Uber Technologies, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 19, 2020

2020000558 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 19, 2020)

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