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 Claims
This action is responsive to Applicant’s claims filed 09/18/2026.
Claims 21-39 are currently pending and have been examined here.
Claims 1-20 have been canceled.
Claims 21-39 are newly added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 11-12 of Applicant’s response filed 09/18/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims set forth a specific technological implementation of an improved solution of a technical problem addressed by the present application and therefore provides significantly more than the abstract idea and integrates the abstract idea into a practical application thereof. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner respectfully notes that the claims, as presented, amount to the recitation of one or more abstract ideas along with the generic computer implementation thereof. Furthermore, the requirement to implement these abstract idea steps using a mobility amounts to the mere requirement to “apply” the abstract idea as well as the mere limiting of the use of the abstract idea to a particular field of use, as outlined below. Regarding Applicant’s arguments the that claims now indicate “how” the solution is brought about, Examiner respectfully notes that the claims merely recite greater detail as to how the abstract ideas is practiced, rather than how the mobility itself is used to bring about the solution, or how the abstract idea is applied. No details are given as to how the abstract idea is “applied” to bring forth the solution. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive.
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 21-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The claims are drawn to ineligible patent subject matter, because the claims are directed to a recited judicial exception to patentability (an abstract idea), without claiming something significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Claims are ineligible for patent protection if they are drawn to subject matter which is not within one of the four statutory categories, or, if the subject matter claimed does fall into one of the four statutory categories, the claims are ineligible if they recite a judicial exception, are directed to that judicial exception, and do not recite additional elements which amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 375 U.S. ___ (2014). Accordingly, claims are first analyzed to determine whether they fall into one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter. Then, if the claims fall within one of the four statutory categories, it must be determined whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). In determining whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception, the claim is first analyzed to determine whether the claim recites a judicial exception. If the claim does not recite one of these exceptions, the claim is directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. If the claim recites one of these exceptions, the claim is then analyzed to determine whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. Claims which integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception are directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. If the claim fails to integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Finally, if the claims are directed to a judicial exception to patentability, the claims are then analyzed determine whether the claims are directed to patent eligible subject matter by reciting meaningful limitations which transform the judicial exception into something significantly more than the judicial exception itself. If they do not, the claims are not directed towards eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding independent claims 21, 38, and 39 the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (a machine, a process, and an article of manufacture, respectively.) The claimed invention of independent claims 21, 38, and 39 is directed to a judicial exception to patentability, an abstract idea. The claims include limitations which recite elements which can be properly characterized under at least one of the following groupings of subject matter recognized as abstract ideas by MPEP 2106.04(a):
Mathematical Concepts: mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity: fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes: concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)
Claims 21, 38, and 39, as a whole, recite the following limitations:
receiving. . .a mobility sharing service request including a user identification and UE visited location information including a plurality of UE visited locations periodically measured and stored by the UE; (claims 1, 19; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could receive a mobility sharing request comprising this information; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial ridesharing companies would perform this step in managing ridesharing requests in light of infections risks)
receiving. . . disinfection information including at least one infected location visited by a person confirmed to be infected; (claims 21, 39; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could receive this disinfection information; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial ridesharing companies would perform this step in managing ridesharing requests in light of infections risks)
determining expected places to visit including a destination and at least one waypoint based on a user's usage history of the mobility sharing service corresponding to the UE; (claims 21, 39; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could determine expected places to visit including a destination and a waypoint based on a user’s usage history of a service; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial ridesharing companies would perform this step in managing ridesharing requests in light of infections risks)
determining, as at least one place with potential risk, at least one expected place to visit, which is matched to the at least one infected location, among the expected places to visit; (claims 21, 39; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could request match expected places to visit with infected locations; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial ridesharing companies would perform this step in managing ridesharing requests in light of infections risks)
providing. . . guidance information including a route that avoids the at least one place with potential risk while the mobility is moving according to the mobility sharing service; (claims 21, 39; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could provide route guidance that avoids an infected place; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial ridesharing companies would perform this step in managing ridesharing requests in light of infections risks)
determining a predicted infection degree by comparing the at least one infected location and the plurality of UE visited locations; (claims 21, 39; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could determine a predicted infection degree by making this comparison; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial ridesharing companies would perform this step in managing ridesharing requests in light of infections risks)
determining to approve a use of the mobility sharing service to the mobility based on the predicted infection degree being equal to or less than a first threshold; (claim 21; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could approve or deny use of a service based on a predicted infected degree and a threshold; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial ridesharing companies would perform this step in managing ridesharing requests in light of infections risks)
determine to approve a use of the mobility sharing service to a user corresponding to the UE (claim 39; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could approve or deny use of a service; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial ridesharing companies would perform this step in managing ridesharing requests in light of infections risks)
determining to prohibit the use of the mobility sharing service to the mobility based on the predicted infection degree being greater than the first threshold, based on the use of the mobility sharing service being approved: (claim 21; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could approve or deny use of a service based on a predicted infected degree and a threshold; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial ridesharing companies would perform this step in managing ridesharing requests in light of infections risks)
receiving. . . a state check event including a plurality of mobility visited locations periodically measured and stored by the mobility; (claims 21, 39; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could receive a state check event including a plurality of visited locations; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial ridesharing companies would perform this step in managing ridesharing requests in light of infections risks)
updating the predicted infection degree by comparing the at least one infected location and the plurality of mobility visited locations; (claims 21, 39; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could update a predicted infection degree by making these comparisons; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial ridesharing companies would perform this step in managing ridesharing requests in light of infections risks)
transmitting. . . a first instruction to control the mobility to move according to the route based on the updated predicted infection degree being equal to or less than a second threshold; (claims 21, 39; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could transmit instructions to control a mobility to move according to a route (the broadest reasonable interpretation here includes mere instructions telling a human operator to control the mobility) based on an infection degree; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial ridesharing companies would perform this step in managing ridesharing requests in light of infections risks)
and transmitting. . . a second instruction to control the mobility to move to a disinfection area based on the updated predicted infection degree being greater than the second threshold, wherein the first threshold is the same as or different than the second threshold. (claims 21, 39; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could transmit instructions to control a mobility to move to a disinfection area (the broadest reasonable interpretation here includes mere instructions telling a human operator to control the mobility) based on an infection degree; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial ridesharing companies would perform this step in managing ridesharing requests in light of infections risks)
receive. . . guidance information including a route that avoids at least one place with potential risk while the mobility is moving according to a mobility sharing service, (claim 38; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could receive guidance information including a route that avoids risk; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial ridesharing companies would perform this step in managing ridesharing requests in light of infections risks)
wherein at least one expected place to visit, which is matched to at least one infected location visited by a person confirmed to be infected, among expected places to visit as the at least one place with potential risk, and (claim 38; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could match expected places to visit with infected locations; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial ridesharing companies would perform this step in managing ridesharing requests in light of infections risks)
wherein the expected places to visit are determined based on a user's usage history of the mobility sharing service corresponding to a user equipment (UE) and includes a destination and at least one waypoint, (claim 38; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could determine expected places to visit based on usage history of a service; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial ridesharing companies would perform this step in managing ridesharing requests in light of infections risks)
approve. . . a use of the mobility sharing service to the mobility based on a predicted infection degree being equal to or less than a first threshold; (claim 38; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could approve use of a mobility based on an infection degree; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial ridesharing companies would perform this step in managing ridesharing requests in light of infections risks)
prohibit. . . the use of the mobility sharing service to the mobility based on the predicted infection degree being greater than the first threshold, wherein the predicted infection degree is determined by comparing the at least one infected location and a plurality of a user equipment (UE) visited locations; (claim 38; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could prohibit use of a mobility due to an infection degree; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial ridesharing companies would perform this step in managing ridesharing requests in light of infections risks)
based on the use of the mobility sharing service being approved: transmit. . . a state check event including a plurality of mobility visited locations periodically measured and stored by the mobility; (claim 38; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could update a predicted infection degree by making these comparisons; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial ridesharing companies would perform this step in managing ridesharing requests in light of infections risks)
receive. . . a first instruction to control the mobility to move according to the route based on an updated predicted infection degree being equal to or less than a second threshold; (claim 38; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could receive instructions to control a mobility to move according to a route (the broadest reasonable interpretation here includes mere instructions telling a human operator to control the mobility) based on an infection degree; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial ridesharing companies would perform this step in managing ridesharing requests in light of infections risks)
and receive. . . a second instruction to control the mobility to move to a disinfection area based on the updated predicted infection degree being greater than the second threshold, wherein the predicted infection degree is updated by comparing the at least one infected location and the plurality of mobility visited locations, and wherein the first threshold is the same as or different than the second threshold. (claim 38; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could receive instructions to control a mobility to move to a disinfection area (the broadest reasonable interpretation here includes mere instructions telling a human operator to control the mobility) based on an infection degree; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial ridesharing companies would perform this step in managing ridesharing requests in light of infections risks)
The above elements, as a whole, recite mental processes since, but for the requirement to implement the above steps on a set of generic computer components, the entirety of the above set of steps could be performed by a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment. Furthermore, as a whole, the claims recite certain methods activity since they recite a set of steps for coordinating rideshares in light of infection information which comprises certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial ridesharing companies would perform these steps in providing safe and hygienic ridesharing for their customers.
Moving forward, the above recited abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
The added limitations do not represent an integration of the abstract idea into a practical application because:
the claims represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, and merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
the claims merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (activity which can be characterized as incidental to the primary purpose or product that is merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim). See MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or
the claims represent mere general linking of the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2016.05(h)
Beyond those limitations which recite the abstract idea, the following limitations are added:
. . . from a user equipment (UE). . . (claims 21, 39; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
. . . from a disinfection management server. . . (claims 21, 39; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
. . . to/from the mobility. . . (claims 1, 18, 19; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use; furthermore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation amounts to the mere requirement to “apply” the abstract idea using a remotely controlled mobility since the limitation recites the mobility and its control at a high level of generality, sine the claim recites the solution or outcome of remotely controlling the mobility without providing details as to how the solution is achieved, and since the mobility is used as a tool in its ordinary capacity to perform the existing functions of traveling to designated places in performing ridesharing services)
A mobility for use in a mobility sharing service, the mobility comprising: (claim 38; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use; furthermore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation amounts to the mere requirement to “apply” the abstract idea using a remotely controlled mobility since the limitation recites the mobility and its control at a high level of generality, sine the claim recites the solution or outcome of remotely controlling the mobility without providing details as to how the solution is achieved, and since the mobility is used as a tool in its ordinary capacity to perform the existing functions of traveling to designated places in performing ridesharing services)
a transceiver configured to transmit or receive a signal; (claim 38; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
and a processor configured to control the transceiver, the processor configured to: (claim 38; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
control the transceiver; (claim 38; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
receive a signal, by the transceiver, from the mobility sharing service management server including a control information, (claim 38; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
A mobility sharing management server comprising: (claim 39; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
a transceiver configured to transmit or receive a signal; (claim 39; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
and a processor configured to control the transceiver (claim 39; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
generate a signal, by the transceiver for transmitting (claim 39; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
The claims, as a whole, are directed to the abstract idea(s) which they recite. The claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)). Therefore, because the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea) and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claims, as a whole, are directed to the judicial exception.
Turning to the final prong of the test (Step 2B), independent claims 21, 38, and 39 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because there are no meaningful limitations which transform the exception into a patent eligible application.
As outlined above, the claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)).
Furthermore, no specific limitations are added which represent something other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Besides performing the abstract idea itself, the generic computer components only serve to perform the court-recognized well-understood computer functions of receiving or transmitting data over a network, performing repetitive calculations, electronic record keeping, and storing and retrieving information in memory. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. The specification details any combination of a generic computer system program to perform the method. Generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be routine in any computer implementation and because the Alice decision noted that generic structures that merely apply the abstract ideas are not significantly more than the abstract ideas. Therefore, independent claims 21, 38, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to ineligible subject matter.
Claims 22-37, recite the same abstract idea as their respective independent claims.
The following additional features are added in the dependent claims:
Claim 22:
wherein determining the predicted infection degree comprises: checking an environment factor corresponding to a mobility sharing service area or a personal factor corresponding to a user;
and calculating the predicted infection degree by further considering the environment factor or the personal factor.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could check an environmental factor and use it to calculate an infection degree in this manner; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial ridesharing companies would perform this step in managing ridesharing requests in light of infections risks.
Claim 23:
wherein the environment factor comprises information on population density of the mobility sharing service area, information on a rate of confirmed cases in an area, information on a rate of confirmed cases according to age, or information on an increase in a number of confirmed cases.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could use these environmental factors to calculate infection degree; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial ridesharing companies would perform this step in managing ridesharing requests in light of infections risks.
Claim 24:
wherein checking the personal factor comprises: checking an essential element included in the personal factor;
and checking whether the essential element exceeds a predetermined threshold.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could check essential elements and whether they exceed a threshold; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial ridesharing companies would perform this step in managing ridesharing requests in light of infections risks.
Claim 25:
wherein checking the personal factor comprises checking a general element included in the personal factor in response to the essential element exceeding the predetermined threshold.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could check a general element in response to an essential element exceeding a threshold; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial ridesharing companies would perform this step in managing ridesharing requests in light of infections risks.
Claim 26:
wherein the general element comprises an activity level of the user numerically indicating an activity tendency of the user or an immunity index of the user numerically indicating an ability to defend against a disease.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could check this general element; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial ridesharing companies would perform this step in managing ridesharing requests in light of infections risks.
Claim 27:
wherein checking the personal factor comprises: checking the essential element or a general element included in the personal factor;
and determining the personal factor using the checked essential element or the checked general element.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could determine personal factors by check essential or general elements; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial ridesharing companies would perform this step in managing ridesharing requests in light of infections risks.
Claim 28:
receiving, from the mobility, a mobility return request;
requesting, to the disinfection management server, the disinfection information based on location of the mobility;
receiving, from the disinfection management server, the disinfection information, and calculating the predicted infection degree of the mobility based on the disinfection information;
and determining whether to reshare the mobility using the predicted infection degree of the mobility.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could send mobility return requests, request disinfection information, receive disinfection information, and determine whether to reshare a mobility alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial ridesharing companies would perform this step in managing ridesharing requests in light of infections risks. Regarding the transmission of data electronically, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use.
Claim 29:
wherein determining whether to reshare the mobility comprises determining whether to reshare the mobility by comparing the predicted infection degree of the mobility with a predetermined threshold.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could compare an infection degree to a threshold to determine whether to reshare a mobility; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial ridesharing companies would perform this step in managing ridesharing requests in light of infections risks.
Claim 30:
wherein determining whether to reshare the mobility comprises determining that a subsequent user reshares the mobility in response to the predicted infection degree of the mobility being equal to or relatively smaller than the predetermined threshold.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could make this determination in order to determine whether to reshare a mobility; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial ridesharing companies would perform this step in managing ridesharing requests in light of infections risks.
Claim 31:
determining the destination of the mobility to be a return area.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could determine a destination of a mobility to be a return area; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial ridesharing companies would perform this step in managing ridesharing requests in light of infections risks.
Claim 32:
wherein determining whether to reshare the mobility comprises determining a disinfection process for the mobility in response to the predicted infection degree of the mobility exceeding the predetermined threshold.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could determine a disinfection process in response to a mobility infection degree exceeding a threshold; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial ridesharing companies would perform this step in managing ridesharing requests in light of infections risks.
Claim 33:
wherein determining the disinfection process for the mobility comprises determining the destination of the mobility to be the disinfection area.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could determine a destination of a mobility to be a disinfection area; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial ridesharing companies would perform this step in managing ridesharing requests in light of infections risks.
Claim 34:
wherein determining the predicted infection degree of the mobility comprises: checking environment factors corresponding to the location information of the mobility;
and calculating the predicted infection degree of the mobility based on the environment factors.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could check environmental factors and calculate a predicted infection degree based on them; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial ridesharing companies would perform this step in managing ridesharing requests in light of infections risks.
Claim 35:
receiving, from the mobility, a mobility state check request;
requesting, to the disinfection management server, the disinfection information based on location information of the mobility;
receiving, from the disinfection management server, the disinfection information, and determining the predicted infection degree of the mobility based on the disinfection information;
and determining whether to maintain the use of the mobility.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could perform each of these steps; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial ridesharing companies would perform this step in managing ridesharing requests in light of infections risks. Regarding the transmission of information electronically to perform these steps, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use.
Claim 36:
wherein determining whether to maintain the use of the mobility comprises determining whether to maintain the use of the mobility by comparing the predicted infection degree of the mobility with a predetermined threshold.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could compare a predicted infection degree to a threshold to determine whether to maintain use of a mobility; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial ridesharing companies would perform this step in managing ridesharing requests in light of infections risks.
Claim 37:
wherein determining whether to maintain the use of the mobility comprises determining a disinfection process of the mobility in response to the predicted infection degree of the mobility exceeding the predetermined threshold.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could determine a disinfection process in response to a predicted infection degree exceeding a threshold; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial ridesharing companies would perform this step in managing ridesharing requests in light of infections risks.
The above limitations do not represent a practical application of the recited abstract idea. The claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)). Therefore, because the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea) and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claims are also directed to the judicial exception.
Furthermore, the added limitations do not direct the claim to significantly more than the abstract idea. No specific limitations are added which represent something other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, none of the dependent claims 22-37, individually, or as an ordered combination, are directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Please see MPEP §2106.05(d)(II) for a discussion of elements that the Courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional, activity in particular fields.
Please see MPEP §2106 for examination guidelines regarding patent subject matter eligibility.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 EMMETT K WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2624. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 6 a.m. - 4:45 p.m..
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at 571-270-3445. 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.
/EMMETT K. WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
