DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This is final action in reply to the response filed on April 28, 2026.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-8, 10-12, 14-16, 18 and 20 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 .
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
The rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 USC § 103 in the previous office action is withdrawn in response to Applicant’s arguments and amendments to claims 1, 11 and 16.
The rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 USC § 101 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.
As per claim 1 recites “collecting, by one or more server devices via a requestor computing device, performance data associated with a performance of a provider computing device within a dynamic transportation network […] user interactions […]; generating, utilizing the one or more server devices, a provider computing device rating based on the performance data” Examiner is not clear, is the performance data from the performance of a provider computing device? Is the computing device of the provider doing the performance or is the provider i.e., driver? Is the feedback directed to the provider computing device performance or the transportation provider of the provider computing device’s performance? The same rationale applies to the generation of rating, is the rating for the transportation provider i.e., driver or the provider computing device? Is the performance, provider tier, rating and modification directive for a device (provider computing device) or for the transportation provider? The same rationales applies to claims 11 and 16. Appropriate correction is required. Examiner interpreted the claims as the performance and rating of a transportation provider i.e., driver.
Claim Rejections- 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Per MPEP 2106.03 Eligibility Step 1: The Four Categories of Statutory Subject Matter [R-07.2022]. Step 1 is directed to determining whether or not the claims fall within a statutory class. Herein, claims 1-10 falls within statutory class of a process, claims 11-15 falls within statutory class of a machine and claims 16-20 falls within statutory class of an article of manufacturing. Hence, the claims qualify as potentially eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C §101. With Step 1 being directed to a statutory category, per MPEP 2106.04 Eligibility Step 2A: Whether a Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception [R-07.2022]. Step 2 is the two-part analysis from Alice Corp. (also called the Mayo test). The 2019 PEG makes two changes in Step 2A: It sets forth new procedure for Step 2A (called “revised Step 2A”) under which a claim is not “directed to” a judicial exception unless the claim satisfies a two-prong inquiry. The two-prong inquiry is as follows: Prong One: evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception. If claim recites an exception, then Prong Two: evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. The claim(s) recite(s) the following abstract idea indicated by non-boldface font and additional limitations indicated by boldface font:
Claim 1:
collecting, by one or more server devices via requestor computing devices, performance data associated with a performance of a provider computing device within a dynamic transportation network by monitoring user interactions with the requestor computing devices matched to the provider computing device, the user interactions comprising selections of binary feedback elements or interactions with digital text user interface elements;
generating, utilizing the one or more server devices, a provider computing device rating based on the performance data;
determining a provider tier for the provider computing device based on the provider computing device rating;
based on the provider tier for the provider computing device, selecting a feedback number threshold indicating an amount of feedback received from the user interactions with the requestor computing devices before displaying one or more digital feedback messages via the provider computing device;
generating, by the one or more server devices and based on the provider tier, a set of filtered feedback data by extracting feedback data from the user interactions based on receiving at least a threshold number of the feedback data;
generating, by the one or more server devices and based on the performance data, and the provider tier, a set of eligible messages comprising:
a status message corresponding to the provider computing device rating;
a notification message comprising a modification directive corresponding to the performance data; and a feedback message comprising the set of filtered feedback data;
withholding, by the one or more server devices, the set of eligible messages for release to the provider computing device until release requirements are met;
determining, by the one or more server devices, that the release requirements are satisfied in response to:
receiving, from the provider computing device or a requester computing device, contextual data indicating a context of a digital service request received from the requester computing device; and determining that the amount of feedback received from the user interactions with the requestor computing devices satisfies the feedback number threshold; and
based on determining that the release requirements are met, providing, for simultaneous display within a user interface of the provider computing device, the set of eligible messages comprising the
status message , the notification message comprising the modification directive corresponding to the performance data, and the feedback message comprising the set of filtered feedback data.
Claim 11:
collect, by one or more server devices via requestor computing devices, performance data associated with a performance of a provider computing device within a dynamic transportation network by monitoring user interactions with the requestor computing devices matched to the provider computing device, the user interactions comprising selections of binary feedback elements or interactions with digital text user interface elements;
generate, utilizing the one or more server devices, a provider computing device rating based on the performance data;
determine a provider tier for the provider computing device based on the provider computing device rating;
based on the provider tier for the provider computing device, selecting a feedback number threshold indicating an amount of feedback received from the user interactions with the requestor computing devices before displaying one or more digital feedback messages via the provider computing device;
generate, by the one or more server devices and based on the provider tier, a set of filtered feedback data by extracting feedback data from the user interactions based on receiving at least a threshold number of the feedback data;
generate, by the one or more server devices and based on the performance data, and the provider tier, a set of eligible messages comprising:
a status message corresponding to the provider computing device rating;
a notification message comprising a modification directive corresponding to the performance data; and a feedback message comprising the set of filtered feedback data;
withholding, by the one or more server devices, the set of eligible messages for release to the provider computing device until release requirements are met;
determining, by the one or more server devices, that the release requirements are satisfied in response to:
receiving, from the provider computing device or a requester computing device, contextual data indicating a context of a digital service request received from the requester computing device; and determining that the amount of feedback received from the user interactions with the requestor computing devices satisfies the feedback number threshold; and
based on determining that the release requirements are met, providing, for simultaneous display within a user interface of the provider computing device, the set of eligible messages comprising the status message , the notification message comprising the modification directive corresponding to the performance data, and the feedback message comprising the set of filtered feedback data.
Claim 16:
collect, by one or more server devices via requestor computing devices, performance data associated with a performance of a provider computing device within a dynamic transportation network by monitoring user interactions with the requestor computing devices matched to the provider computing device, the user interactions comprising selections of binary feedback elements or interactions with digital text user interface elements;
generate, utilizing the one or more server devices, a provider computing device rating based on the performance data;
determine a provider tier for the provider computing device based on the provider computing device rating;
based on the provider tier for the provider computing device, selecting a feedback number threshold indicating an amount of feedback received from the user interactions with the requestor computing devices before displaying one or more digital feedback messages via the provider computing device;
generate, by the one or more server devices and based on the provider tier, a set of filtered feedback data by extracting feedback data from the user interactions based on receiving at least a threshold number of the feedback data;
generate, by the one or more server devices and based on the performance data, and the provider tier, a set of eligible messages comprising:
a status message corresponding to the provider computing device rating;
a notification message comprising a modification directive corresponding to the performance data; and a feedback message comprising the set of filtered feedback data;
withhold, by the one or more server devices, the set of eligible messages for release to the provider computing device until release requirements are met;
determine, by the one or more server devices, that the release requirements are satisfied in response to:
receiving, from the provider computing device or a requester computing device, contextual data indicating a context of a digital service request received from the requester computing device; and determining that the amount of feedback received from the user interactions with the requestor computing devices satisfies the feedback number threshold; and
based on determining that the release requirements are met, providing, for simultaneous display within a user interface of the provider computing device, the set of eligible messages comprising the status message , the notification message comprising the modification directive corresponding to the performance data, and the feedback message comprising the set of filtered feedback data.
Per Prong One of Step 2A, the identified recitation of an abstract idea falls within at least one of the Abstract Idea Groupings consisting of: Mathematical Concepts, Mental Processes, or Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Particularly, the identified recitation falls within Mental Processes: concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion, and Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity such as managing personal behavior or relationships or interaction between people including social activities, teaching and following rules or instructions. Per Prong Two of Step 2A, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim as a whole does not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application. The processor, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, one or more server devices, the provider and requester computing devices is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic computing and processing system. This processor, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, one or more server devices, the provider and requester computing devices is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computing devices each comprising at least a processor, memory and display device. Further, processor configured to cause receiving/determining/transmitting data is mere instruction to apply an exception using a generic computer component which cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, this/these additional element(s) does/do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, since the claims are directed to the determined judicial exception in view of the two prongs of Step 2A, MPEP 2106.05 Eligibility Step 2B: Whether a Claim Amounts to Significantly More [R-07.2022] is directed to Step 2B. Therein, per Step 2B the additional elements and combinations therewith are examined in the claims to determine whether the claims as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. It is noted here that the additional elements are to be considered both individually and as an ordered combination. In this case, the claims each at most comprise additional elements of processor, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, one or more server devices, the provider and requester computing devices. Taken individually, the additional limitations each are generically recited and thus does not add significantly more to the respective limitations. Further, executing all the steps/functions by a user/service subsystem is mere instruction to apply an exception using a generic computer component which cannot provide an inventive concept in Step 2B (or, looking back to Step 2A, cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application). For further support, the Applicant’s specification supports the claims being directed to use of a generic processor, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, one or more server devices, the provider and requester computing devices type structure at ¶ 0026: “ transportation provider device 280 (e.g., a smartphone); ¶ 0035: “transportation requestor device 260 (e.g., a smartphone); ¶ 0065: “The transportation management system may be implemented on various platforms, including a requestor-owned mobile device, a computing system installed in a vehicle, a requestor-owned mobile device, a server computer system, or any other hardware platform capable of providing transportation matching services to one or more requestors and/or providers.” ¶ 0066 “transportation management system 1002 may include one or more general purpose computers, server computers, clustered computing systems, cloudbased computing systems, and/or any other computing systems or arrangements of computing systems. Transportation management system 1002 may be configured to run any or all of the services and/or software components described herein. In some embodiments, the transportation management system 1002 may include an appropriate operating system and/or various server applications, such as web servers capable of handling hypertext transport protocol (HTTP) requests, file transfer protocol (FTP) servers, database servers, etc.”; ¶ 0078-0079: “the term “memory device” generally refers to any type or form of volatile or non-volatile storage device or medium capable of storing data and/or computer-readable instructions. In one example, a memory device may store, load, and/or maintain one or more of the modules described herein. Examples of memory devices include, without limitation, Random Access Memory (RAM), Read Only Memory (ROM), flash memory, Hard Disk Drives (HDDs), Solid-State Drives (SSDs), optical disk drives, caches, variations or combinations of one or more of the same, or any other suitable storage memory. […] the term “physical processor” generally refers to any type or form of hardware-implemented processing unit capable of interpreting and/or executing computer-readable instructions. In one example, a physical processor may access and/or modify one or more modules stored in the above-described memory device. Examples of physical processors include, without limitation, microprocessors, microcontrollers, Central Processing Units (CPUs), Field-Programmable Gate Arrays (FPGAs) that implement softcore processors, Application-Specific Integrated Circuits (ASICs), portions of one or more of the same, variations or combinations of one or more of the same, or any other suitable physical processor.” See also figure 1.
Taken as an ordered combination, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are directed to limitations referenced in Alice Corp. that are not enough to qualify as significantly more when recited in a claim with an abstract idea include, as a non-limiting or non-exclusive examples: i. Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)); ii. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); iii. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)); or v. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, e.g., a claim describing how the abstract idea of hedging could be used in the commodities and energy markets, as discussed in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 595, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010) or a claim limiting the use of a mathematical formula to the petrochemical and oil-refining fields, as discussed in Parker v. Flook. The courts have recognized the following computer functions inter alia to be well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner: performing repetitive calculations; receiving, processing, and storing data (e.g., the present claims); electronically scanning or extracting data; electronic recordkeeping; automating mental tasks (e.g., process/machine for performing the present claims); and receiving or transmitting data (e.g., the present claims). The dependent claims 2-10, 12-15 and 17-20 do not cure the above stated deficiencies, and in particular, the dependent claims further narrow the abstract idea without reciting additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception or providing significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 2 and 12 further limit the abstract idea by providing, for display via user interfaces of requester computing devices matched to the provider computing device, a plurality of digital compliment elements; monitoring, via the one or more server devices, interactions with digital compliment elements at the requester computing devices matched to the provider computing device; and providing, for display on the user interface of the provider computing device simultaneously with the set of eligible messages and the notification message, a digital compliments counter element based on the interactions with the digital compliment elements at the requester computing devices matched to the provider computing device (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 3 and 13 further limit the abstract idea that collecting the performance data associated with the performance of the provider computing device includes collecting data from at least one of a requester computing device associated with the digital service request, sensor data from a vehicle of the provider computing device, or a data server (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 4 and 14 further limit the abstract idea that receiving the contextual data includes receiving at least one of a type of digital service request, a pickup location of the digital service request, a drop-off location of the digital service request, a digital service request history of the provider computing device, or a preference of the requester computing device. (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 5 and 15 further limit the abstract idea that providing the status message further comprises: providing, for display within the user interface of the provider computing device, a summary text corresponding to the provider tier; and providing the status summary text simultaneously with the set of eligible messages (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 6 and 17 further limit the abstract idea that by prioritizing a plurality of notification messages; and displaying the plurality of notification messages in the user interface of the provider computing device in a consolidated view (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 7 further limit the abstract idea by providing, for display within the user interface of a requestor computing device, a digital text user interface element; and receiving a user input of an instance of feedback data via the digital text user interface element (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 8 further limit the abstract idea by extracting the feedback data from the user interactions based on receiving the user input of the instance of feedback data (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 9 and 19 further limit the abstract idea by providing, for display via a user interface of the requester computing device, one or more selectable binary interactive elements; and receiving a selection of a selectable binary interactive element of the one or more selectable binary interactive elements (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 10 and 20 further limit the abstract idea that based on receiving the selection of the selectable binary interactive element, determining whether a number of instances of feedback data satisfies the threshold number of the feedback data; and based on determining that the number of instances of feedback data satisfies the threshold number of the feedback data generating the feedback message (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). And claim 18 further limit the abstract idea to monitor provide, for display within the user interface of a requestor computing device, a digital text user interface element; and receive a user input of an instance of feedback data via the digital text user interface element (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). The identified recitation of the dependents claims falls within the Mental Processes: concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion, and Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity such as managing personal behavior or relationships or interaction between people including social activities, teaching and following rules or instructions. Since there are no elements or ordered combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, the claims are not eligible subject matter under 35 USC §101. Thus, viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 23-26, filed on 4/28/2026, with respect to claims 1, 11 and 16 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1-20 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed on 4/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, Applicant argues that (1) “The Claims are Patent-Eligible Because the Claims do not Recite a Mental Process or Human Activity under Step 2A-Prong One”, (2) “The Currently Amended Claims are Patent Eligible Because the Claims Recite a Practical Application” and (3) “The Claims of the Present Application Include Limitations That are Significantly More Than the Alleged Abstract Idea” (Remarks pages 15-22).
In response to Applicant’s argument (1). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 recites a computer-implemented method that collect performance data associated with a performance of a provider computing device by monitoring user interactions between the requestor computing device and the provider computing device based on binary feedback options or interactions with digital text user interface elements, the provider computing device is generated based on the performance data; a provider tier is determined for the provider computing device based on the provider computing device rating, based on the provider tier for the provider computing device, a feedback number threshold is selected to indicate an amount of feedback received from the user interactions with the requestor computing devices before displaying one or more digital feedback messages via the provider computing device; a set of filtered feedback data is generated by extracting feedback data from the user interactions based on receiving at least a threshold number of the feedback data; based on the performance data, and the provider tier, a set of eligible messages comprises: a status message corresponding to the provider computing device rating; a notification message comprising a modification directive corresponding to the performance data; and a feedback message comprising the set of filtered feedback data; contextual data indicating a context of a digital service request received from the requester computing device is received from the provider computing device or a requester computing device, if the amount of feedback received from the user interactions with the requestor computing devices satisfies the feedback number threshold; the set of eligible messages are release to the provider computing device for simultaneous display within a user interface of the provider computing device, the set of eligible messages comprising the status message , the notification message comprising the modification directive corresponding to the performance data, and the feedback message comprising the set of filtered feedback data as described at least in the Applicant's disclosure in ¶ 0015: “providing a feedback message to a transportation provider device for coaching the transportation provider to improve the transportation service”, ¶ 0019: “The dynamic transportation network may improve the quality of transportation services by providing feedback messages to the transportation provider that coach the transportation provider to improve transportation services.” See also claims 2-3, 7-8, 10, 12-13, 18 and 20. Figures 3-5 illustrates a display to coach a transportation provider in improving performance, see suggested improvement i.e., modification directive, ¶ 0020 “In response to determining that the performance data is relevant to the context, transportation provider feedback module 212 may provide the feedback message to a transportation provider device (e.g., a smartphone) to coach the transportation provider to improve transportation services in light of the performance data”, ¶ 0027: “Referring to FIG. 3, device screen 302 (e.g., feedback home screen) may include consolidated feedback messages to improve the transportation provider's performance based on the collected performance data and the context within which the transportation provider is providing the transportation service.” ¶ 0030 “the tips provided in notification message 306 may motivate the transportation provider to implement the advice provided in the tip to improve their performance.” ¶ 0032: “Feedback feed 310 may include compliments received from transportation requestors (e.g., Road champ), suggested improvements for transportation provider performance (e.g., work on navigation), and direct quotes from the transportation requestor (e.g., very nice man! Super friendly and really great driver!!!).” ¶ 0034: “Page endcap 314 section of device screen 302 may include a prompt (e.g., “Learn more about ratings”, “Review driver guides”) that the transportation provider may select in order to load additional pages that include information on how the transportation provider may improve their performance. “ ¶ 0035 “As another example, icon 408 may represent negative feedback and a suggested improvement may be displayed to coach the transportation provider to improve their performance. ¶ 0037: “The dynamic transportation system application may act as a virtual coach and provide coaching tips as the transportation providers are providing the transportation service to transportation requestors.” ¶ 0044: “the feedback message coaching the transportation provider to improve the transportation service in light of the performance data.” Claim 1 recites a concept related to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity such as managing personal behavior or relationships or interaction between people including social activities, teaching and following rules or instructions i.e., interaction between the requester computing device and the provider computing device by collecting and displaying feedback and performance data for the provider computing device, and Mental Processes: concepts performed in the human mind including an observation (collecting performance data from interactions between the requester computing device and the provider computing device such as binary feedback elements or interactions with digital text user interface elements, collecting feedback, contextual data), evaluation (provider tier based on rating, feedback number threshold to display the set of eligible messages), judgment (rating, if the feedback number threshold satisfied/met?) and opinion (displaying simultaneously the set of eligible messages comprising the status message , the notification message comprising the modification directive corresponding to the performance data, and the feedback message comprising the set of filtered feedback data). Claim 1 as explained above could be performed in the human mind or by a human administrator/supervisor using a pen and paper who analyze all the collected data, determine the provider computing device rating based on the analysis of the collected data and the tier analysis, set a threshold number for the feedback data as shown in ¶ 0028, 0033, if the requirement are met, the feedback/results of the analysis is provided to the provider computing device i.e., transportation provider. A mental process remain unpatentable even when automated to reduce the burden on the user of what once could have been done with pen and paper. See CyberSource, 654 F. 3d at 1372-73. Therefore, claim 1 recites an abstract idea falling within the Guidance's subject-matter grouping to the group of certain methods of organizing human activity including managing personal behavior or relationship or interactions between people and mental processes. The same rationale applies to claims 11 and 16.
Applicant argues that the claim is similar to Enfish, Examiner respectfully disagrees with this analysis. Enfish found the claim to be directed to a self-referential table, and thus was held to be an improvement to computer capabilities. The Court in Enfish asked whether the focus of the claims was on the specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities (i.e., the self-referential table for a computer database), or instead on a process that qualifies as an "abstract idea" for which computers are invoked merely as a tool. To make the determination of whether these claims are directed to an improvement in existing computer technology, the Court looked to the teachings of the specification. Specifically, the court identified the specification's teachings that the claimed invention achieves other benefits over conventional databases, such as increased flexibility, faster search. Here, there is no specific improvement in computer technology recited in the claims - the claims broadly recite that based on the provider tier, a feedback number threshold is selected in order to display the set of eligible messages.
Applicants argue that the claims are similar to McRo. Examiner notes that in McRO the claim was focused on a specific asserted improvement in computer animation. The Federal Circuit found that improvements in computer related technology can be an improvement to the computer itself (like DDR or Enfish) or steps/functions that allow a computer to perform a function it could not perform before the claimed invention (like McRO). The present claims are not analogous as in the McRO’s claims because none of the currently claimed set of functions allow a computer to perform functions it could not otherwise perform prior to the claimed invention. As discussed above, the claims are similar to ideas found to be abstract, wherein upon examination of the claims as a whole and in terms of each claim’s limitations reveals that the claims are not directed to improving computer performance, nor improvement to technology or technical field and do not recite any such benefit. Also noted is that the claims in McRO were not even found to recite an abstract idea; therefore, the § 101 analysis did not need to proceed to step 2B. The claims in the instant application recite various examples of abstract ideas as explained above. Further, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
In response to Applicant’s argument (2). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Per Prong Two of Step 2A, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim as a whole does not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application. The processor, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, one or more server devices, the provider and requester computing devices is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of receiving/determining/transmitting data. This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Considering the claims as a whole, these additional limitations merely add generic computer activities i.e., receiving/determining/transmitting, to receive inputs (performance data, ratings, contextual data, binary feedback options or interactions with digital text), analyze the inputs based on a feedback threshold in order to display the set of eligible messages. The recited processor, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, one or more server devices, the provider and requester computing devices, merely links the abstract idea to a computer environment. In this way, the processor, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, one or more server devices, the provider and requester computing devices involvement is merely a field of use which only contributes nominally and insignificantly to the recited method, which indicates absence of integration. Claim 1 uses the processor, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, one or more server devices, the provider and requester computing devices as a tool, in its ordinary capacity, to carry out the abstract idea. As to this level of computer involvement, mere automation of manual processes using generic computers does not necessarily indicate a patent-eligible improvement in computer technology. Considered as a whole, the additional elements (1) do not improve the functioning of the computer itself or any other technology or technical field; (2) are not applied with any particular machine (except for generic computer components); (3) do not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state; and (4) are not applied in any meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP § 2106.05 (a)-(c), (e)-(h). Further, a processor configured to cause receiving/determining/transmitting data to a device is mere instruction to apply an exception using a generic computer component which cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, this/these additional element(s) does/do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Applicant submits that the claims in the instant application are similar to those in the Core Wireless decision. Please see the 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) rejection above. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. A technological improvement in the underlying technical operations was identified in the Core Wireless decision. Core Wireless “improves the efficiency of using the electronic device by bringing together “a limited list of common functions and commonly accessed stored data,” which can be accessed directly from the main menu. […] The speed of a user’s navigation through various views and windows can be improved because it “saves the user from navigating to the required application, opening it up, and then navigating within that application to enable the data of interest to be seen or a function of interest to be activated.” Id. at 2:35–39. Rather than paging through multiple screens of options, “only three steps may be needed from start up to reaching the required data/functionality.” As described in the Core Wireless’s specification. To the contrary, Applicant’s claims and specification utilize common and conventional graphical user interfaces to facilitate the displaying of the status summary message, the notification message and feedback to the transportation provider device as shown in figures 3-5 and reap the expected benefits commonly associated with implementing communications via interfaces, including collecting data from various collection devices as shown in Applicant’s disclosure ¶ 0073 “FIG. 11 shows a data collection and application management environment 1100, in accordance with various embodiments. As shown in FIG. 11, management system 1102 may be configured to collect data from various data collection devices 1104 through a data collection interface 1106.” Common and conventional graphical user interfaces to facilitate the communication between devices as shown in ¶ 0072: ‘users may utilize and interface with one or more services provided by the transportation management system 1002 using applications executing on their respective computing devices (e.g., 1016, 1018, 1020, and/or a computing device integrated within vehicle 1014), which may include mobile devices (e.g., an iPhone®, an iPad®, mobile telephone, tablet computer, a personal digital assistant (PDA)), laptops, wearable devices (e.g., smart watch, smart glasses, head mounted displays, etc.), thin client devices, gaming consoles, and any other computing devices.” This serves as further evidence that Applicant's additional elements are general-purpose, off-the-shelf elements operating in conventional manners. Applicant’s disclosure at the time the invention was filed and to one of ordinary skill in the art does not describe how a coordinated generation and presentation of messages i.e., contextually relevant directives with the status information improves the functionality of the user interface.
In response to Applicant’s argument (3). Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims each at most comprise additional elements of processor, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, one or more server devices, the provider and requester computing devices. Taken individually, the additional limitations each are generically recited and thus does not add significantly more to the respective limitations. Further, executing all the steps/functions by a user/service subsystem is mere instruction to apply an exception using a generic computer component which cannot provide an inventive concept in Step 2B (or, looking back to Step 2A, cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application). For further support, the Applicant’s specification supports the claims being directed to use of a generic processor, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, one or more server devices, the provider and requester computing devices type structure at ¶ 0026: “ transportation provider device 280 (e.g., a smartphone); ¶ 0035: “transportation requestor device 260 (e.g., a smartphone); ¶ 0065: “The transportation management system may be implemented on various platforms, including a requestor-owned mobile device, a computing system installed in a vehicle, a requestor-owned mobile device, a server computer system, or any other hardware platform capable of providing transportation matching services to one or more requestors and/or providers.” ¶ 0066 “transportation management system 1002 may include one or more general purpose computers, server computers, clustered computing systems, cloudbased computing systems, and/or any other computing systems or arrangements of computing systems. Transportation management system 1002 may be configured to run any or all of the services and/or software components described herein. In some embodiments, the transportation management system 1002 may include an appropriate operating system and/or various server applications, such as web servers capable of handling hypertext transport protocol (HTTP) requests, file transfer protocol (FTP) servers, database servers, etc.”; ¶ 0078-0079: “the term “memory device” generally refers to any type or form of volatile or non-volatile storage device or medium capable of storing data and/or computer-readable instructions. In one example, a memory device may store, load, and/or maintain one or more of the modules described herein. Examples of memory devices include, without limitation, Random Access Memory (RAM), Read Only Memory (ROM), flash memory, Hard Disk Drives (HDDs), Solid-State Drives (SSDs), optical disk drives, caches, variations or combinations of one or more of the same, or any other suitable storage memory. […] the term “physical processor” generally refers to any type or form of hardware-implemented processing unit capable of interpreting and/or executing computer-readable instructions. In one example, a physical processor may access and/or modify one or more modules stored in the above-described memory device. Examples of physical processors include, without limitation, microprocessors, microcontrollers, Central Processing Units (CPUs), Field-Programmable Gate Arrays (FPGAs) that implement softcore processors, Application-Specific Integrated Circuits (ASICs), portions of one or more of the same, variations or combinations of one or more of the same, or any other suitable physical processor.” See also figure 1.
Taken as an ordered combination, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations are directed to limitations referenced in Alice Corp. that are not enough to qualify as significantly more when recited in a claim with an abstract idea include, as a non-limiting or non-exclusive examples: i. Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)); ii. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); iii. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)); or v. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, e.g., a claim describing how the abstract idea of hedging could be used in the commodities and energy markets, as discussed in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 595, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010) or a claim limiting the use of a mathematical formula to the petrochemical and oil-refining fields, as discussed in Parker v. Flook. The courts have recognized the following computer functions inter alia to be well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner: performing repetitive calculations; receiving, processing, and storing data (e.g., the present claims); electronically scanning or extracting data; electronic recordkeeping; automating mental tasks (e.g., process/machine for performing the present claims); and receiving or transmitting data (e.g., the present claims).
Applicant argues that the claims are similar to Bascom. Nothing in the current claims require any non-generic combination of known elements. That is, there is no claimed arrangement of elements that is significantly more than the abstract idea. In Bascom, it was the particular arrangement of elements that was the technical improvement over prior art ways of filtering content. Nothing in the current claims involves a technical improvement over the prior art. The steps/functions are routine and conventional and even considering an ordered combination of the limitations, no inventive concept can be found. Since the 2B elements are claimed at a high level of generality and perform generic computer functions and no “inventive concept" can be found in those elements whether taken alone or in any ordered combination. The instant application use a processor, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, one or more server devices, the provider and requester computing devices to receive inputs (performance data, ratings, contextual data, binary feedback options or interactions with digital text), analyze the inputs based on a feedback threshold in order to display the set of eligible messages. The ordered combination of elements of Applicant’s claims, does not improve the functionality of the computer and does not improve the system operation. As discussed above, the claims are similar to ideas found to be abstract, wherein upon examination of the claims as a whole and in terms of each claim’s limitations reveals that the claims are not directed to improving computer performance, nor improvement to technology or technical field and do not recite any such benefit.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kass et al., (US 2008/0012701 A1) discloses a mobile personal service platform for providing feedback.
Kapoor et al., (US 2016/0300275 A1) discloses a rating aggregation and propagation mechanism for hierarchical services and products.
Kim et al.,, (US 2020/0265365 A1) disclose an interactive electronic employee feedback systems and methods.
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 NADJA CHONG whose telephone number is (571)270-3939. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00 am - 2:00 pm ET, 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, RUTAO WU can be reached on 571.272.6045. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NADJA N CHONG CRUZ/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623
Prosecution Insights