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 .
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.
Step 1: Claims 1-11 are drawn to a process and claims 12-19 are drawn to a machine, each of which is within the four statutory categories (e.g., a process, a machine). (Step 1: YES).
Claim 20 is rejected as it is directed to a “medium” and the specification is silent on whether the medium covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is obliged to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during proceedings before the USPTO. See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (during patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP § 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter) and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. §101, Aug. 24, 2009; p. 2. The word “tangibly” has been shown not to exclude transitory signals from the claim scope. As such, claim 20 should read “A non-transitory computer-readable medium…” Appropriate correction is required.
Step 2A – Prong One: In prong one of step 2A, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether they recite a judicial exception.
Claim 1 (representative of claims 12 and 20) recites/describes the following steps:
“determining, …, provider availability values for available transportation provider devices during a current matching interval;”
“detecting, …, initiation of a session …prior to receipt of a transportation request from the transportation requestor device;”
“in response to detecting the initiation of the session, tentatively matching, …, the transportation requestor device with at least one transportation provider device based at least in part on the provider availability values;” and
“matching, …, the transportation requestor device with the tentatively matched transportation provider device in response to receiving a transportation request from the transportation requestor device during the current matching interval.”
These steps, under broadest reasonable interpretation, describe or set-forth matching transportation providers with transportation requestors, which amounts to commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). These limitations therefore fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
As such, the Examiner concludes that claims 1, 12, and 20 recite an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong One: YES).
Dependent claims 2 and 13 recite the same abstract idea as the independent claims because they recite limitations that further defines the data from the abstract idea of matching transportation providers with transportation requestors, which amounts to commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). Claims 2 and 13 recite the additional limitation “wherein the at least one transportation provider device corresponds to an autonomous vehicle capable of operating with no input from a human operator,” which is addressed in the steps below.
Dependent claims 3 and 14 recite the same abstract idea as the independent claims because they recite limitations that further defines the data from the abstract idea of matching transportation providers with transportation requestors, which amounts to commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). Claims 3 and 14 are rejected due to being abstract and do not recite any additional elements/limitations.
Dependent claims 4 and 15 recite the same abstract idea as the independent claims because they recite limitations that further defines the data from the abstract idea of matching transportation providers with transportation requestors, which amounts to commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). Claims 4 and 15 are rejected due to being abstract and do not recite any additional elements/limitations.
Dependent claims 5 and 16 recite the same abstract idea as the independent claims because they recite limitations that further defines the data from the abstract idea of matching transportation providers with transportation requestors, which amounts to commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). Claims 5 and 16 are rejected due to being abstract and do not recite any additional elements/limitations.
Dependent claims 6 and 17 recite the same abstract idea as the independent claims because they recite limitations that further defines the data from the abstract idea of matching transportation providers with transportation requestors, which amounts to commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). Claims 6 and 17 are rejected due to being abstract and do not recite any additional elements/limitations.
Dependent claims 7 and 18 recite the same abstract idea as the independent claims because they recite limitations that further defines the data from the abstract idea of matching transportation providers with transportation requestors, which amounts to commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). Claims 7 and 18 are rejected due to being abstract and do not recite any additional elements/limitations.
Dependent claims 8 and 19 recite the same abstract idea as the independent claims because they recite limitations that further defines the data from the abstract idea of matching transportation providers with transportation requestors, which amounts to commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). Claims 8 and 19 are rejected due to being abstract and do not recite any additional elements/limitations.
Claim 9 recites the same abstract idea as the independent claims because they recite limitations that further defines the data from the abstract idea of matching transportation providers with transportation requestors, which amounts to commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). Claim 9 recites the additional element of “a primary transportation provider device and at least one backup transportation provider device,” which is analyzed in the steps below.
Claim 10 recites the same abstract idea as the independent claims because they recite limitations that further defines the data from the abstract idea of matching transportation providers with transportation requestors, which amounts to commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). Claim 10 is rejected due to being abstract and do not recite any additional elements/limitations.
Claim 11 recites the same abstract idea as the independent claims because they recite limitations that further defines the data from the abstract idea of matching transportation providers with transportation requestors, which amounts to commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). Claim 11 is rejected due to being abstract and do not recite any additional elements/limitations.
Step 2A – Prong Two:
The claims recite the additional elements/limitations of: “by at least one physical processor;” “an application involved in a dynamic transportation matching system running on a transportation requestor device,” (claim 1); “a system comprising: a memory device… and a physical processor,” “an application involved in a dynamic transportation matching system running on a transportation requestor device,” (claim 12); “a computer-readable medium comprising computer-readable instructions…at least one processor of a computing device,” “an application involved in a dynamic transportation matching system running on a transportation requestor device,” (claim 20).
The dependent claims also recite the additional elements/limitations of: “wherein the at least one transportation provider device corresponds to an autonomous vehicle capable of operating with no input from a human operator,” (claims 2 and 13).
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using “by at least one physical processor;” “an application involved in a dynamic transportation matching system running on a transportation requestor device,” (claim 1); “a system comprising: a memory device… and a physical processor,” “an application involved in a dynamic transportation matching system running on a transportation requestor device,” (claim 12); “a computer-readable medium comprising computer-readable instructions…at least one processor of a computing device,” “an application involved in a dynamic transportation matching system running on a transportation requestor device,” (claim 20); “wherein the at least one transportation provider device corresponds to an autonomous vehicle capable of operating with no input from a human operator,” (claims 2 and 13), is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See § MPEP 2106.05(f).
Remaining dependent claims 2-11 and 13-19 either recite the same additional elements as noted above or fail to recite any additional elements (in which case, note prong one analysis as set forth above – those claims are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim).
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong two: NO).
Step 2B:
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2,” the requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using “by at least one physical processor;” “an application involved in a dynamic transportation matching system running on a transportation requestor device,” (claim 1); “a system comprising: a memory device… and a physical processor,” “an application involved in a dynamic transportation matching system running on a transportation requestor device,” (claim 12); “a computer-readable medium comprising computer-readable instructions…at least one processor of a computing device,” “an application involved in a dynamic transportation matching system running on a transportation requestor device,” (claim 20); “wherein the at least one transportation provider device corresponds to an autonomous vehicle capable of operating with no input from a human operator,” (claims 2 and 13), is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations therefore do not qualify as “significantly more.” See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Viewing the additional limitations in combination also shows that they fail to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. When considered as an ordered combination, the additional components of the claims add nothing that is not already present when considered separately, and thus simply append the abstract idea with words equivalent to “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer.
Remaining dependent claims 2-11 and 13-19 either recite the same additional elements as noted above or fail to recite any additional elements (in which case, note prong one analysis as set forth above – those claims are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim).
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO).
Double Patenting
Claims 1, 12, 20 of this application is patentably indistinct from claims 1, 9, and 17 of Application No. 18/314,722 (Patent No. 12,481,932 B2). Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.78(f), when two or more applications filed by the same applicant or assignee contain patentably indistinct claims, elimination of such claims from all but one application may be required in the absence of good and sufficient reason for their retention during pendency in more than one application. Applicant is required to either cancel the patentably indistinct claims from all but one application or maintain a clear line of demarcation between the applications. See MPEP § 822.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claims because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claims. See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 12 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 9, and 17 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,481,932 B2, hereinafter ‘932.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 reads on claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,481,932 B2.
Regarding claim 1, ‘932 discloses determining, by at least one physical processor, provider availability values for available transportation provider devices (‘932, Claim 1, executing, by at least one physical processor, a determination module that determines provider availability values for available transportation provider devices) during a current matching interval (‘932, claim 1, for a current matching interval);
detecting, by the at least one physical processor, initiation of a session for an application involved in a dynamic transportation matching system running on a transportation requestor device prior to receipt of a transportation request from the transportation requestor device (‘932, Claim 1, executing, by the at least one physical processor, a new session module that identifies that a dynamic transportation matching system session has been initiated on a new transportation requestor device;);
in response to detecting the initiation of the session, tentatively matching, by the at least one physical processor, the transportation requestor device with at least one transportation provider device based at least in part on the provider availability values (‘932, Claim 1, tentatively matches the new transportation requestor device with a transportation provider device identified based at least in part on the cached provider availability values,); and
matching, by the at least one physical processor, the transportation requestor device with the tentatively matched transportation provider device in response to receiving a transportation request from the transportation requestor device during the current matching interval (‘932, Claim 1, matches the new transportation requestor device with the identified transportation provider device in response to receiving a transportation request from the new transportation requestor device within the current matching interval).
Regarding claim 12, ‘932 discloses determining, by at least one physical processor, provider availability values for available transportation provider devices (‘932, Claim 9, a determination module, stored in memory, that determines provider availability values for available transportation provider devices) during a current matching interval (‘932, claim 9, for a current matching interval);
detecting, by the at least one physical processor, initiation of a session for an application involved in a dynamic transportation matching system running on a transportation requestor device prior to receipt of a transportation request from the transportation requestor device (‘932, Claim 9, a new session module, stored in the memory, that identifies that a dynamic transportation matching system session has been initiated on a new transportation requestor device);
in response to detecting the initiation of the session, tentatively matching, by the at least one physical processor, the transportation requestor device with at least one transportation provider device based at least in part on the provider availability values (‘932, Claim 9, tentatively matches the new transportation requestor device with a transportation provider device identified based at least in part on the cached provider availability values,); and
matching, by the at least one physical processor, the transportation requestor device with the tentatively matched transportation provider device in response to receiving a transportation request from the transportation requestor device during the current matching interval (‘932, Claim 9, matches the new transportation requestor device with the identified transportation provider device in response to receiving a transportation request from the new transportation requestor device within the current matching interval).
Regarding claim 20, ‘932 discloses determining, by at least one physical processor, provider availability values for available transportation provider devices (‘932, Claim 17, determine provider availability values for available transportation provider devices) during a current matching interval (‘932, claim 17, for a current matching interval);
detecting, by the at least one physical processor, initiation of a session for an application involved in a dynamic transportation matching system running on a transportation requestor device prior to receipt of a transportation request from the transportation requestor device (‘932, Claim 17, identify that a dynamic transportation matching system session has been initiated on a new transportation requestor device;);
in response to detecting the initiation of the session, tentatively matching, by the at least one physical processor, the transportation requestor device with at least one transportation provider device based at least in part on the provider availability values (‘932, Claim 17, tentatively match the new transportation requestor device with a transportation provider device identified based at least in part on the cached provider availability values); and
matching, by the at least one physical processor, the transportation requestor device with the tentatively matched transportation provider device in response to receiving a transportation request from the transportation requestor device during the current matching interval (‘932, Claim 17, match the new transportation requestor device with the identified transportation provider device in response to receiving a transportation request from the new transportation requestor device within the current matching interval).
Claims 2-11 and 13-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 9, and 17 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,481,932 B2, hereinafter ‘932, in view of U.S. Patent No. US 11,681,955 B2, hereinafter ‘955.
Regarding claims 2 and 13, claims 1, 9, and 17 of ‘932 do not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one transportation provider device corresponds to an autonomous vehicle capable of operating with no input from a human operator. ‘955 teaches wherein the at least one transportation provider device corresponds to an autonomous vehicle capable of operating with no input from a human operator (Col. 9, Lines 33-46). This step of ‘955 is applicable to U.S. Patent No. US 11,681,955 B2 as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to matching transportation providers and transportation requesters. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the claims of U.S. Patent No. US 12,481,932 B2 to include the autonomous vehicle capabilities as taught by ‘955. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the claims of U.S. Patent No. US 12,481,932 B2 as a need exists to improve performance of online advertising and increase the relevancy of ads served (‘955, Col. 1, Lines 32-35).
Regarding claims 3 and 14, claims 1, 9, and 17 of ‘932 do not explicitly disclose identifying one or more operational constraints of the autonomous vehicle; and determining a provider availability value for the autonomous vehicle during the current matching interval based at least in part on the operational constraints. ‘955 teaches identifying one or more operational constraints of the autonomous vehicle; and determining a provider availability value for the autonomous vehicle during the current matching interval based at least in part on the operational constraints (Col. 6, Lines 3-13). This step of ‘955 is applicable to U.S. Patent No. US 11,681,955 B2 as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to matching transportation providers and transportation requesters. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the claims of U.S. Patent No. US 12,481,932 B2 to include the autonomous vehicle capabilities as taught by ‘955. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the claims of U.S. Patent No. US 12,481,932 B2 as a need exists to improve performance of online advertising and increase the relevancy of ads served (‘955, Col. 1, Lines 32-35).
Regarding claims 4 and 15, claims 1, 9, and 17 of ‘932 do not explicitly disclose identifying a request for autonomous transportation services from the transportation requestor device; and prioritizing the autonomous vehicle over one or more of the available transportation provider devices based at least in part on the provider availability values and the request for autonomous transportation services. ‘955 teaches identifying one or more operational constraints of the autonomous vehicle; and determining a provider availability value for the autonomous vehicle during the current matching interval based at least in part on the operational constraints (Col. 11, Lines 27-36). This step of ‘955 is applicable to U.S. Patent No. US 11,681,955 B2 as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to matching transportation providers and transportation requesters. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the claims of U.S. Patent No. US 12,481,932 B2 to include the autonomous vehicle capabilities as taught by ‘955. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the claims of U.S. Patent No. US 12,481,932 B2 as a need exists to improve performance of online advertising and increase the relevancy of ads served (‘955, Col. 1, Lines 32-35).
Claims 5-11 and 16-19 reads on claims 2 and 6-12 of U.S. Patent No. US 11,681,955 B2. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the claims of U.S. Patent No. US 12,481,932 B2 to include the capabilities as taught by ‘955. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the claims of U.S. Patent No. US 12,481,932 B2 as a need exists to improve performance of online advertising and increase the relevancy of ads served (‘955, Col. 1, Lines 32-35).
Prior Art of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
Liu (US 2018/0060990 A1) discloses a system and method for determining and updating a value pertaining to supply and/or demand conditions of a service in a specified geographic region is provided. The method and system enable resources to be managed over multiple geographic regions. The system determines an initial value pertaining to supply and/or demand conditions in the specified geographic area based on data collected from provider and requester devices. The system determines whether the initial value requires real-time update to account for unpredictable and fast-changing variations in supply and/or demand conditions that can cause imbalance in resource allocation across the multiple geographic regions. If the system determines that the initial value requires real-time update, the system generates a real-time value based on supply and/or demand information pertaining to conditions in nearby geographic regions. The system facilitates the provision of the service using real-time value or the initial value, depending on the determination.
Ma et al. "A novel algorithm for peer-to-peer ridesharing match problem." Neural Computing and Applications, 31 (2019): 247-258. introduces a notion of two-sided matching to build a single-driver multiple-rider stable matching ridesharing model and proposes a heuristic algorithm to establish stable or nearly stable matches. The paper conducts extensive numerical experiments to demonstrate the computational efficiency of the proposed algorithm and show its practical applicability to reasonably sized P2P ridesharing contexts. The results show that such modifications increase the stability of ridesharing matching solutions at the cost of only a small degradation in system-wide performance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Patrick Kim whose telephone number is (571)272-8619. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9AM - 5PM EST.
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, Lynda Jasmin can be reached at (571)272-6782. 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.
/Patrick Kim/Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights