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 a non-final, first office action in response to the claims filed on 08/06/2025.
Claims 1 – 20 have been examined and are subject to the non-final office action below.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/27/2025 was filed before the mailing date of the first office action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Novel/Nonobvious Subject Matter
Claims 1 – 20 are not rejected over the prior art.
The closest prior art, Jiang et al. (US 20200081933 A1) (see, e.g., [0018] & [0041]), discloses that a user can purchase a “consistent cost package” which guarantees capped costs between two specific locations, however fails to teach wherein the capped fares are for specific time windows, as well as the various claimed user interface elements and the triggering of an element to apply the recurring value lock to a request from a starting location of the recurring value lock to a destination location of the recurring value lock responsive to both receiving a user interaction with the option to accept the recurring value lock and upon receiving an indication of a user interaction during the recurring window and within the time window.
Bilen (“Introducing Ride Pass: A new way to plan your day (and budget) with Uber,” Uber.com, 10/30/2018, Attached, retrieved from https://www.uber.com/us/en/newsroom/ride-pass/) teaches that riders can lock in consistent prices on any ride they take during any time of the day for a monthly fee. However, Bilen likewise fails to disclose wherein the capped fares are for specific time windows, as well as the various claimed user interface elements and the triggering of an element to apply the recurring value lock to a request from a starting location of the recurring value lock to a destination location of the recurring value lock responsive to both receiving a user interaction with the option to accept the recurring value lock and upon receiving an indication of a user interaction during the recurring window and within the time window.
Claim Objections
Claims 9 & 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “based identifying” is recited, instead of the grammatically-correct “based on identifying.” Appropriate correction is required.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1 – 10 are directed to a method (i.e., a process). Claims 11 – 15 are directed to a product (i.e., manufacture). Claims 16 – 20 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claims 1 – 20 all fall within the one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One
Independent claim 1 recites: “providing, for display… an option to generate a recurring value lock by providing a starting location element, a destination location element, and a recurring window element; based on receiving… a user interaction with the starting location element, the destination location element, and the recurring window element, generating a fixed value for the recurring value lock; providing, for display… the fixed value for the recurring value lock, a recurring window for the recurring value lock, a time duration for the fixed value, and an option to accept the recurring value lock;
and in response to receiving… a user interaction with the option to accept the recurring value lock and upon receiving… an indication of a user interaction… during the recurring window and within the time duration, providing, for display… an element to apply the recurring value lock to a request from a starting location of the recurring value lock to a destination location of the recurring value lock.”
Independent claim 11 recites: “provide, for display… an option to generate a recurring value lock by providing a starting location element, a destination location element, and a recurring window element; based on receiving… a user interaction with the starting location element, the destination location element, and the recurring window element, generate a fixed value for the recurring value lock; provide, for display… the fixed value for the recurring value lock, a recurring window for the recurring value lock, a time duration for the fixed value, and an option to accept the recurring value lock; and in response to receiving… a user interaction with the option to accept the recurring value lock and upon receiving… an indication of a user interaction… during the recurring window and within the time duration, provide, for display… an element to apply the recurring value lock to a request from a starting location of the recurring value lock to a destination location of the recurring value lock.”
Independent claim 16 recites: “provide, for display… an option to generate a recurring value lock by providing a starting location element, a destination location element, and a recurring window element; based on receiving… a user interaction with the starting location element, the destination location element, and the recurring window element, generate a fixed value for the recurring value lock; provide, for display… the fixed value for the recurring value lock, a recurring window for the recurring value lock, a time duration for the fixed value, and an option to accept the recurring value lock; and in response to user interaction with the option to accept the recurring value lock and upon receiving… an indication of a user interaction… during the recurring window and within the time duration, provide, for display… an element to apply the recurring value lock to a request from a starting location of the recurring value lock to a destination location of the recurring value lock.”
The limitations stated above are processes that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in a commercial interaction. That is, the functions in the context of the claims encompass offering and applying a transport discount for a particular recurring commute for a customer. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in a commercial interaction, then it falls within the "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" grouping of abstract ideas e.g., “commercial or legal interactions (including marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations).” Therefore, the claims fall under the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1, as a whole, amounts to: merely invoking generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (or an equivalent).
Claim 1 recites the additional generic computer elements of “computer-implemented,” “within a graphical user interface of a computing device,” “via one or more server devices,” “within the graphical user interface on the computing device,” “via the one or more server devices,” “with an application of the computing device,” and “within the graphical user interface on the computing device.”
Claim 11 recites the additional generic computer elements of “non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause a computer system to,” “within a graphical user interface of a computing device,” “via one or more server devices,” “within the graphical user interface on the computing device,” “via the one or more server devices,” “via the one or more server devices,” “with an application of the computing device,” and “within the graphical user interface on the computing device.”
Claim 16 recites the additional generic computer elements of “at least one processor,” “at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to,” “within a graphical user interface of a computing device,” “via one or more server devices,” “within the graphical user interface on the computing device,” “via the one or more server devices,” “with an application of the computing device,” and “within the graphical user interface on the computing device.”
The additional elements of “computer-implemented,” “within a graphical user interface of a computing device,” “via one or more server devices,” “within the graphical user interface on the computing device,” “via the one or more server devices,” “with an application of the computing device,” “within the graphical user interface on the computing device,” “non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause a computer system to,” “at least one processor,” and “at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to” are recited at a high level of generality, such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements amount to no more than merely invoking generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (or an equivalent), and do not provide integration of the recited abstract ideas into a practical application. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., merely invoking the generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional elements of: “computer-implemented,” “within a graphical user interface of a computing device,” “via one or more server devices,” “within the graphical user interface on the computing device,” “via the one or more server devices,” “with an application of the computing device,” “within the graphical user interface on the computing device,” “non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause a computer system to,” “at least one processor,” and “at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to” fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in the claims adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. There is no indication that the combination of elements, taken both individually and as an ordered combination, improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Furthermore, dependent claims 2 – 10, 12 – 15, & 17 – 20 are merely directed to the particulars of the abstract idea and likewise do not add significantly more to the above-identified judicial exception. The additional elements of “utilizing a forecasting model” in claim 5 and “identify{ing} initiation of an application session via the computing device” in claims 9 & 20 amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). The limitations of the claims, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, do not transform the abstract idea that they recite into patent-eligible subject matter because the claims simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea with generic computer components that conduct generic computer functions within a certain field of use, and thus are ineligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Jiang et al. (US 20200081933 A1); Bilen (“Introducing Ride Pass: A new way to plan your day (and budget) with Uber,” Uber.com, 10/30/2018, Attached, retrieved from https://www.uber.com/us/en/newsroom/ride-pass/).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN J KIRK whose telephone number is (571)272-6447. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 9:00-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571)272-5587. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRYAN J KIRK/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights