 2A – Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no meaningful limitations that transform the exception into a patent eligible application. The elements merely serve to provide a general link to a technological environment (e.g., computers and the Internet) in which to carry out the judicial exception (generic devices with graphical user interfaces, processor, non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions, computing device—all recited at a high level of generality).
Although they have and execute instructions to perform the abstract idea itself (e.g., modules, program code, etc. to automate the abstract idea (i.e., performing certain steps "automatically")), this also does not serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as it merely amounts to instructions to "apply it." Aside from such instructions to implement the abstract idea, they are solely used for generic computer operations (e.g., receiving, storing, retrieving, transmitting data), employing the computer as a tool. See FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("[T]he use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.") (citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245,1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) (emphasis added).
The claims only manipulate abstract data elements into another form. They do not set forth improvements to another technological field or the functioning of the computer itself and instead use computer elements as tools to improve the functioning of the abstract idea identified above. Looking at the additional limitations and abstract idea as an ordered combination and as a whole adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Rather than any meaningful limits, their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation of the abstract idea identified in Prong One. None of the additional elements recited "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment,' that is, implementation via computers." Alice Corp., slip op. at 16 (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)).
At the levels of abstraction described above, the claims do not readily lend themselves to a finding that they are directed to a nonabstract idea. Therefore, the analysis proceeds to step 2B. See BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("The Enfish claims, understood in light of their specific limitations, were unambiguously directed to an improvement in computer capabilities. Here, in contrast, the claims and their specific limitations do not readily lend themselves to a step-one finding that they are directed to a nonabstract idea. We therefore defer our consideration of the specific claim limitations’ narrowing effect for step two.") (citations omitted).
MPEP 2106 Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as presented in Step 2A Prong 2 (i.e., they amount to nothing more than a general link to a particular technological environment and instructions to apply it there). Moreover, the additional elements recited are known and conventional computing elements (generic devices with graphical user interfaces, processor, non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions, computing device—see Specification ¶¶ 0040-44, 224-226, 236-237 describing these at a high level of generality and in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy the statutory disclosure requirements).
The Federal Circuit has recognized that "an invocation of already-available computers that are not themselves plausibly asserted to be an advance, for use in carrying out improved mathematical calculations, amounts to a recitation of what is 'well-understood, routine, [and] conventional.'" SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 890 F.3d 1016, 1023 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (alteration in original) (citing Mayo v. Prometheus, 566 U.S. 66, 73 (2012)). Apart from the instructions to implement the abstract idea, they only serve to perform well-understood functions (e.g., receiving, storing, retrieving, transmitting data—see Specification above as well as Alice Corp.; Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2015) covering the well-known nature of these basic computer functions).
"The use and arrangement of conventional and generic computer components recited in the claims—such as a database, user terminal, and server— do not transform the claim, as a whole, into 'significantly more' than a claim to the abstract idea itself. We have repeatedly held that such invocations of computers and networks that are not even arguably inventive are insufficient to pass the test of an inventive concept in the application of an abstract idea." Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1056 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citations and quotation marks omitted). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Dependent Claims Step 2A:
The limitations of the dependent claims but for those addressed below merely set forth further refinements of the abstract idea without changing the analysis already presented (i.e., they merely narrow the abstract idea without adding any new additional elements beyond it). Additionally, for the same reasons as above, the limitations fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea as the independent claims (i.e., generic devices and user interfaces). Claims 2, 9, and 16 add additional generic devices/interfaces, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for the same reasons.
Dependent Claims Step 2B:
The dependent claims merely use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea. Although they add the elements identified in 2A above (i.e., additional generic devices/interfaces in claims 2, 9, and 16), these do not amount to significantly more for the same reasons they fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Moreover, the portions cited in the Specification above also demonstrate that this element and its operation in conjunction with the abstract idea are well-understood, routine, and conventional. Accordingly, they are not directed to significantly more than the exception itself, and are not eligible subject matter under § 101.
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 DANIEL VETTER whose telephone number is (571)270-1366. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6:00.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at 571-272-5587. 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.
/DANIEL VETTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628