DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Applicant Remarks and Amendments filed on 06/20/2025.
Claims 1, 6, 9, 14, 17, and 19 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
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 .
Examiner Notes
Examiner believes that the interview identified was for a difference case. However, Applicant is more than welcome to reach out to Examiner for clarification if needed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Pages 10-11, filed 06/20/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of Claims 1-20 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments on Page 10: “Under Step 2A Prong One, a claim with limitations that are merely based on or involve an abstract idea does not recite an abstract idea. Claim 1 recites a system including location detectors mounted to a vehicle and a device, and an approach for using the data generated by the detectors to apply a machine learning algorithm to determine time predictions and further determine whether the device will be present at a specification location within a predetermined time window, and transmit different notification based thereon. In order to recite this approach, claim 1 does include elements such as speed profile generation, model application, route generation, and distance determinations. However, these elements at most are merely based on or involve commercial interactions - they do not recite such interactions themselves. The Office Action (top of page 12) appears to agree, noting that the aforementioned elements "cover concepts that involve a commercial interaction." As the listed limitations in claim 1 are merely based on or involve commercial interactions, claim 1 does not recite a fundamental economic concept or any other abstract idea and is therefore eligible under Step 2A Prong One.”. Examiner respectfully disagrees because the limitation that covers concepts that involve commercial interaction is the abstract idea (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity) (See MPEP 2106.04(a)). Additionally, “location detectors mounted to a vehicle and a device” and “machine learning” are considered to be additional elements that are recited at a high level of generality and amount to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments on Pages 10-11: “The present claims recite additional elements that integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two. Claim 1 solves a technological problem involving computers running machine learning models. Specifically, machine learning models traditionally use data sets generated from past activity to predict a future outcome. Often, such activity is unrelated to a problem corresponding to the future outcome, or is only partially related. For instance, the prior art cited in the Office Action uses statistical data from past deliveries to predict an outcome for a current delivery, even though the current delivery is unrelated to the past delivery from which the predictions obtain their training data. The technical solution recited in claim 1 generates a "time prediction based on a time difference between timestamps of two events ... associated with movement of the current delivery order," with such movement being obtained "in real time as the delivery vehicle is delivering the current delivery order." Thus, computing technology applying the claimed improvement to time predictions no longer need to rely upon past data to predict future outcomes, and instead may use real time data flowing from the technical setup recited in the claim - specifically, the ordered combination of location detectors, profile generation, feature data generation, and application of a model based on time differences between timestamps of events associated with the data generated and processed by the aforementioned features. The technical solution described above goes beyond mere "improvement of the delivery process" and "optimizing delivery routes," and instead improves how computers structure machine learning algorithms for scenarios in which such algorithms do not have straightforward access to historical data. The aforementioned technical solution is a practical application of computing technology, integrating the combination of real-time data gathering and machine learning processing into a practical approach for predicting time-based location data of a device using only the time-based location data currently available to the process. This practical application clearly integrates the underlying concepts according to the requirements of Step 2A Prong Two as discussed above, and for these reasons, claim 1 is eligible.”. Examiner respectfully disagrees because the use of real time data to predict future outcomes does not provide improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical filed, but instead it provides improvement to the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(a)II, “However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface 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.”. Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 12, filed 06/20/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of Claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: there are duplicate limitations – “wherein two or more location detectors of the plurality of location detectors are respectively attached to the delivery vehicle and a delivery device” in receiving and first generating steps. Appropriate correction is required.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-20 are directed to one of the four statutory categories (process, machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter) since the claimed invention falls into “a process” (a method for door-step time estimation delivery route optimization), “a machine” (a system for door-step time estimation delivery route optimization), and “an article of manufacture” (a computer program product for door-step time estimation delivery route optimization) categories.
Regarding Claims 1-20, the claim invention is directed to a judicial exception to patentability, an abstract idea.
Claim 1 recites the following limitations:
… to:
determine one or more locations associated with a current delivery order;
receive location data from … in real time as the delivery vehicle is delivering the current delivery order;
generate, based on the one or more locations and real-time location data associated with …, a speed profile for the current delivery order indicating a plurality of events associated with a movement of the current delivery order to a respective delivery location;
generate, based on the speed profile and the real-time location data associated with …, feature data of the respective delivery location, wherein the feature data includes descriptive information discerned from the speed profile for the current delivery order;
apply a … model to the generated feature data to output a door-step time prediction for the respective delivery location, the door-step time prediction being based on a time difference between timestamps of two events of the plurality of events associated with the movement of the current delivery order;
generate a planned delivery route for the respective delivery location based on the one or more locations and the door-step time prediction;
determine a distance between the current delivery order and the respective delivery location by comparing the location data associated with … and the planned delivery route;
…; and …
Step 2A, Prong 1: The limitations for Claim 1 described above are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover concepts that involve commercial interactions. The limitations of determining, receiving, generating a speed profile and feature data, applying a model, generating a planned delivery route, and determining a distance are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover concepts that involve a commercial interaction such as managing business relations. Therefore, other than reciting a generic computerized system, a generic database, and generic user devices, nothing in the claim elements preclude anything outside the grouping of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”. Accordingly, this claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites additional elements – “a system comprising: a plurality of location detectors, wherein two or more location detectors of the plurality of location detectors are respectively attached to a delivery vehicle and a delivery device; a processor; and a non-transitory memory storing instructions that, when executed, cause the processor to”, “machine learning model”, “the plurality of location detectors”, “in response to determining the distance between the current delivery order and the respective delivery location indicates the delivery order will be delivered within a corresponding window, transmit, to a user device, a first notification corresponding to the distance of the current delivery order to the respective delivery location”, and “in response to determining the distance between the current delivery order and the respective delivery location indicates the current delivery order will not be delivered within a corresponding window, transmit, to the user device, a second notification indicating the current delivery order is delayed”. The additional elements “in response to determining the distance between the delivery order and the respective delivery location indicates the delivery order will be delivered within a corresponding window” and “in response to determining the distance between the delivery order and the respective delivery location indicates the delivery order will not be delivered within a corresponding window” in the claim limitation represents mere generally linking of the use of the judicial exception (the abstract idea) to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of determining, receiving, generating a speed profile and feature data, applying a model, generating a planned delivery route, and determining a distance by using generic computer components. The claimed computer components are recited at high level of generality and merely invoked as a tool to perform a process for door-step time estimation and delivery route optimization (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional elements of “transmit, to a user device, a first notification corresponding to the distance of the delivery order to the respective delivery location” and “transmit, to the user device, a second notification indicating the delivery order is delayed” are merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception and amount to mere data gathering (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, alone and 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. This claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim 1 does 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 of using a computer system to perform a process for door-step time estimation and delivery route optimization amount to no more than how to generally “apply” the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and representing mere generally linking of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). The step of transmitting notifications of Step 2A has been re-evaluated in Step 2B and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that receiving or transmitting 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). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 recites the following limitations:
The system of claim 1, wherein … is …, and the instructions further cause … to:
receive the location data from …;
associate the location data from … to the delivery order; and
process the associated location data to remove invalid location data.
Claim 2 is directed to substantially the same abstract idea as Claim 1 and is rejected for substantially the same reasons. The additional recited limitations of the dependent claim fail to establish that the claim does not recite an abstract idea because the additional recited limitations of the claim further narrow the abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Claim 2 does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application. Claim 2 recites additional elements – “the delivery device”, “a handheld scanning device”, “the processor”, and “the plurality of location detectors”. These additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The limitations of this dependent claim do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application because individually or in combination, these additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on a practicing the abstract idea and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B: Claim 2 does 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 of using a computer system to perform a process for door-step time estimation and delivery route optimization amount to no more than how to generally “apply” the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, this dependent claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 3 and 5-7 are directed to substantially the same abstract idea as Claim 1 and are rejected for substantially the same reasons. The additional recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the additional recited limitations of the claims further narrow the abstract idea. These dependent claims further narrow the abstract idea of Claim 1 such as by defining “wherein the instructions further cause … to generate the speed profile by applying a changepoint detection algorithm to the location data of the delivery order to determine changes in a sequence of the location data and plotted locations within the location data” in Claim 3, by defining “wherein the instructions further cause … to generate the feature data based on at least one of a dwelling-type of the delivery location and a time period the delivered order was delivered” in Claim 5, by defining “wherein the timestamps of the two events comprise a timestamp associated with a time when an ignition of a delivery vehicle transporting the delivery order is in an off-state and a timestamp associated with a time when the ignition of the delivery vehicle is in an on-state” in Claim 6, and by defining “wherein the door-step time prediction comprises a predicted duration for the two or more … of the plurality of … to be at the delivery location and is associated with a range of door-step time predictions having a mean value and prediction interval” in Claim 7.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Claims 3 and 5-7 do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application. Claim 6 does not recite additional elements, Claims 3 and 5 recites an additional element – “the processor”, and Claim 7 recite an additional element – “location detectors”. These additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The limitations of these dependent claims do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application because individually or in combination, these additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on a practicing the abstract idea and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B: Claims 3 and 5-7 do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 6 does not recite additional elements, and Claims 3, 5, and 7 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 of using a computer system to perform a process for door-step time estimation and delivery route optimization amount to no more than how to generally “apply” the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, these claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 4 recites the following limitations:
The system of claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause … to generate the feature data by:
retrieving a history of a … associated with the respective delivery location, wherein the history indicates one or more dates and delivery windows of delivery orders, and indicates information of one or more goods included in the delivery orders; and
generating the feature data based on the speed profile, location data, weather forecasts, and history of the user that includes descriptive information associated with past delivery orders for the respective delivery location.
Claim 4 is directed to substantially the same abstract idea as Claim 1 and is rejected for substantially the same reasons. The additional recited limitations of the dependent claim fail to establish that the claim does not recite an abstract idea because the additional recited limitations of the claim further narrow the abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Claim 4 does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application. Claim 4 recites additional elements – “the processor” and “user device”. These additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The limitations of this dependent claim do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application because individually or in combination, these additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on a practicing the abstract idea and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B: Claim 4 does 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 of using a computer system to perform a process for door-step time estimation and delivery route optimization amount to no more than how to generally “apply” the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, this dependent claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 8 recites the following limitations:
The system of claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause … to:
receive delivery orders to the one or more delivery locations; and
generate the planned delivery route by allocating the received delivery orders to one or more delivery vehicles based on the one or more delivery locations, requested deliver windows to receive the delivery order, and the door-step time predictions corresponding to the one or more delivery locations.
Claim 8 is directed to substantially the same abstract idea as Claim 1 and is rejected for substantially the same reasons. The additional recited limitations of the dependent claim fail to establish that the claim does not recite an abstract idea because the additional recited limitations of the claim further narrow the abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Claim 8 does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application. Claim 8 recites an additional element – “the processor”. This additional element amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The limitations of this dependent claim do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application because individually or in combination, this additional element does not impose any meaningful limits on a practicing the abstract idea and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B: Claim 8 does 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 of using a computer system to perform a process for door-step time estimation and delivery route optimization amount to no more than how to generally “apply” the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, this dependent claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 9 recites the following limitations:
A method comprising:
determining one or more locations associated with a current delivery order;
receiving location data from … in real time as a delivery vehicle is delivering the current delivery order, wherein …;
generating, based on the one or more locations and the real-time location data associated with …, a speed profile for the current delivery order indicating a plurality of events associated with a movement of the current delivery order to a respective delivery location, wherein …;
generating, based on the speed profile and the real-time location data associated with …, feature data of the respective delivery location, wherein the feature data includes descriptive information discerned from the speed profile for the current delivery order;
applying a … model to the generated feature data to output a door-step time prediction for the respective delivery location, the door-step time prediction being based on a time difference between timestamps of two events of the plurality of events associated with the movement of the current delivery order;
generating a planned delivery route for the respective delivery location based on the one or more locations and the door-step time prediction;
determining a distance between the current delivery order and the respective delivery location by comparing the location data associated with … and the planned delivery route;
…; and …
Step 2A, Prong 1: The limitations for Claim 9 described above are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover concepts that involve commercial interactions. The limitations of determining, receiving, generating a speed profile and feature data, applying a model, generating a planned delivery route, and determining a distance are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover concepts that involve a commercial interaction such as managing business relations. Therefore, other than reciting a generic computerized system, a generic database, and generic user devices, nothing in the claim elements preclude anything outside the grouping of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”. Accordingly, this claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 9 recites additional elements – “a plurality of location detectors”, “two or more location detectors of the plurality of location detectors are respectively attached to the delivery vehicle and a delivery device”, “machine learning model”, and “in response to determining the distance between the current delivery order and the respective delivery location indicates the delivery order will be delivered within a corresponding window, transmitting, to a user device, a first notification corresponding to the distance of the current delivery order to the respective delivery location”, and “in response to determining the distance between the current delivery order and the respective delivery location indicates the current delivery order will not be delivered within a corresponding window, transmitting, to the user device, a second notification indicating the current delivery order is delayed”. The additional elements “in response to determining the distance between the current delivery order and the respective delivery location indicates the current delivery order will be delivered within a corresponding window” and “in response to determining the distance between the current delivery order and the respective delivery location indicates the current delivery order will not be delivered within a corresponding window” in the claim limitation represents mere generally linking of the use of the judicial exception (the abstract idea) to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of determining, receiving, generating a speed profile and feature data, applying a model, generating a planned delivery route, and determining a distance by using generic computer components. The claimed computer components are recited at high level of generality and merely invoked as a tool to perform a process for door-step time estimation and delivery route optimization (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional elements of “transmitting, to a user device, a first notification corresponding to the distance of the current delivery order to the respective delivery location” and “transmitting, to the user device, a second notification indicating the current delivery order is delayed” are merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception and amount to mere data gathering (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, alone and 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. This claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim 9 does 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 of using a computer system to perform a process for door-step time estimation and delivery route optimization amount to no more than how to generally “apply” the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and representing mere generally linking of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). The step of transmitting notifications of Step 2A has been re-evaluated in Step 2B and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that receiving or transmitting 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). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is not patent eligible.
Claim 10 recites the following limitations:
The method of claim 9, wherein … is …, the method further comprising:
associating the location data from … to the delivery order; and
processing the associated location data to remove invalid location data.
Claim 10 is directed to substantially the same abstract idea as Claim 9 and is rejected for substantially the same reasons. The additional recited limitations of the dependent claim fail to establish that the claim does not recite an abstract idea because the additional recited limitations of the claim further narrow the abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Claim 10 does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application. Claim 10 recites additional elements – “the delivery device”, “a handheld scanning device”, and “a plurality of location detectors”. These additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The limitations of this dependent claim do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application because individually or in combination, this additional element does not impose any meaningful limits on a practicing the abstract idea and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B: Claim 10 does 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 of using a computer system to perform a process for door-step time estimation and delivery route optimization amount to no more than how to generally “apply” the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, this dependent claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 11 and 13-15 are directed to substantially the same abstract idea as Claim 9 and are rejected for substantially the same reasons. The additional recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the additional recited limitations of the claims further narrow the abstract idea. These dependent claims further narrow the abstract idea of Claim 9 such as by defining “wherein the generating the speed profile further comprises applying a changepoint detection algorithm to the location data of the delivery order” in Claim 11, by defining “wherein the generating the feature data further comprises generating feature data based on at least one of a dwelling-type of the delivery location and a time period the delivered order was delivered” in Claim 13, by defining “wherein the timestamps of the two events comprise a timestamp associated with a time when an ignition of a delivery vehicle transporting the delivery order in an off-state and a timestamp associated with a time when the ignition of the delivery vehicle is in an on-state” in Claim 14, and by defining “wherein the timestamps of the two events comprise a timestamp associated with a time when an ignition of a delivery vehicle transporting the delivery order in an off-state and a timestamp associated with a time when the ignition of the delivery vehicle is in an on-state” in Claim 15.
Step 2A, Prong 2: These dependent claims do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because they do not recite additional elements.
Step 2B: These dependent claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because they do not recite additional elements. Therefore, this claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 12 recites the following limitations:
The method of claim 9, wherein the generating the feature data further comprises:
retrieving a history of a customer associated with the respective delivery location, wherein the history indicates one or more dates and delivery windows of delivery orders placed by the customer, and indicates information of one or more goods included in the delivery orders; and
generating the feature data based on the speed profile, location data, and
history of the customer.
Claim 12 is directed to substantially the same abstract idea as Claim 9 and is rejected for substantially the same reasons. The additional recited limitations of the dependent claim fail to establish that the claim does not recite an abstract idea because the additional recited limitations of the claim further narrow the abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2: This dependent claim does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because it does not recite additional elements.
Step 2B: This dependent claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because it does not recite additional elements. Therefore, this claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 16 recites the following limitations:
The method of claim 9, further comprising
receiving delivery orders to the one or more delivery locations,
wherein generating the planned delivery route further comprises allocating the received delivery orders to one or more delivery vehicles based on the one or more delivery locations, requested deliver windows to receive the delivery order, and the door-step time predictions corresponding to the one or more delivery locations.
Step 2A, Prong 2: This dependent claim does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because it does not recite additional elements.
Step 2B: This dependent claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because it does not recite additional elements. Therefore, this claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 17 recites the following limitations:
… comprising:
determining one or more locations associated with a delivery order;
receiving location data from … in real time as a delivery vehicle is delivering the current delivery order, wherein …;
generating, based on the one or more locations and the real-time location data associated with …, a speed profile for the current delivery order indicating a plurality of events associated with a movement of the current delivery order to a respective delivery location;
generating, based on the speed profile and the real-time location data associated with …, feature data of the respective delivery location, wherein the feature data includes descriptive information discerned from the speed profile for the current delivery order;
applying a … model to the generated feature data to output a door-step time prediction for the respective delivery location, the door-step time prediction being based on a time difference between timestamps of two events of the plurality of events associated with the movement of the current delivery order;
generating a planned delivery route for the respective delivery location based on the one or more locations and the door-step time prediction;
determining a distance between the current delivery order and the respective delivery location by comparing the location data associated with … and the planned delivery route;
…; and …
Step 2A, Prong 1: The limitations for Claim 17 described above are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover concepts that involve commercial interactions. The limitations of determining, receiving, generating a speed profile and feature data, applying a model, generating a planned delivery route, and determining a distance are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover concepts that involve a commercial interaction such as managing business relations. Therefore, other than reciting a generic computerized system, a generic database, and generic user devices, nothing in the claim elements preclude anything outside the grouping of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”. Accordingly, this claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 17 recites additional elements – “a computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions, that, when executed by one or more processors, cause a device to perform operations”, “a plurality of location detectors”, “two or more location detectors of the plurality of location detectors are respectively attached to the delivery vehicle and a delivery device”, “machine learning model”, “in response to determining the distance between the current delivery order and the respective delivery location indicates the current delivery order will be delivered within a corresponding window, transmitting, to a user device, a first notification corresponding to the distance of the current delivery order to the respective delivery location”, and “in response to determining the distance between the current delivery order and the respective delivery location indicates the current delivery order will not be delivered within a corresponding window, transmitting, to the user device, a second notification indicating the current delivery order is delayed”. The additional elements “in response to determining the distance between the current delivery order and the respective delivery location indicates the current delivery order will be delivered within a corresponding window” and “in response to determining the distance between the current delivery order and the respective delivery location indicates the current delivery order will not be delivered within a corresponding window” in the claim limitation represents mere generally linking of the use of the judicial exception (the abstract idea) to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of determining, receiving, generating a speed profile and feature data, applying a model, generating a planned delivery route, and determining a distance by using generic computer components. The claimed computer components are recited at high level of generality and merely invoked as a tool to perform a process for door-step time estimation and delivery route optimization (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional elements of “transmit, to a user device, a first notification corresponding to the distance of the current delivery order to the respective delivery location” and “transmit, to the user device, a second notification indicating the current delivery order is delayed” are merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception and amount to mere data gathering (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, alone and 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. This claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim 17 does 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 of using a computer system to perform a process for door-step time estimation and delivery route optimization amount to no more than how to generally “apply” the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and representing mere generally linking of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). The step of transmitting notifications of Step 2A has been re-evaluated in Step 2B and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that receiving or transmitting 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). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is not patent eligible.
Claim 18 recites the following limitations:
The computer program product of claim 17, wherein the generating the feature data further comprises:
retrieving a history of a customer associated with the respective delivery location, wherein the history indicates one or more dates and delivery windows of delivery orders placed by the customer, and indicates information of one or more goods included in the delivery orders; and
generating the feature data based on the speed profile, location data, and
history of the customer.
Claim 18 is directed to substantially the same abstract idea as Claim 17 and is rejected for substantially the same reasons. The additional recited limitations of the dependent claim fail to establish that the claim does not recite an abstract idea because the additional recited limitations of the claim further narrow the abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2: This dependent claim does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because it does not recite additional elements.
Step 2B: This dependent claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because it does not recite additional elements. Therefore, this claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 19 recites the following limitations:
The computer program product of claim 17, wherein the generating the feature data further comprises generating feature data based on at least one of a dwelling-type of the delivery location and a time period the delivered order was delivered, and
wherein the timestamps of the two events comprise a timestamp associated with a time when an ignition of a delivery vehicle transporting the delivery order is in an off-state and a timestamp associated with a time when the ignition of the delivery vehicle is in an on-state.
Claim 19 is directed to substantially the same abstract idea as Claim 17 and is rejected for substantially the same reasons. The additional recited limitations of the dependent claim fail to establish that the claim does not recite an abstract idea because the additional recited limitations of the claim further narrow the abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2: This dependent claim does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because it does not recite additional elements.
Step 2B: This dependent claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because it does not recite additional elements. Therefore, this claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 20 recites the following limitations:
The computer program product of claim 17 wherein the instructions further cause … to perform operations comprising:
receiving delivery orders to the one or more delivery locations,
wherein generating the planned delivery route further comprises allocating the received delivery orders to one or more delivery vehicles based on the one or more delivery locations, requested deliver windows to receive the delivery order, and the door-step time predictions corresponding to the one or more delivery locations.
Claim 20 is directed to substantially the same abstract idea as Claim 17 and is rejected for substantially the same reasons. The additional recited limitations of the dependent claim fail to establish that the claim does not recite an abstract idea because the additional recited limitations of the claim further narrow the abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Claim 20 does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application. Claim 20 recites an additional element – “the device”. This additional element amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The limitations of this dependent claim do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application because individually or in combination, this additional element does not impose any meaningful limits on a practicing the abstract idea and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B: Claim 20 does 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 of using a computer system to perform a process for door-step time estimation and delivery route optimization amount to no more than how to generally “apply” the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, this dependent claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 4-9, and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Radetzki et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2019/0114588 A1; hereinafter "Radetzki") in view of Dashti et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2020/0116508 A1; hereinafter "Dashti"), Scalisi et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2018/0075400 A1; hereinafter "Scalisi"), and Shroff et al. (US PG Pub. No. 2017/0262803 A1; hereinafter "Shroff").
Regarding Claim 1, Radetzki teaches a system comprising: …; a processor; and a non-transitory memory storing instructions that, when executed, cause the processor to (See Paragraphs [0016] and [0020]): generate, based on the one or more locations and the … location data associated with …, a speed profile for the current delivery order indicating a plurality of events associated with a movement of the current delivery order to a respective delivery location; generate, based on the speed profile and the … location data associated with …, feature data of the respective delivery location (See “In step 101, the historical delivery information is obtained and/or provided. In this case, the historical delivery information is associated with multiple deliveries of shipments made by one or various vehicles of the delivery service, wherein the historical delivery information for each of the deliveries of shipments associated with the historical delivery information represents at least details pertaining to a delivery route, …” in Paragraph [0120], “The historical delivery information represents one or more details characteristic of the respective delivery of shipments for each of the deliveries of shipments associated with the delivery information, for example. As disclosed above, such a detail characteristic of a delivery of shipments is intended to represent, by way of example, at least one parameter captured and/or determined by the vehicle that has made the delivery during the respective delivery, such as the energy requirement of the vehicle.” in Paragraph [0121], “It is subsequently assumed by way of example that the historical delivery information for each of the deliveries of shipments associated with the historical delivery information represents the delivery route along which the respective vehicle (i.e. the vehicle that has made the respective delivery) has been moved, …” in Paragraph [0122], “In a step 102, shipment delivery information for