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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 13, and 14 are amended. Claims 2 and 9 are canceled. Claims 1, 3-8, and 10-15 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/15/2025 was filed before the mailing of this action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/16/2025 regarding 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that there is no precedent in Federal Circuit or Supreme Court for the autonomous delivery of a package to be interpreted as a form of organizing human activity. Applicant further argues that the MPEP provides no indication that package delivery or automated package delivery constituted certain methods or organizing human activity. Examiner disagrees. Applicant is advised to refer to the current version of the MPEP. MPEP §2106.04(II) makes it clear that the phrase "methods of organizing human activity" is used to describe concepts relating to: managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including following rules or instructions), amongst others. The Supreme Court has identified a number of concepts falling within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping as abstract ideas as well, and the MPEP has its basis in case law. Package delivery in the context of the applicant’s invention is an activity that falls within certain methods of organizing human activity. In the applicant’s invention, the specification explicitly describes determining a common receiving position for a delivery address of an item for a first and second user such that a delivery machine being loaded with items that the users ordered may be efficiently delivered. The users may retrieve their items from a common location. The automated package delivery directly corresponds to certain methods of organizing human activity. Applicant is reminded that the examples given in the MPEP are simply that, examples. The examples are not exhaustive. The Office Action is absolutely supported by the MPEP guidance.
While the lack of a nexus between the autonomous vehicle automatically being caused to travel to move autonomously based on the determined receiving location, was discussed during the interview, the examiner made it clear that the argument provided by the applicant is still unpersuasive. The recitation of a control code configured to cause the delivery machine to move autonomously amounts to “apply it” or merely using a computer as a tool to implement the judicial exception (organizing human activity via performing delivery). Receiving the common receiving position is merely a step in the delivery process/steps since the vehicle must know the location to which the vehicle is to deliver the items. So after the common receiving position is obtained, the vehicle can move to that position to deliver the items. Further, under Step 2A Prong two, the additional element of the delivery machine amounts to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use, and insignificant extra-solution activity. The step that the delivery machine moves autonomously to aid in the delivery of items does not meaningfully limit the claim and only recites an alternative way to deliver the item. Applicant’s specification [0135] also indicates that the delivery machine may be operated manually by a driver. Additionally, code causing (via instruction) the vehicle to move to a location is the highest level implementation for instructing an autonomous vehicle. Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The invention and claims are directed to determining a common receiving information to which the delivery machine travels to deliver the items so that the delivery may be completed in a more convenient or efficient manner. Optimizing delivery for users directly correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity. Examiner reminds the applicant that the certain methods of organizing human activity sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person and activity that involves multiple people, and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. It is noted that the number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping. Instead, the determination should be based on whether the activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings (see MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II)). Delivery items to users via an autonomous vehicle is the activity itself, falls under certain methods of organizing human activity. The use of an autonomous delivery machine to deliver said items constitutes an “additional element” under Step 2A Prong Two, and as analyzed above, the additional element does not integrate the judicial exception to a practical application in this case. Further, the use of the control code of the processor to cause (instruct) the delivery machine to move autonomously amounts to “apply it” or merely using a computer as a tool to implement the judicial exception.
Applicant argues that t the inclusion of well-understood, routine, or conventional (“WURC”) features has no bearing on whether claims are integrated into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2 of the Alice/Mayo test. This argument is wholly irrelevant since there was no WURC indication or analysis performed under Step 2A Prong two of the Alice/Mayo test in the Office Action. The WURC analysis and indication was performed in Step 2B. Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional element of the delivery machine moving autonomously to the common receiving position also amounts to well-understood, routine, and conventional activity as disclosed in [0002] of Borley (20160239803) which states that “ It is a known concept to deliver items (such as parcels, packages and letters) to a recipient using an autonomous vehicle (AV) (or semi-autonomous vehicle (SAV))”. This conventional means of delivering items is also indicated in the applicant’s specification [0002] which discloses that “A technology of delivering an item (e.g., baggage) using a delivery machine (e.g., a movable body) is conventionally known”. Thus, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Lastly, examiner notes that the alleged improvement is at best an improvement in the judicial exception itself, and not an improvement in computers or technology. It is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the judicial exception itself (e.g., a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG LLC, the court determined that the claim simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology. Similarly, the Applicant’s claim recitations are an improvement in the judicial exception, not an improvement in technology. Performing automatic delivery more efficiently or safely by optimizing the delivery location (to a common receiving position) does not improve computers or technology, but merely improves the business process and improves user convenience. Accordingly, in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is maintained.
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, 3-8, and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-12, and 15 recite a system (i.e., machine), claim 13 recites a controller (i.e., machine), and claim 14 recites a method (i.e., process). Therefore, claims 1, 3-8, and 10-15 fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Independent claims 1, 13, and 14 recite the limitations of determination code configured to cause at least one of the at least one [processor] to determine, based on receiving position determining information, a common receiving position for a delivery address of an item of a first user and a delivery address of an item of a second user; and control code configured to cause at least one of the at least one [processor] to control [a delivery machine] to, upon determining the common receiving position, move autonomously to the common receiving position, the [delivery machine] being loaded with an item indicated by order information related to an order of the item, wherein controlling the [delivery machine] includes controlling speed and steering of the [delivery machine] such that the [delivery machine] passes along a target path to the common receiving position; wherein the receiving position determining information includes information related to a permitted distance between each of the delivery addresses of the first user and the second user and the common receiving position, wherein the determination code is further configured to cause at least one of the at least one [processor] to determine, as the common receiving position, a position within the permitted distance from each of the delivery addresses, wherein the receiving position determining information further includes information indicating a reference vertical difference, and the determination code is further configured to cause at least one of the at least one [processor] to identify a vertical difference from the common receiving position to each of the delivery addresses and determine the delivery address as the common receiving position based on the identified vertical difference, wherein the vertical difference from the common receiving position to each of the delivery addresses is a difference in elevation; and notification code configured to cause at least one of [the at least one processor] to issue a notification to [a terminal device] used by a user to notify the user of arrival of [the delivery machine] after [the delivery machine] arrives at the common receiving position. The claims are drawn to delivering items to multiple users, and recite limitations that correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal interactions or relationships or behavior, following rules or instructions), as evidenced by limitations relating to determining a common receiving position for a delivery address of an item of a first and second user, a [delivery machine] being loaded with the item indicated by order information relating to the order of the item autonomously moving to the common receiving position, etc. The claim also recite limitations that correspond to mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) as evidenced by limitations relating to determining information related to a permitted distance between each of the delivery addresses of the first and second user and the common receiving, receiving position determining information including indicating a reference vertical difference, and identifying a vertical difference from the common receiving position to each of the delivery addresses. The claims recite an abstract idea.
Note: the elements of features in brackets in the above section are inserted for reading clarity, but are analyzed as “additional elements” under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B, below.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application simply because the claims recite the additional elements of: memory, at least one processor, a terminal device, and a delivery machine. The additional elements of the memory, processor, and terminal device, are computer components recited at a high-level of generality performing the above-mentioned limitations. The combination of the additional elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. The additional element of the delivery machine amounts to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use, and insignificant extra-solution activity. The step that the delivery machine moves autonomously to aid in the delivery of items does not meaningfully limit the claim and only recites an alternative way to deliver the item. Applicant’s specification [0135] also indicates that the delivery machine may be operated manually by a driver. Additionally, code causing (via instruction) the vehicle to move to a location is the highest level implementation for instructing an autonomous vehicle. Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional element of the delivery machine moving autonomously to the common receiving position also amounts to well-understood, routine, and conventional activity as disclosed in [0002] of Borley (20160239803) which states that “ It is a known concept to deliver items (such as parcels, packages and letters) to a recipient using an autonomous vehicle (AV) (or semi-autonomous vehicle (SAV))”. This conventional means of delivering items is also indicated in the applicant’s specification [0002] which discloses that “A technology of delivering an item (e.g., baggage) using a delivery machine (e.g., a movable body) is conventionally known”. Thus, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 15 recites the limitation(s) that controlling speed of the [delivery machine] includes applying hydraulic pressure to a [brake caliper of the delivery machine], and wherein controlling steering of the [delivery machine] includes changing an orientation of one or more [steered wheels using] an [electric motor]. The claim limitations further limit the claim limitation(s) directed to the judicial exceptions analyzed above. The claim also recites the additional element of the delivery machine, a brake caliper of the delivery machine, steered wheels of the delivery machine, and an electric motor of the delivery machine. The additional elements amount to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use. Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims and 3-8 and 10-14 recite additional limitations that are further directed to the abstract idea analyzed in the rejected claims above. The claims also recite additional elements that have been analyzed in the rejected claims above. Thus, claims 3-8 and 10-14 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-8, and 10-15 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
The closest patent or patent application prior art reference found that is relevant to the applicant’s invention includes Yang (2007/0150375), Javidian (2021/0256472), and Baalke (US 11,222,299). Yang discloses a method and system for delivering orders to buyers. The system determines a common receiving position for the delivery vehicle such that the recipients may meet the delivery vehicle at the location and pick up their order(s). Javidian discloses an autonomous vehicle used for delivering items to recipients at a delivery address. Baalke discloses an autonomous delivery system using an autonomous vehicle where in the autonomous vehicle may delivery to recipients of an apartment building including delivering to individuals on different floors of the building. Neither reference, neither individually nor in combination, discloses the amended limitations that the determination code is further configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to identify a vertical difference from the receiving position to each of the delivery addresses and determine the delivery address as the common receiving position based on the identified vertical difference, wherein the vertical difference from the common receiving position to each of the delivery addresses is a difference in elevation. The claims overcome the prior art.
The closest non-patent literature reference found that is relevant to the applicant’s invention includes the publication “The Benefits of Autonomous Vehicles for Community-Based Trip Sharing” (Hasan and Van Hentenryck, 2020) which explores the concept of community-based trip sharing that leverages the structure of commuting patterns and urban communities to optimize trip sharing and its benefits. The reference does not disclose or suggest the amended limitations of the applicant’s claims, particularly that the determination code is further configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to identify a vertical difference from the receiving position to each of the delivery addresses and determine the delivery address as the common receiving position based on the identified vertical difference, wherein the vertical difference from the common receiving position to each of the delivery addresses is a difference in elevation. The claims overcome the prior art.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIONE N SIMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5513. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 7:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m..
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, Resha Desai can be reached at 571-270-7792. 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.
DIONE N. SIMPSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3628
/DIONE N. SIMPSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628