DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
This Office Action is in response to Application Serial 17/201,632. In response to the Examiner’s action mail dated on September 05, 2025, Applicant amended claims 1, 12 and 20, on mail date December 05, 2025. Claims 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 16, and 17 are cancelled. Claims 1-4, 7-8, 12-15, and 18-20 are pending in this application.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 05, 2025 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant did not submit an information disclosure statement for consideration.
Response to Amendments
Claims 1-4, 7-8, 12-15, and 18-20 are pending in this application. The claims 1, 12 and 20 are amended. Claims 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 16, and 17 are cancelled.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, the amendments are not persuasive. The claims 1-4, 7-8, 12-15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, see below.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection, the amendments are not persuasive. The claims 1-4, 7-8, 12-15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103, see below.
Regarding Allowed Claims 9 and 10, Applicant cancelled the claims 9 and 10 that were allowed in the Office Action mail dated September 05, 2025. Applicant included the features of the claim 9 and claim 10 within the amended independent claims. See below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on December 05, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and/or are moot in view of the revised rejections. Applicant’s arguments will be addressed herein below.
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101
On pages 10-11 of the Applicant’s 35 U.S.C. 101 arguments, the Applicant traverses, Applicant has amended the claim 1 (and similarly claims 12 and 20) so that the claim is not directed toward judicial exception and are instead directed toward patentable subject matter. As such, Applicant submits that these rejections are rendered moot, at least in view of the amendments to claims contained herein. Claims 2-4 and 7, 8, and 11 ultimately depend from claim 1 and are therefore directed to patentable subject matter for at least similar reasons as claim 1. Claims 9 and 10 have been cancelled. Claims 13-15, 18, and 19 ultimately depend from claim 12 and are therefore directed to patentable subject matter for at least similar reasons as claim 12. Accordingly, for at least the above reasons, Applicant requests the Examiner reconsider and withdraw the rejections to claims 1-4, 7-15, and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C 101.
Examiner’s respectfully disagrees. The claims 1-4, 7-15, and 18-20 are examined under 35 U.S.C. 101 in light of Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. The claims recite identifying surrogacy criteria…, receive a plurality availability data objects…, determine a surrogate …, ….and generate an instruction related to delivery e.g., specification [0209], [025] the request data object may include package delivery. Therefore, the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activity – commercial activities.
Furthermore, the claims recite generate the request data object based on the input that corresponds to the requestor information and the request information; identify, using the request .., surrogacy criteria corresponding to the requestor information, wherein the request … includes at least one of a pet monitoring request and a child or senior monitoring request, which is concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) and thus, the claims are recite mental processes.
The pending claim recites certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes and thus, the limitations of the claims are directed to an abstract idea at Step 2A prong one.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application under the second prong of Step 2A. In light of the Applicant’s specification [027] – [029], [046]-[047]. The system 400 may include the requestor device 202, surrogate device 304, and/or the surrogacy provider device 206 the system 400 may further include a surrogate database 402 for storing storage information. The system 400 may further include a mapping service 404 for presenting a map to one or more presenter’s devices 202, and thus, the claims are adding the words “apply it” (or equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f).
At Step 2B, the claims are considered as a whole. The claims are apply it – See MPEP 2106.05 (f). Applicant amended the claim to include the limitations: wherein the respective surrogate includes a surrogate device comprising drone having capacity and authentication to perform functions associated with at least some of the surrogacy criteria. Pointing to specification [0134] and as recited in the limitations of the claims the drone is apply-it. See MPEP 2106.05 (f). The Applicant is encouraged to integrate the drone into the functions that the limitations are performing. The claims are not patent eligible.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103
On pages 11-13 of the Applicant’s 35 U.S.C. 103 arguments, the Applicant traverses, claims 1-4, 7, 8, 12-15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 2017/0220966 A1), Rajkhowa (US 2020/ 0342525 Al) and Hens (US 2017/0,249,581 A1).
Applicant amended claim 1 (and similarly claim 12 and claim 20) to include subject matter that was allowable in the prior Office Action. As no combination of Wang and Rajkhowa teaches or suggests, inter alia, these features, claim 1 is not obvious over Wang, Rajkhowa, or any combination thereof. Claims 2-4 and 7, and 8 ultimately depend from claim 1 and are therefore not obvious over Wang, Rajkhowa, or any combination thereof for at least similar reasons as claim 1.
Claim 12 has been amended to recite, at least, features similar to the amended features of claim 1. As such, claim 12 is not obvious over Wang, Rajkhowa, or any combination thereof. Claims 13-15 ultimately depend from claim 12 and are therefore not obvious over Wang, Rajkhowa, or any combination thereof for at least similar reasons as claim 12.
Claim 20 has been amended to recite, at least, features similar to the amended features of claim 1. As such, claim 20 is not obvious over Wang, Rajkhowa, or any combination thereof.
Accordingly, for at least the above reasons, Applicant requests the Examiner reconsider and withdraw the rejections to claims 1-4, 7-8,11-15, and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C 103.
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s 35 U.S.C. 103 arguments. The claims are reexamined under MPEP 1.114 Request for continued examination and therefore prosecution is reopened for the claims submitted on mail date December 05, 2025. The claims 1-4, 7-8,11-15, and 18-20 are examined.
In view of the amended claim limitations, “… A system for online surrogacy comprising: a server computing device comprising: a processor; and a memory including instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: receive, from a first instance of a surrogate provider application executed on a requestor device, a request data object including requestor information and request information, wherein the first instance of the surrogate provider application includes a software application executed on the requestor device and is configured to receive, at least, input from a requestor that corresponds to the requestor information and the request information, and wherein the first instance of the surrogate provider application is further configured to generate the request data object based on the input that corresponds to the requestor information and the request information; identify, using the request data object, surrogacy criteria corresponding to the requestor information, wherein the request data object includes at least one of a pet monitoring request and a child or senior monitoring request: receive, via a network interface, a plurality of surrogate data objects, each surrogate data object corresponds to a respective surrogate and a corresponding surrogate data object for a respective surrogate includes availability information for the respective surrogate and at least a copy of a state issued identification associated with a respective individual associated with the respective surrogate, wherein the respective surrogate includes a surrogate device comprising drone having capacity and authentication to perform functions associated with at least some of the surrogacy criteria… wherein the availability information includes, for each respective surrogate, at least a surrogate name and cross streets associated with a surrogate location, and wherein the availability information is displayed on the display associated with the requestor device as a grid organized based surrogate physical proximity to an address or travel round associated with the requestor and a travel route from a respective surrogate to the address associated with the requestor; overlay the grid on a digital rendering of a map, wherein the overlaid grid illustrates, on the rendering of the map on the display associated with the requestor device, wherein the overlaid grid is configured to allow the requestor to interact with aspects of the overlaid grid; identify, a street address associated with each respective surrogate location and selectively remove from the overlaid grid on the digital rendering of the map, the identified street address associated with each respective surrogate location to protect privacy of each respective surrogate;….”
Examiner finds the Applicant’s amendments persuasive. Examiner rejected the claims using Wang (US 2017/0,220,966 A1) in view of Rajkhowa (US 2020/0,342,525 A1) and Hens (US 2017/0,249,581 A1) in the previous office action. In light of the amended claims, an updated search revealed prior art: Purnima (US 2024/0,112,094 A1) and Joao (US 2017/0,337,519 A1). Purnima does not provide an eligible effective filing date. Joao does not further narrow the combinations of obviousness. Examiner considered Melnyk (2021, POP Care: An interprofessional team-based healthcare model for providing well care to homebound older adults and their pets.) Although Melnyk teaches caring for adults and pets, the combination of Wang, Rajkhowa, Hens, and Melynk does not further narrow the combinations of obviousness. The Applicant’s amendments are persuasive. Examiner withdraws the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection.
In previous actions, other prior art made of record and not relied upon that were considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure included:
Carter (2019, SitterCity.com Review: How to Get a Reliable Babysitter in No Time) disclosing selecting a service provider such as childcare with a selected zipcode using an online application.
Mapbox (2017, Mapbox for Logistics) teaches maps.
Mikayelyan (US 2021/0,133,668 A1) teaches proper temperature for perishable goods.
Rosenthal (US 2020/0210961 A1) discloses the scheduling delivery of the at least one additional part may include booking or assigning an autonomous vehicle (e.g., a drone or an autonomous car).
The combination of Wang, Rajkhowa, Hens, and the prior art listed above does not further narrow the combinations of obviousness. The Applicant’s amendments are persuasive. Examiner withdraws the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection.
Allowed Claims
On page 13 of the Applicant’s arguments, the Applicant states claims 9 and 10 are allowable in light of the Applicant’s amendments in the prior response to the Office Action.
Examiner submits, Applicant cancelled the claims 9 and 10 that were allowed in the Office Action mail dated September 05, 2025. Applicant included the features of the claim 9 and claim 10 within the amended independent claims. The pending claims were examined, see prior art arguments above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-4, 7-8, 11 are machine.
Claims 12-15, 18-19 are process.
Claim 20 is manufacture.
Claims 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 16, and 17 are cancelled.
Claims 1-4, 7-8,11-15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims (claim 1 and similarly claims 12 and claim 20) recite, “… receive, … including requestor information and request information, … receive, at least, input from a requestor that corresponds to the requestor information and the request information, and wherein … generate … the input that corresponds to the requestor information and the request information; identify, using … , surrogacy criteria corresponding to the requestor information, wherein … includes at least one of a pet monitoring request. and a child or senior monitoring request: receive, … , … corresponds to a respective surrogate and … for a respective surrogate includes availability information for the respective surrogate and at least a copy of a state issued identification associated with a respective individual associated with the respective surrogate, wherein the respective surrogate includes … having capacity and authentication to perform functions associated with at least some of the surrogacy criteria; output, …, the availability information for each respective surrogate that meets the surrogacy criteria, wherein the availability information includes, for each respective surrogate, at least a surrogate name and cross streets associated with a surrogate location, and wherein the availability information is displayed … as a grid organized based on at least one of a surrogate physical proximity to an address or travel round associated with the request or and a travel route from a respective surrogate to the address associated with the requestor; … , wherein the overlaid grid illustrates, on the rendering of the map … to allow the requestor to interact with aspects of the overlaid grid; identify, a street address associated with each respective surrogate location and selectively remove … , the identified street address associated with each respective surrogate location to protect privacy of each respective surrogate; receive a surrogate selection, wherein the requestor provides the surrogate selection based on the availability information and by interacting … ; determine, based on the surrogate selection and the copy of the state issued identification …, a surrogate; generate, based on the requestor information and the determined surrogate, surrogacy instructions; transmit, … , … including the surrogacy instructions; output, … the surrogacy instructions … ; and receive …a surrogacy end indicator, wherein … includes requestor location, the availability information includes a surrogate location, and the surrogacy criteria includes physical proximity between the requestor location and the surrogate location… ”. Claims 1-4, 7-8,11-15, and 18-20 in view of the limitation recites the abstract ideas of identifying surrogacy criteria…, receive a plurality availability data object…, determine a surrogate …, and generate an instruction and these claims recite commercial interactions or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) and thus the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activity.
Furthermore, the claims recite … generate the request data object based on the input that corresponds to the requestor information and the request information; identify, using the request .., surrogacy criteria corresponding to the requestor information, wherein the request … includes at least one of a pet monitoring request and a child or senior monitoring request… which is concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion), and thus, the claims are recite mental processes.
The pending claim recites certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes and thus, the limitations of the claims is/are directed to an abstract idea at Step 2A prong one.
This judicial exception are not integrated into a practical application under the second prong of Step 2A. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea of, “A system for online surrogacy comprising: a server computing device comprising: a processor; and a memory including instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to”, “from a first instance of a surrogate provider application executed on a requestor device, a request data object”, “the first instance of the surrogate provider application includes a software application executed on the requestor device and is configured to”, “the first instance of the surrogate provider application is further configured to”, “the request data object”, “via a network interface, a plurality of surrogate data objects, each surrogate data object”, “a surrogate device comprising drone”, “on a display associate with the requestor device”, “on the display associated with the requestor device,” “overlay the grid on a digital rendering of a map,” “ the display associated with the requestor device, wherein the overlaid grid is configured, ” “from the overlaid grid on the digital rendering of the map”, “the display associated with the requestor device”; “a second instance of the surrogate provider application executed on a surrogate device associated with the determined surrogate, a surrogacy instruction data object,” “a display device associated with the surrogate device,” “using the second instance of the surrogate provider application;” “a surrogacy end data object including a surrogacy end indicator,” in claim 1; and “ via a network interface at a server computing device from a first instance of a surrogate provider application executed on a requestor device, a request data object,” “the first instance of the surrogate provider application includes a software application executed on the requestor device and is configured to,” “the first instance of the surrogate provider application is further configured to,” “the request data object,” “at the server computing device, a plurality surrogate data objects, each surrogate data object corresponds”, “a corresponding surrogate data object,” “a surrogate device comprising drone,” “on a display associate with the requestor device,” “on the display associated with the requestor device as a grid,” “on a digital rendering of a map,” “on the display associated with the requestor device. wherein the overlaid grid is configured,” “on the digital rendering of the map,” “with the display associated with the requestor device;” “for surrogate data object,” “a second instance of the surrogate provider application executed on a surrogate device,” “a surrogacy instruction data object,” “a display device associated with the surrogate device,” “using the second instance of the surrogate provider application,” “a surrogacy end data object,” “the request data object;” in claim 12. “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, comprising executable instructions that, when executed by a processor, facilitate performance of operations, comprising:,” “via a network interface and from a first instance of a surrogate provider application executed on a requestor device, a request data object,” “the first instance of the surrogate provider application includes a software application executed on the requestor device and is configured,” “the first instance of the surrogate provider application is further configured to,” “the request data object,” “a plurality surrogate data objects, each surrogate data object,” “a surrogate device comprising drone,” “on a display associate with the requestor device,” “on the display associated with the requestor device as a grid,” “on a digital rendering of a map,” “on the display associated with the requestor device,” “a second instance of the surrogate provider application executed on a surrogate device associated with the determined surrogate, a surrogacy instruction data object,” “a display device associated with the surrogate device,” “using the second instance of the surrogate provider application,” “a surrogacy end data object,” in claim 20; however, when viewed as an ordered combination, and pursuant to the broadest reasonable interpretation, each of the additional elements are computing elements recite adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05 (f).
Regarding the dependent claims. The dependent claims do not cite additional elements beyond the elements that are recited in the independent claims.
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing abstract idea.
The claims also fail to recite any improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, use of a particular machine, effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, and/or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular environment.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more, - See MPEP 2106.05 (f) – mere instructions to apply an exception.
When evaluated at step 2B, it is MPEP 2106.05 (d) – Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information).
Examiner concludes that the additional elements in combination fail to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea based on findings that each element merely performs the same function (s) in combination as each element performs separately. The claim is not patent eligible. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitation as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
Dependent claims 2-4, 7-8, 11 further narrow the abstract idea of independent claim 1. Dependent claims 13 – 15, 18-19 further narrow the abstract idea of independent claim 12. The claims 1-4, 7-8, 11-15, and 18-20 are not patent eligible.
Moreover, aside from the aforementioned additional elements, the remaining elements of dependent claims 1-4, 7-8, 11-15, and 18-20 do not transform the recited abstract idea into a patent eligible invention because these claims merely recite further limitations that provide no more than simply narrowing the recited abstract idea.
Since there are no limitations in these claims that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that these claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, claims 1-4, 7-8, 11-15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Applicant is encouraged to request an interview to discuss the interacting, authentication, and proximity. Applicant is encouraged to review the limitations for 112 – antecedent basis and 112 objection - means for (e.g., a surrogacy instruction data object including the surrogacy instructions).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEA LABOGIN whose telephone number is (571)272-9149. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday, 8am-5pm.
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, Patricia Munson can be reached on 571-270- 5396. 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.
/THEA LABOGIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3624