Uber Technologies, Inc.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardNov 19, 20202020000558 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 19, 2020) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 14/566,190 12/10/2014 Matthew Sweeney UP-027-1 5344 110654 7590 11/19/2020 Mahamedi IP Law LLP (Uber) 910 Campisi Way, Suite 1E Campbell, CA 95008 EXAMINER LEAL, HECTOR ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3683 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/19/2020 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): uspto@m-iplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE __________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD __________ Ex parte MATTHEW SWEENEY, AMOS BARRETO, SOPHIA CUI, and LASZLO KORSOS __________ Appeal 2020-000558 Application1 14/566,190 Technology Center 3600 __________ Before DONALD E. ADAMS, TAWEN CHANG, and RACHEL H. TOWNSEND, Administrative Patent Judges. TOWNSEND, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) involving claims to a method for arranging transport services, which have been rejected as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Uber Technologies. (Appeal Br. 3.) Appeal 2020-000558 Application 14/566,190 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s Specification describes the invention as “an intelligent on- demand service dispatch system.” (See, e.g., Spec. ¶ 14.) Appellant’s Specification states that: [i]n at least some examples, when a request for an on-demand service is made by a user, the system can determine a plurality of service providers that are capable of providing the on- demand service for the user based on location information provided by the user and current status and/or location information of the service providers. (Id.) The Specification further describes that the method can optimize the selection of drivers “using an optimization objective that minimized the time to pick up for transport requests on either an individual or a group basis.” (Id. ¶ 21.) That optimization occurs based on whatever criteria is specified in the logic system, such as pick-up locations, distance, and time measurements for a set of candidate drivers. (See, e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 33, 52–60 (predetermined rules or operational parameters provided by an administrator).) Claims 1–20 are on appeal. Claim 1 is representative and reads as follows (bracketing added for reference convenience): 1. A method for arranging transport services for a plurality of users in a given region, the method being performed by one or more processors of a server computing device and comprising: [a] receiving, using the one or more processors, in a given time period, multiple requests for transport, each of the multiple requests for transport including information about a corresponding pickup location of a respective user of the plurality of users; Appeal 2020-000558 Application 14/566,190 3 [b] determining, using the one or more processors, a plurality of drivers that are capable of fulfilling the multiple requests for transport by (i) determining a first set of drivers that are each driving a vehicle that is unoccupied by other users, and (ii) monitoring transports that are in progress to determine a second set of drivers that are each occupied in providing a transport service to a respective destination location that is within a threshold distance or threshold estimated travel time from a location within the given region; [c] assigning, using the one or more processors, each of the multiple transport requests to a respective driver of the plurality of drivers in accordance with an objective to minimize a time to pickup for the multiple transport requests, collectively, wherein the respective drivers that are assigned to each of the multiple transport requests include one or more drivers of each of the first set and the second set; wherein assigning each of the multiple transport requests to the respective driver of the plurality of drivers includes assigning at least a first transport request of the multiple transport requests to a first driver of the second set based on an estimated travel time from (i) a current location of the first driver to a corresponding destination location, and (ii) from the corresponding destination location to the corresponding pickup location of the first transport request; [d] communicating, using the one or more processors, information about each of the multiple transport requests to a corresponding device of the respective assigned driver, to cause the respective assigned driver of at least some of the multiple transport requests to travel towards a respective pickup location of that transport request; and [e] communicating, using the one or more processors, a status of the respective driver assigned to each transport request to the respective user, wherein the status of the first driver identifies when the first driver has dropped off a passenger of the transport service being provided at the corresponding destination location. (Appeal Br. 21–22.) Appeal 2020-000558 Application 14/566,190 4 The following ground of rejection by the Examiner is before us on review: Claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to patent- ineligible subject matter. DISCUSSION Patent-Ineligible Subject Matter Appellant addresses the claims as a group, without differentiating the independent claims or identifying additional limitations recited in the dependent claims. Thus, we address the Examiner’s rejection with respect to exemplary claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). The Dispute The Examiner finds that the claim 1 is a method for matching drivers with passengers. (Ans. 4–5; Final Action 11.) The Examiner states that [t]he limitations of receiving multiple requests for transport, determining a plurality of drivers (e.g., occupied and unoccupied) that are capable of fulfilling said requests, and matching the requests to drivers in order to minimize a total time for pickup of the manipulation . . . under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. (Ans. 5; see also Final Action 11 (“analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds is essentially mental processes”).) The Examiner explains that, for example, a taxi dispatch agent could receive multiple transport requests, ascertain drivers’ locations whether or not they have other passengers, ascertain who the closest driver with respect to a respective request in terms of time and distance, and assigning the various drivers a Appeal 2020-000558 Application 14/566,190 5 ranking and mentally match driers with requests in descending order of travel time. (Ans. at 5–6.) The Examiner further finds that the claim limitations recite a method of organizing human activity. (Id. at 6.) The Examiner further finds that the use of a computer in its ordinary capacity for the recited tasks does not provide significantly more to the claimed steps. (Id.; see also Final Action 12 (noting that the claim specifies what information to gather and analyze but does not require “anything but entirely conventional, generic technology,” i.e., processors).) The Examiner finds that the “additional elements” of the claim that are not the abstract idea do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. (Ans. 7.) The Examiner explains that the communicating steps, which provide information about a request (data gathering) and communicating information to drivers about the request and providing status and identification information to a requestor are insignificant extra solution activity recited at a high level of generality and “are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim.” (Id.) The Examiner determines that these steps “amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.” (Id. at 7–8.) And, as for the computer components, the Examiner explains that they are merely generic components performing generic computer functions. (Id. at 8–9.) Finally, the Examiner finds that the additional elements beyond the abstract idea are the insignificant extra-solution activity of collecting and comparing information, as well as using generic computer components to perform the generic data processing functions and as such those limitations are “well-understood, routine, conventional activity” in accordance with Berkheimer. (Id. at 9.) The Examiner also notes that Appeal 2020-000558 Application 14/566,190 6 courts have recognized that receiving or transmitting data over a network (e.g., using the Internet to gather data) is well- understood, routine, and conventional computer functions and, as such, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network). (Id. at 9–10.) Appellant contends that the Examiner’s rejection is in error because “Claim 1 does not fall into any of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas” set forth in USPTO’s 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“Guidance”). (Appeal Br. 9.) Appellant next argues that, even assuming an abstract idea is recited, any such idea is implemented “in a specific, technologically-rooted environment and [is] aimed at resolving a technical problem.” (Id. at 10.) According to Appellant, the method is “implemented in a specific environment in the context of a centralized computer system in communication with the user devices and driver devices to assign driver devices to transport requests” (id. at 11), and “the distributed network architecture of computing device exchanging [driver location and transport status] information” are aspects of the claims “that are integral to the claims” (id. at 11–12). Moreover, Appellant argues that the technological improvement is that the computer system can assign multiple service requests to a plurality of drivers and “‘in accordance with an objective to minimize a time to pickup for the multiple transport requests, Appeal 2020-000558 Application 14/566,190 7 collectively.’” (Id. at 11.) Appellant further argues that the “detailed implementations recited” related to assignment of the transport requests “further provide support that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize any alleged abstract idea.” (Id. at 12–13.) Finally, Appellant argues that assigning the requests with an objective to minimize time to pickup for the requests collectively and assignment from each of a first set of drivers (those without current passengers) and a second set (those with current passengers) is not conventional. (Id. at 14.) In addition, Appellant submits that “[n]o factual evidence has been introduced to suggest that such a collective optimization is conventional or well- known.” (Id.) And, Appellant submits that the Examiner has also not established with factual evidence that “the identification of occupied drivers in assigning the multiple transport requests is conventional or well-known.” (Id.) The Analysis The Supreme Court has established a two-step framework for “distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 217 (2014). “First, we determine whether the claims at issue are directed to” a patent-ineligible concept. Id. If so, “we consider the elements of each claim both individually and ‘as an ordered combination’ to determine whether the additional elements ‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Id. (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 78–79 (2012)). Appeal 2020-000558 Application 14/566,190 8 Applying the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“Guidance”), 84 Fed. Reg. 50–57 (Jan. 7, 2019),2 and in accordance with judicial precedent, we agree with the Examiner’s conclusion that the claims are addressed to patent-ineligible subject matter. We address representative claim 1 in light of the fact that Appellant does not provide separate argument for the claims. STEP 2A, Prong One: Under the Guidance, in determining what concept a claim is “directed to” in step one of the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, we first look to whether the claim recites any judicial exceptions, such as (a) mathematical concepts, (b) methods of organizing human activity including fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk), and/or (c) mental processes including an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion. Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52, 54 (Step 2A, Prong One). We agree with the Examiner that the claimed method recites a method of organizing human activity that is abstract. In particular, the claimed method of receiving transport requests, determining drivers that can fulfill the requests, and then communicating information to the driver and the passenger concerns a method of arranging vehicle dispatch between a passenger and a driver. Determining dispatch assignments for transport 2 “All USPTO personnel are, as a matter of internal agency management, expected to follow the guidance.” Id. at 51; see also USPTO, October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility 1 (the “October 2019 Update”) (available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/peg_oct_2019_ update.pdf). Appeal 2020-000558 Application 14/566,190 9 services as claimed is also a fundamental business/economic practice. Such organizing has been practiced as long as for-hire passenger transportation has been in existence. In addition, we note that several of the steps recite a mental process but for the requirement that that step be carried out with one or more processors. See, e.g., Versata Dev. Grp. v. SAP Am., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Courts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind.”); see also Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 n.14 (“If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it is still in the mental processes category unless the claim cannot practically be performed in the mind.”). In particular, determining a plurality of drivers that are capable of fulfilling the multiple requests for transport can be performed by a vehicle dispatcher looking at a list of available drivers that have clocked in for work, i.e., using her mind. Furthermore, that the determination includes monitoring transports in progress to a destination that is within a threshold distance or travel time is also something that a dispatcher can perform by observing the employers that have clocked in and who have been assigned a pick up already. Similarly, the step of assigning with an objective to minimize time to pick up as well as including an assignment to a driver that currently has a passenger can be accomplished mentally or with pen and paper by a dispatcher again looking at the available drivers and their known locations determined by talking with them and creating an ordered list that indicates which drivers would be able to pick up the prospective passenger the Appeal 2020-000558 Application 14/566,190 10 quickest based on distance and time of day which might indicate volume of traffic present to get to the pickup location. In light of the above, we conclude that claim 1 both recites a method of organizing human activity that is considered an abstract idea (managing the interaction of potential passenger fares with a driver), as well as recites specific steps that are mental processes. Thus, we disagree with Appellant that “[c]laim 1 does not fall into any of the enumerated groupings [in the Guidance] of abstract ideas” (Appeal Br. 9.) We proceed to the next step of the eligibility analysis under the Guidance. STEP 2A, Prong Two: Following the Guidance, we next consider whether “the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception,” i.e., whether the claim “appl[ies], rel[ies] on, or use[s] the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception.” Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. This analysis includes “[i]dentifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s)” and “evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.” Id. at 54–55. Here, again, we agree with the Examiner that the claim does not provide for such an integration. We first examine the claim to determine what operations are recited that would not ordinarily take place in a method of organizing transport services between passengers and drivers. We find a few that are intermingled with the determining, assigning, and Appeal 2020-000558 Application 14/566,190 11 communicating steps that must take place, although many of them, as discussed above, are mental processes. In particular, the part of the determining step that separates the determination of potential drivers into two sets, i.e., those vehicles that are unoccupied, and those that are occupied but whose drop off location is within a threshold distance or travel time from a requestor, is a mental process. And the assignment of a request to a driver that is dropping a passenger off presumably because it was determined from location of drop off and pickup that the travel time for that driver would be one that meets the objective of minimizing a time to pickup is a step that but for the claimed use of a processor can take place in the mind of the dispatcher. Next, we consider the part of the assignment step that requires assignment of drivers be “with an objective to minimize a time to pickup for the multiple transport requests.” The assignment “objective” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. That is because the limitation is simply a results oriented recitation that does not describe how to meet the objective; it simply encompasses the principle in the abstract no matter how implemented. “[A] claimed invention must embody a concrete solution to a problem having the specificity required to transform a claim from one claiming only a result to one claiming a way of achieving it.” Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (internal quotation and citation omitted); compare ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc., 920 F.3d 759, 769–770 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (noting that “the broad claim language” covered “any mechanism for implementing network communication on a charging station” “confirm[ing] that claim 1 is indeed ‘directed to’ the abstract idea of communication over a network to Appeal 2020-000558 Application 14/566,190 12 interact with network-attached devices) with Koninklijke KPN NV v. Gemalto M2M GmbH, 942 F.3d 1143, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (explaining that “the claims do not simply recite, without more, the mere desired result of catching previously undetectable systematic errors, but rather recite a specific solution for accomplishing that goal—i.e., by varying the way check data is generated by modifying the permutation applied to different data blocks.”). We also conclude that communicating to the requestor that the driver has dropped off a current passenger is not an additional limitation that integrates the abstract ideas into something more. It is simply an ancillary step to the abstract collection and analysis steps. See SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“[M]erely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information . . . is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis.”). We disagree with Appellant that the claim recites use of the judicial exception in conjunction with a particular machine (Appeal Br. 12). Rather, the claim requires generic recitation of the use of a “processor” that receives requests, determines drivers, assigns requests, and communicates information to driver devices. Such a generic computer requirement does not provide for a practical application. See Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent- ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”); DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“after Alice, there can remain no doubt: recitation of generic computer limitations does not make an otherwise ineligible claim patent-eligible.”). Appeal 2020-000558 Application 14/566,190 13 Furthermore, to the extent that the processor monitors transports that are in progress, or that requests are received, and information is communicated to drivers and requestors, and thus involves “networked” equipment (see Appeal Br. 12 (asserting “the network architecture aspect of the claims are integral to the claims” and thus the claim does not merely generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment)), we do not find such networking to be an integration. “An abstract idea on ‘an Internet computer network’ or on a generic computer is still an abstract idea.” BASCOM Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citation omitted). Thus, we disagree with Appellant that we should find claim 1 integrates the judicial exception into a practical application because the claim is “implemented in a specific environment in the context of a centralized computer system in communication with” user and driver devices (Appeal Br. 11). We also note Appellant’s argument that the collective “intelligent and deliberate” pairing to reduce time to pickup could not occur without the network (Appeal Br. 12) does not persuade us that the claimed invention provides a technological improvement. In that regard, we note that although the claim recites multiple transport requests, such multiplicity does not place a minimum threshold of requests that could not be handled for optimization by a dispatcher in communication with drivers over the phone, e.g., multiple transport requests includes 2, 3, and 4 requests. Furthermore, we disagree with Appellant (Appeal Br. 12) that the Board’s informative decision in Ex Parte Smith, Appeal No. 2018-000064 (PTAB 2019) compels Appellant’s conclusion that the claim integrates the Appeal 2020-000558 Application 14/566,190 14 abstract idea into a practical application. In Smith, the majority found claims to a method of trading derivatives that “limit[s] the conventional practice of automatically executing matching market orders” in a hybrid trading system (one in which trades occur both in the pits and electronically) with steps of (1) a timing mechanism being started after orders are collected and a first quote matching bid or offer price is received, (2) receiving a second quote matching bid or offer price after the first quote but during the pendency of the timer, and (3) allocating the order between the participants providing the first and second quote where execution of the order at the electronic trade engine takes place at expiration of the timer. Smith, 2018-000064 at 2, 9. In Smith, the Specification explained that the “‘[a]dvantages of temporarily restraining this type of trade include[] . . . the removal of any communication or computer hardware advantage among the in-crowd market participants.’” (Id. at 9.) The majority found that the claim specified steps that “overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks.” (Id. at 10.) Appellant’s Specification does not identify a similar disadvantage to users of for-hire transport systems in transport assignment in a network system. Appellant’s Specification states that it is known in on-demand services that user requests may be provided by “the first available driver or the closest driver to the user’s requested pickup location.” (Spec. ¶ 2.) In other words, time to pick up was known to be assessed and selection of assignment to have been made in an optimal way, either based on availability or nearness to pickup location. The claimed invention is no different: it assigns requests with the objective to minimize time for pickup. Appeal 2020-000558 Application 14/566,190 15 The Specification explains if multiple transport requests exist at one time, each transport request can be treated individually, and selected for treatment on, for example, a first-come first-serve basis. The optimal pairing for a given transport request can correspond to the driver which has a minimal time to pick up for that transport request. (Spec. ¶ 113.) The Specification also explains that if multiple transport requests exist at one time, the optimization determination can pair drivers to transport request so that the average pickup time for each transport request is minimized, given the pool of drivers at that particular moment or duration of time (Id. ¶ 114.) The Specification goes on to state “[n]umerous variations to the manner in which optimization is performed on either the single or group transport request model can be utilized” which reduce the time to pick up “as compared to, for example, random pairings or other selection processes (e.g., ‘greedy’ process in which each transport request is fielded to a group of drivers for first respondent, etc.” (Id. ¶ 115.) However, the Specification does not identify a particular optimization that overcomes a disadvantage in known optimization based on distance or availability of a driver. Moreover, and even more compellingly, there is not a specific set of steps recited for optimization, much less one that employs a specific technology to achieve the result. In Ex Parte Smith, automatic execution was temporarily delayed, a timer was started, and execution did not occur until expiration of the timer. Smith, 2018-000064 at 8–9. The majority explained that “the use of the claimed timing mechanisms and the associated temporary restraints on execution of trades provide a specific technological improvement over prior derivatives trading systems.” (Id. at 9.) Thus, we Appeal 2020-000558 Application 14/566,190 16 disagree with Appellant that “like the claims in Smith, the claims provide a specific technological improvement over existing systems and implementations” (Appeal Br. 11). Claim 1 simply recites that a “processor” receives a request, determines a pool of available drivers, assigns a driver to a request with the general “objective to minimize a time to pickup for the multiple transport requests,” and communicates information to the driver and requestors. The processor is a generic computer element that executes instructions provided by software or hard-wired circuitry. (Spec. ¶¶ 31, 139). And, neither the claim nor the Specification provides for any particular circuitry or software to be used in carrying out the receiving, determining, assigning, and communicating steps. (See, e.g., id. ¶¶ 43–54.) To be patent eligible, software inventions must make “non-abstract improvements to existing technological processes and computer technology.” Koninklijke, 942 F.3d at 1150 (emphasis added). In other words, the claims does not “focus on a specific means or method” that improves a particular technology. Id. We also do not find persuasive Appellant’s argument that “one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate [that] this is a specific and concrete improvement in the function of the computer system” (Appeal Br. 11). As just discussed, the claimed process recites generic computer elements, the Specification makes clear that the objective of optimization is not reliant on any particular technological implementation, and the Specification does not identify any technological problem. The focus of claim 1 is not on an improvement to computers or another technology, but rather on using generic computer components to receive data, categorize it, analyze the data in each category, generate an Appeal 2020-000558 Application 14/566,190 17 assignment of drivers to requestors in an ordered way, i.e., least time to pick up as determined in each group with an arbitrary assignment being made to at least one driver that is already in an occupied status when the request came in. Thus, claim 1 focuses on the mental process of generating an ordered dispatch schedule, not on any particular improvement to technology. The disadvantages Appellant has identified in conventional systems that use greedy or random pairing is an inefficient assignment, which is not a problem in computers or any particular technology, but rather is a problem that is solved by using generic computers to perform an otherwise manual task. The alleged improvements identified by Appellant do not “enable [] a computer . . . to do things it could not do before.” Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Indeed, “the [S]pecification is silent as to any specific structural or inventive improvements in computer functionality related to this claimed system.” See Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2020). Appellant fails to identify any way in which the additional limitations noted above, whether alone or in combination, reflects an improvement in any technical field, requires a particular machine integral to the claim, transforms an article to a different state, or otherwise applies the judicial exception in some meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (e.g., a network). See MPEP § 2106.05(a)–(h). Thus, we conclude that the claim is directed to an abstract idea. We next turn to the second step of the Alice analysis, i.e., whether the claim includes an “inventive concept.” Appeal 2020-000558 Application 14/566,190 18 STEP 2B Step 2B requires that we look to whether the claim, that we have determined above to set forth a judicial exception, “[a]dds a specific limitation [beyond the judicial exception that is] not well-understood, routine, conventional in the field.” Guidance 84 Fed. Reg. at 56; MPEP § 2106.05(d)). The Examiner explains that the claim does not recite an inventive concept not in the abstract realm. (See, e.g., Ans. 9–14.) The Examiner finds that the processor is not identified as anything other than a generic, off- the-shelf computer component and that receiving and transmitting data over a network are well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions. (Id. at 9–10.) The Examiner further finds that mapping the data about drivers and comparing estimated travel times with the objective to minimize time to pickup is simply routine optimization that is an objective that “every transportation system aims to achieve” so as to “maximize profits/revenue,” for example. (Id. at 10.) Appellant argues that the individual elements of claim 1 alone and in combination “are non-conventional and unique so at to provide an inventive concept.” (Appeal Br. 14.) In particular, according to Appellant the assignment of requests “with an objective to minimize a time to pick up for the multiple transport requests, collectively” is not well-understood or conventional (id. at 14–15). We do not find this argument persuasive because the claim does not limit how the objective is carried out technologically as discussed above. This objective is by itself an abstract idea. What is needed to be sufficient to remove a claim from the class of Appeal 2020-000558 Application 14/566,190 19 subject matter ineligible for patenting at this stage “is an inventive concept in the non-abstract application realm.” SAP, 898 F.3d at 1168. We agree with the Examiner that for-hire transport services aiming to maximize profits, which includes repeat users, would have as an object minimization of time to pick up for its customers. We do not find the term “collectively” as used in the objective (Appeal Br. 14–15), provides an inventive concept, where no specific technological process is recited or described in the Specification, much less recited in the claim. As explained in McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the “abstract idea exception has been applied to prevent patenting of claims that abstractly cover results where ‘it matters not by what process or machinery the result is accomplished.’ [O’Reilly v. Morse, 56 U.S. 62, 113, (1853)]; see also Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1301.” McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314. McRO stated that, therefore, a court must “look to whether the claims in these patents focus on a specific means or method that improves the relevant technology or are instead directed to a result or effect that itself is the abstract idea and merely invoke generic processes and machinery.” McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314. “[A] result, even an innovative result, is not itself patentable.” Finjan, 879 F.3d at 1305; see also ChargePoint, 920 F.3d at 769 (explaining that an invention may not be patent eligible if the “claims ‘were drafted in such a result-oriented way that they amounted to encompassing the ‘principle in the abstract’ no matter how implemented’” (quoting Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2018))). Appellant further argues that it is also not well-known or conventional to monitor, by a processor, transports that are in progress and to determine Appeal 2020-000558 Application 14/566,190 20 from such monitoring a set of drivers that are each occupied and within a threshold distance or estimated travel time from a location within a given region, and then assign at least one of the transport request to a driver that is already in the process of transporting based on a time estimation from current location to pickup location. (Appeal Br. 15.) We do not find this argument persuasive. Wesselius (US 2015/0046080 A1: pub. Feb. 12, 2015), prior art that the Examiner previously relied upon in rejecting the claims for obviousness, describes a prior art system that monitor transports that are in progress. (See, e.g., Wesselius Fig. 17 (600 and 602); ¶ 4). Furthermore, Wesselius describes an available app in which a system provides real-time location of the closest available taxis to a requestors’ location and estimate of the time that it will take each taxi to reach the location and the requestor can select a taxi using that information. (Id. ¶ 4.) Furthermore, as to the data operated upon, i.e., that some of the data used to determine transport assignment includes drivers that are currently occupied in a passenger transport, “even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is ‘limited to particular content’ or a particular ‘source,’ that limitation does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract.” SAP, 898 F.3d at 1168. Furthermore, as discussed in the 2A, prong one analysis, these monitoring, determining, and assigning steps are mental processes, but for the recitation of generic computer implementation. An “inventive concept” “must be significantly more than the abstract idea itself, and cannot simply be an instruction to implement or apply the abstract idea on a computer.” BASCOM, 827 F.3d at 1349; Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 591 (1978) (“[t]he process itself, not merely the [abstract idea], must be new and useful.”). Appeal 2020-000558 Application 14/566,190 21 After considering the steps of the claim as an ordered combination, we conclude that claim 1 is direct to ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See, e.g., Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that sequence of data retrieval, analysis, modification, generation, display, and transmission was abstract). Consequently, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–20 101 1–20 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation