DETAILED ACTION
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 Claims
This final office action is responsive to Applicant’s submission filed 01/13/2026. Currently, claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 9 and 17 have been amended. No claims have been added or cancelled.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are allowed over prior art.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
None of the cited and/or relevant prior art teaches, single or in combination, the combined limitations:
“… the request including a delivery location, and the customer having a customer delivery system with the one or more customer delivery capabilities, wherein the customer delivery capabilities include one or more autonomous devices designed to pick up and transport the product along a route to the delivery location;
identifying, using the computer, the customer delivery capabilities and interaction with the seller delivery system, as part of the analyzing of the customer delivery system and the customer delivery capabilities, and the seller delivery system and seller delivery capabilities; and
determining, using the computer, a delivery plan for delivery of the product in response to the transport specifications, the delivery plan including one or more delivery modes of transportation for the product, in response to the analyzing of the customer delivery system and the customer delivery capabilities, and the seller delivery system and seller delivery capabilities”,
as recited in claim 1.
Claims 9 and 17 recite similar limitations as set forth in claim 1, and therefore are patentable over prior art.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
The claims recite method, system and computer program product for generating an item delivery plan.
Exemplary claim 1 recites in part,
“receiving data… the received data including a customer initiated request for delivery of a product from a seller having a seller delivery system with seller delivery capabilities, the request including a delivery location, and the customer having a customer delivery system with one or more customer delivery capabilities, wherein the customer delivery capabilities include one or more autonomous device designed to pick up and transport the product along a route to the delivery location; (receiving item delivery request)
analyzing… the customer delivery system and the customer delivery capabilities, and the seller delivery system and seller delivery capabilities for transport specifications, the transport specifications including one or more modes of transportation; (analyzing received data to identify one or more constraints)
identifying…the customer delivery capabilities and interaction with the seller delivery system, as part of the analyzing of the customer delivery system and the customer delivery capabilities, and the seller delivery system and seller delivery capabilities; (analyzing customer and seller delivery system interaction)
determining…a delivery plan for delivery of the product in response to the transport specifications, the delivery plan including one or more delivery modes of transportation for the product, in response to the analyzing of the customer delivery system and the customer delivery capabilities, and the seller delivery system and seller delivery capabilities; and (selecting a delivery plan based on one or more constraints)
communicating…the delivery plan to the seller delivery system and the customer delivery system.” (transmitting the result – delivery plan)
The above limitations describe the steps of, 1) acquiring data (delivery request), 2) analyzing customer and seller delivery system, 3) identifying one or more delivery constraints, 4) selecting a delivery plan, and 5) transmitting the delivery plan.
The above steps describe the process of generating an item delivery plan. The above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" (sales activities or behaviors) enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers sales activities or behaviors, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional element in the form of a computing device for performing the limitations encompassing the abstract idea identified above. The computing device represents using a computer as a tool to perform the judicial exception as in MPEP 2106.05(f). In addition, the claim recites the additional element of “implementing coordination of the sleer delivery system and the customer delivery system according to the delivery plan and in response to the communication of the delivery plan, to deliver the product to the customer”. The limitation describes directing item delivery based on selected delivery plan, which amounts to post-solution activities that do not impose meaningful limits on the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
When considered both individually and as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The recitation of additional elements is acknowledged as identified above. The discussion with respect to practical application is equally applicable to consideration of whether the additional elements amount to significantly more. The step of “implementing coordination of the sleer delivery system and the customer delivery system according to the delivery plan and in response to the communication of the delivery plan, to deliver the product to the customer”, which amounts to post-solution activities that do not impose meaningful limits on the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g). In addition, the computing device represents using a computer as a tool to perform the judicial exception as in MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, there are no meaningful recitations, considered in combination, that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Accordingly, claim 1 is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 9 and 17 recite similar limitations as set forth in claim 9, and therefore are rejected based on similar rationale.
Dependent claims 2-8, 10-16 and 18-20 recite limitations directed to the abstract idea, and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/13/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. §101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s arguments, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claimed invention describes the step of receiving a customer delivery request. The customer request includes customer location information and customer delivery capabilities. The received data is analyzed with a seller delivery system to determine one or more modes of transportation. The analysis includes identifying interaction between the seller delivery system and customer delivery capabilities to generate a delivery plan. The delivery plan is communicated to both the seller delivery system and customer delivery system for implementation.
The claimed invention is directed to a process of generating an item delivery plan based on customer and seller delivery system information. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers sales activities or behaviors, which falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The claims recite computing device for performing the limitations encompassing the identified abstract idea. The claims use computer-technology in providing the claimed business solution. The recited computing device serve as a tool upon which the abstract idea is implemented. When considered as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims fail to provide improvement to the functioning of a computer or computer-related technology.
The discussion with respect to practical application is equally applicable to consideration of whether the additional elements amount to significantly more. The computing device represents using a computer as a tool to perform the judicial exception.
Therefore, there are no meaningful recitations, considered in combination, that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Accordingly, the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
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 OLUSEGUN GOYEA whose telephone number is (571)270-5402. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9am-5pm EST.
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, FAHD OBEID can be reached at 5712703324. 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.
/OLUSEGUN GOYEA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights