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 the Claims
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 8, 10-12, 14, 15, 17-19, and 21-26 are currently pending. Claims 1, 8, and 15 were amended in the reply filed November 18, 2025.
Response to Arguments
101:
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the remaining rejection made under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the claims are “directed to a practical application of improving a computer implemented product delivery system” (Remarks p. 13). Additionally, that the instant claims “improve the computer-implemented delivery system by at least providing a customer-flexible pickup of product delivery”, which reflects technical improvements to a technology or a technical field similar to that in Weisner v. Google LLC (Remarks p. 14). Specifically, presenting recommendations in real-time and rerouting vehicles to the updated delivery address in real-time “improves the functionality of computer-implemented delivery systems and the delivery trucks” (Remarks. p. 14-15).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The amended claims do not improve the capabilities or functionality of the computer system (see MPEP 2106.05(a)(I) – “In computer-related technologies, the examiner should determine whether the claim purports to improve computer capabilities or, instead, invokes computers merely as a tool”). Improvements in presenting pickup points and rerouting vehicles are improvements in the abstract idea, not improvements in the functioning of the computer itself. Furthermore, the claimed computer systems are generic computers described at a high-level of detail performing generic computer functions. As such, they are invoked merely as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Examiner particularly notes that features such as “cloud-based” and “real-time” are described at a high-level of detail in Applicant’s specification and appear to refer to generic cloud-based computing environments and processing data generically in real time, respectively. With respect to the delivery vehicles, there is no improvement to the vehicles themselves. Any “improvement” is to the routing of the vehicles, which is part of the abstract idea.
Similarly, the amended claims do not improve any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)(II) – “Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology”). As stated above, the computer systems in the amended claims are generic computers described at a high-level of detail performing generic computer functions. As such, these additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
In Weisner, the court found that the eligible claims “provide a solution to an Internet-centric problem regarding web searches” where the court had “previously held patent claims eligible at step two when they provided a specific solution to an Internet-centric problem”. Applicant’s claims are dissimilar to Wiesner in that they do not provide a solution to an Internet-centric problem. Instead, Applicant’s claims provide a solution to a problem related to transportation and shipping (specifically, rerouting ordered products). The improvement of allowing a customer to change a delivery address while a product is in transit (as described in paragraph [0015] of Applicant’s specification and cited in Remarks p. 14) is an improvement to the abstract idea. An improvement to an abstract idea 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 (See MPEP 2106.05(a)(II)).
Accordingly, the rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 8, 10-12, 14, 15, 17-19, and 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 substantially recite, “displaying, through the cloud-based delivery system, pickup points that are determined in real-time to be closest to locations of the delivery vehicles in transit” (emphasis added). This limitation is not supported by the specification. Applicant states that support for the amendment can be found in at least paragraphs [0006], [0016], [0019]-[0028], [0032]-[0040],[0057]-[0060], and [0073]-[0078) of the Specification as filed (Remarks p. 13). While applicant’s specification teaches: presenting pickup points to a customer [0006, 0074]; providing pickup points to a customer based on customer “close proximity” to the customer [0032]; and matching/dispatching vehicles proximate to the pickup point selected by the customer [0006, 0038, 0074]. However, it does not contain any description that would convey to a person skilled in the relevant art that pickup points closest to locations of the delivery vehicles in transit are displayed. Examiner particularly notes Fig. 2 of Applicant’s specification showing that a pickup point is selected (4) before matching a truck for delivery (7), which is contrary to using the location of the vehicles to determine pickup points since the pickup points are already determined prior to matching the vehicle. There are no other sections of Applicant’s specification that teach the amended limitations. Therefore, claims 1, 8, and 15 fail to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 3-7, 21, and 24 are rejected by virtue of dependency on claim 1. Claims 10-14, 22 and 25 are rejected by virtue of dependency on claim 8. Claims 17-20, 23 and 26 are rejected by virtue of dependency on claim 15.
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, 3-5, 7, 8, 10-12, 14, 15, 17-19, and 21-26 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.
Independent Claims
MPEP 2106 Step 2A- Prong 1:
Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 recite, receiving a product order from a customer to a merchant, wherein the product order includes a main delivery address, and designate pickup points to the customer for product delivery that are different from the main delivery address;
Analyzing historical orders to determine which products have a greater likelihood of being rerouted to an updated delivery address, the pickup points that are requested by customers different from the main delivery address, in comparison to the main delivery address;
Maintaining an inventory of products having a greater likelihood of being rerouted to the updated delivery address as likely rerouted products by updating the inventory of products in the delivery vehicles after unload[ing] the products for deliveries to the pickup points and the main delivery address;
Communicating with the delivery vehicles the likely rerouted products including products for the product order, wherein the delivery vehicles are sent into transit;
during transit of the product order, rerouting the delivery vehicles sent into transit to a currently updated delivery address requested by the customer by:
displaying pickup points closest to locations of the delivery vehicles in transit;
receiving customer instruction for at least one product of the product order to be delivered to the currently updated delivery address selected by the customer from the pickup points;
matching the at least one product of the product order to be delivered with the currently updated delivery address from the likely rerouted products in inventory in at least one of said delivery vehicles responsive to the customer instruction;
matching at least one of said delivery vehicles having said at least one product from the likely rerouted products in inventory to a location proximate to the currently updated delivery address;
altering a route of the matched delivery vehicle to deliver the at least one product to the currently updated delivery address;
and altering routes of the delivery vehicles to deliver a remainder of products from the likely rerouted products in the product order to the main delivery address after deliveries to the currently updated delivery address is completed.
The limitations above are processes that under broadest reasonable interpretation cover “certain methods of organizing human activity” (including sales activities or behaviors, or business relations). Specifically, coordinating delivery of products to alternate addresses and maintaining product inventories is establishing business relationships and/or performing sales activities. Examiner particularly notes claim specifically include a product order “from a customer to a merchant”, which clarifies such business relationship. As such, the limitations fall into certain methods of organizing human activity.
Additionally, the limitations include mental processes (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion) because they can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper. Specifically, claims limitations to receive and update orders, designate pickup points, reroute delivery vehicles to an alternate address, analyze the likelihood that a product will be rerouted, and track inventory can all be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A- Prong 2:
The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1, 8, and 15 as a whole amount to: merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, or “apply it”; or generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 recite the following additional elements to perform the above recited steps: a computer (claim 1), a predictive router (claims 1, 8, and 15), a truck inventory tracker (claims 1, 8, and 15), a cloud-based delivery system (claims 1, 8, and 15), determining in real time (claims 1, 8, and 15), generating program instructions in real-time (claims 1, 8, and 15), a hardware processor (claim 8), a memory (claim 8), a computer readable storage medium (claim 15) and a processor (claim 15). These additional elements are generic computer components performing generic computer functions at a high level of generality, and are recited at a high level of generality. These additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Furthermore, claims 1, 8, and 15 recite the additional elements of an autonomous robotic unloader within delivery vehicles and controlling the autonomous robotic unloader with program instructions to unload the products for deliveries. These additional elements are described at high level of generality such that, when viewed as a whole, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., unloading and delivering packages from vehicles).
Additionally, receiving a product order, receiving customer instruction, and tracking the delivery vehicles, amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Individually and as a whole, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application because the claims do not: improve the functioning of the computer itself or any other technology or technical field; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; add meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment to transform the judicial exception into patent-eligible subject matter; amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer; or add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
MPEP 2106 Step 2B:
Independent claims 1, 8, and 14 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements are generic computer components performing generic computer functions at a high level of generality and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
With respect to the extra-solution activity of receiving a product order and receiving customer instruction (via a system), and tracking the delivery vehicles (using GPS), these elements are recited at a high-level of generality and perform generic computer functions (e.g., transmitting data over a network, performing repetitive calculations) that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known in the industry (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). Examiner notes that paragraph [0018-0020 and 0082] of Applicant’s specification disclose “system” and [0019] discloses “GPS” at a high-level of generality demonstrating the well-understood, routine, and conventional nature of the elements.
Alone or in combination, the additional elements do not contribute significantly more than the judicial exception and as a result, the claims are ineligible.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 3, 7, 10, 14, 17, and 21-23, recite additional details that merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations without reciting any additional elements. They are therefore, ineligible for the reasons as discussed above with respect to independent claims 1, 8, and 15. The additional elements in claims 4, 5, 11, 12, 18, 19, and 24-26 are discussed below.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A- Prong 2:
Dependent claims 4, 11, and 18, recite additional details that merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea. Claims 4, 11, and 18 also recite the additional element of a global positioning system. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality such that when viewed as a whole, the additional element amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Dependent claims 5, 12, and 19 recite additional details that merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea. Claims 5, 12, and 19 also recite the additional element of a matching engine. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality such that when viewed as a whole, the additional element amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Dependent claims 24-26, recite additional details that merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea. Claims 24-26 also recite the additional element of a blockchain environment. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality such that when viewed as a whole, the additional element does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., blockchain technology) (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
MPEP 2106 Step 2B:
With respect to dependent claims 4, 5, 11, 12, 18, and 19 as discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element amounts to no more than: a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., applying the exception using a generic computer component, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional elements of a global positioning system and a matching engine, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, claims 4, 5, 11, 12, 18, and 19 are also ineligible.
With respect to dependent claims 24-26, as discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element amounts to no more than: generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., (i) generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional element of a blockchain environment, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, claims 24-26 are also ineligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 8, and 15 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 3-5, 7, 10-12, 14, 17-19, and 21-26 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 STEPHANIE S WALLICK whose telephone number is (703)756-1081. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571) 272-5587. 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.
/S.S.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/RUPANGINI SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights