DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/04/2025 has been entered.
Notice of Supervisory Review
This application has been pending five years or more. Consistent with MPEP 707.02, it has been considered “special” by the Examiner, and, in an effort to terminate prosecution, it has been reviewed by the Supervisory Patent Examiner as indicated by signature below.
/ROBERT W MORGAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3683
Notice to Applicant
This action is in reply to the filed on 12/04/2025.
Claims 1, 10 and 17 have been amended.
Claim 1-20 currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendments
The Applicant’s amendments, and cancellation, of the claims as currently submitted have been noted by the Examiner. Said amendments, and cancellation(s), are not sufficient to overcome the rejections previously set forth under 35 U.S.C. §101. As such, said rejections are herein maintained for reasons set forth below.
With the amendment of claims 1, 10 and 17, applicant has successfully overcome the Examiner’s 35 USC 103 rejection and Examiner withdraws his 35 USC 103 rejection. McHale et al., Dellaportas, Kulkarni et al. and Natarajan et al. do not teach “wherein the logic performs a multi-factor authentication comprising comparing the confirmation information with a user profile encrypted and stored within the autonomous vehicle and generating a secure access identifier...,” etc.
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
McHale et al. (US 2018/0012176), Dellaportas (US 2015/0254743), Kulkarni et al. (US 2018/0137454) and Natarajan et al. (US 2017/0132393) teach a method for processing orders for medication. McHale et al., Dellaportas, Kulkarni et al. and Natarajan et al. do not teach “wherein the logic performs a multi-factor authentication comprising comparing the confirmation information with a user profile encrypted and stored within the autonomous vehicle and generating a secure access identifier required to initiate provisioning of the medication...,” etc. Therefore, the Applicant has successfully overcome the Examiner’s 35 USC 103 rejection and Examiner withdraws his 35 USC 103 rejection.
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.
Human Interactions Organized
Applicant discloses (Applicant’s Specification, [0002]-[0003]) that currently individuals spend significant time and resources to travel to dispensaries, pharmacy kiosks or other locations to retrieve their medications or other items. So a need exists to organize these human interactions through network based order confirmation, transportation and delivery using the steps of “receiving orders, identifying vehicles, communicating orders, requesting confirmation information, determining if order requirements are met, provisioning medications, determining prices, requesting identifiers, charging users,” etc. Applicant’s system/method/apparatus is therefore a certain method of organizing the human activities as described and disclosed by Applicant.
Rejection
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1, 10 and 17 is/are directed to the abstract idea of “network based order confirmation, transportation and delivery,” etc. (Applicant’s Specification, Abstract, paragraph(s) [0002]), etc., as explained in detail below, and thus grouped as a certain method of organizing human interactions. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1-20 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 1 – The Judicial Exception
The claim(s) recite(s) in part, system/method/apparatus for performing the steps of “receiving orders, identifying vehicles, communicating orders, requesting confirmation information, determining if order requirements are met, provisioning medications, determining prices, requesting identifiers, charging users,” etc., that is “network based order confirmation, transportation and delivery,” etc. which is a method of commercial or legal interactions (contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing activities, sales activities, sales behaviors, business relations) and thus grouped as a certain method of organizing human interactions. Accordingly, claims 1-20 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 – Integration of the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited additional computer elements (i.e. processors, computers, displays, networks, wireless devices, computing devices, vehicles, drones (Applicant’s Specification [0014]-[0018]), etc.) to perform steps of “receiving orders, identifying vehicles, communicating orders, requesting confirmation information, determining if order requirements are met, provisioning medications, determining prices, requesting identifiers, charging users,” etc. do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer and this is nothing more than an attempt to generally link the product of nature to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limit on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Insignificant extra-solution activity
Claim(s) 1-20 recites storing data steps, retrieving data steps, providing data steps, output steps (Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610-12 (2010), Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Can., 771 F.Supp.2d 1054, 1066 (E.D. Mo. 2011), aff’d, 687 F.3d at 1266), and/or transmitting data step (buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014), Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1299, 1241-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016)) that is/are insignificant extra-solution activity. Extra-solution activity limitations are insufficient to transform judicially excepted subject matter into a patent-eligible application (MPEP §2106.05(g)).
Step 2B – Search for an Inventive Concept/Significantly More
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations (i.e. processors, computers, displays, networks, wireless devices, computing devices, vehicles, drones, etc.) only store and retrieve information and perform repetitive calculations, and these are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) (Berkheimer- Court Decisions). These court decisions indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner as it is here. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible.
Individually and in Combination
The additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional elements amount to no more than generic computer components that serve to merely link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e. processors, computers, displays, networks, wireless devices, computing devices, vehicles, drones, etc.). At paragraph(s) [0014]-[0018], Applicant’s specification describes conventional computer hardware for implementing the above described functions including “processors, computers, displays, networks, wireless devices, computing devices, vehicles, drones,” etc. to perform the functions of “receiving orders, identifying vehicles, communicating orders, requesting confirmation information, determining if order requirements are met, provisioning medications, determining prices, requesting identifiers, charging users,” etc. The recited “processors, computers, displays, networks, wireless devices, computing devices, vehicles, drones,” etc. does/do not add meaningful limitations to the idea of beyond generally linking the system to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, claims 1-20 do not amount to significantly more than the underlying abstract idea of “an idea of itself” (Alice).
Dependent Claims
Dependent claim(s) 2-9, 11-16 and 18-20 include(s) all the limitations of the parent claims and are directed to the same abstract idea as discussed above and incorporated herein.
Although dependent claims 2-9, 11-16 and 18-20 add additional limitations, they only serve to further limit the abstract idea by reciting limitations on what the information is and how it is received and used. Dependent claims 2-9, 11-16 and 18-20 merely describe physical structures to implement the abstract idea. These information and physical characteristics do not change the fundamental analogy to the abstract idea grouping of certain method of organizing human interactions, and when viewed individually or as a whole, they do not add anything substantial beyond the abstract idea. Furthermore, the combination of elements does not indicate a significant improvement to the functioning of a computer or any other technology. Therefore, the claims when taken as a whole are ineligible for the same reasons as independent claim(s) 1, 10 and 17.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/04/2025 with respect to claims 1-20 have been fully considered and they are partially persuasive. Applicant’s arguments will be addressed herein below in the order in which they appear in the response filed 12/04/2025.
Applicant’s arguments filed on 12/04/2025 with respect to claims 1-20 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Applicant argues that (A) McHale et al., Dellaportas, Kulkarni et al. and Natarajan et al. do not render obvious the present invention because McHale et al., Dellaportas, Kulkarni et al. and Natarajan et al. do not disclose “wherein the logic performs a multi-factor authentication comprising comparing the confirmation information with a user profile encrypted and stored within the autonomous vehicle and generating a secure access identifier...,” etc. in the previously presented and/or presently amended claims, (B) the Applicant’s claimed invention is directed to statutory matter.
103 Responses
In response to Applicant’s argument (A), Applicant’s arguments with regard to the application of McHale et al., Dellaportas, Kulkarni et al. and Natarajan et al. to the amended limitations have been found persuasive. McHale et al., Dellaportas, Kulkarni et al. and Natarajan et al. do not teach “wherein the logic performs a multi-factor authentication comprising comparing the confirmation information with a user profile encrypted and stored within the autonomous vehicle and generating a secure access identifier....” Applicant has successfully overcome the Examiner’s 35 USC 103 rejection and Examiner withdraws his 35 USC 103 rejection.
101 Responses
As per Applicant’s argument (B), Applicant’s remarks with regard to the statutory nature of Applicant’s claimed invention are addressed above in the Office Action.
Rehash
Applicant's remarks and arguments merely rehash issues addressed in the Office Action mailed 9/4/2025 and incorporated herein.
2019 PEG Neither Limiting nor Exhaustive
Further, the enumerated examples in the 2019 PEG are neither limiting nor exhaustive. They are exemplary. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Improvements – Advantageous over previous methods
The test for patent-eligible subject matter is not whether the claims are advantageous over previous methods (e.g. manual delivery). Even if Applicant’s claims provide advantages over manual collection of data, Applicant’s claims no technological improvement beyond improvement beyond the use of generic computer components/a generic computer network. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Improvements
Applicant claims the improvement of “improving autonomous vehicle operation,” “improve the security, safety, and reliability of autonomous delivery vehicles,” “improv[ing] the functioning of autonomous vehicles in the context of secure medication delivery by enabling real-time, automated authentication, secure provisioning and delivery, and dynamic pricing,” integration multiple advance technologies, the using of autonomous vehicles to navigate and deliver medication, secure containers to ensure the safety and integrity of the medication, automating critical functions (order verification, provisioning, and pricing), enhancing the efficiency, reliability, and security of medication delivery, automating medication delivery steps, increased efficiency and reduced human error over traditional manual processes, automatic price determination, enhancing user experience, optimizing delivery routes and reducing operational costs,” etc. It has been held that it is not enough to merely improve a fundamental practices or abstract process by invoking a computer merely as a tool (Affinity Labs. of Texas, LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, In re TLI Communications LLC Patent Litigation). In Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), it was held that “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” was insufficient to render the claims patent eligible. In SAP America, Inc. v InvestPic, LLC it was held that patent directed to “selecting certain information, analyzing it using mathematical techniques, and reporting or displaying results,” are ineligible, and claims focused on an improvement in wholly abstract ideas are ineligible. Further, invocation of “already-available computers that are not themselves plausibly asserted to be in advance…amounts to a recitation of what is well-understood, routine, and conventional” (SAP America, Inc. v InvestPic, LLC). Accordingly, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Technical Process
Applicant argues that Applicant’s claimed invention is directed to a “technological process for processing and delivering medication orders using autonomous vehicles, wireless networks, secure containers, and real-time user authentication,” etc. and that Applicant’s claimed invention “addresses problems specific to secure, automated medication delivery.” However, Applicant’s recitation of “receiving orders, identifying vehicles, communicating orders, requesting confirmation information, determining if order requirements are met, provisioning medications, determining prices, requesting identifiers, charging users” appears to be instructions which do not move Applicant’s claims into eligible matter. Applicant’s invention into eligible subject matter. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Integration into a Practical Application
Integration into a practical application requires additional elements or a combination of additional elements in the claims to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (e.g. Enfish, McRO and Vanda) (2019 PEG).
Applicant’s “processors, computers, displays, networks, wireless devices, computing devices, vehicles, drones” is/are not an additional element(s) that reflects in the an improvement in the functioning of a computer, is/are not an additional element(s) that applies or uses the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis, is/are not an additional element(s) that effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or things, and is/are not an additional element(s) that applies or uses the judicial exception beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment for the reasons explained in the 101 rejection above. Applicant’s “processors, computers, displays, networks, wireless devices, computing devices, vehicles, drones” is/are merely tools used by Applicant to implement data processing. Data processing is an abstract idea. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Significantly More
Further, the Examiner is not persuaded that “receiving orders, identifying vehicles, communicating orders, requesting confirmation information, determining if order requirements are met, provisioning medications, determining prices, requesting identifiers, charging users,” etc. constitutes significantly more than the abstract idea. “[M]erely selecting information, by content or source, for collection, analysis, and display does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes, whose implicit exclusion from § 101 undergirds the information-based category of abstract ideas.” Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d at 1355. Moreover, the claims “do not include any requirement for performing the claimed functions…by use of anything but entirely conventional, generic technology. The claims therefore do not state an arguably inventive concept.” Id. at 1356. In short, each step does no more than require a generic computer processor to perform generic computer functions. See Applicant’s specification at paragraph(s) [0014]-[0018] describing generic computer components (i.e. processors, computers, displays, networks, wireless devices, computing devices, vehicles, drones, etc.). And considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of Applicant’s system/method/apparatus add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Considering each of the claim elements in turn, the function performed by the computer at each step of the process is purely conventional. For example, “receiving orders, identifying vehicles, communicating orders, requesting confirmation information, determining if order requirements are met, provisioning medications, determining prices, requesting identifiers, charging users,” etc. is/are purely conventional in computer systems and its use in the claim both individually and in the ordered combination fails to transform the nature of the claim. Each step of the claimed system/method/apparatus does no more than require a generic computer to form a generic computer function. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Berkheimer/Well Understood, Routine, Conventional
Further, the Examiner maintains the position that the additional elements are well understood, routine, and conventional. The Examiner supports this position that the elements are well understood, routine, and conventional above in the Office Action by pointing to the Applicant’s Specification at [0014]-[0018] where embodiments of Applicant’s claimed invention are composed of “processors, computers, displays, networks, wireless devices, computing devices, vehicles, drones”, etc. and the like.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES P. COLEMAN whose telephone number is (571) 270-7788. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday 7:30a-5:00p.
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, ROBERT W MORGAN can be reached on (571) 272-6773. 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.
/C. P. C./
Examiner, Art Unit 3683
/ROBERT W MORGAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3683
Prosecution Insights