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 .
Priority
Application 18/063,549 was filed on December 8, 2022 and claims priority to U.S. provisional application no. 63/292,182, filed on December 21, 2021.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-11, 13, 15-19, and 22-26 are currently pending. Claims 1, 6, 7, 9, 10, 15-19, 22, 25, and 26 were amended in the reply filed February 5, 2026. No claims were added or canceled.
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. § 101:
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the rejection made under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant first argues that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. Specifically, that the claims provide a technical solution to the technical problem of “how to create an adaptive and self-improving navigation system for autonomous vehicles that learns from real-world delivery outcomes” (Remarks p. 15). Examiner respectfully disagrees. In order to show an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself or any other technology or technical field, “the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement” (see MPEP 2106.05(a)). Examiner notes paragraphs [0018-0019] of Applicant’s specification, which describe the improvements of the claimed invention (i.e., optimizing trips that require two modes of travel or require a waypoint, reducing delivery delays, reducing carbon emissions from transporters, and reducing unlawful or unsafe stops). Examiner also notes paragraph [0064] of Applicant’s specification, which describes the use of “feedback” to update the machine learning model and “provide more accurate movement type labels, tags, and waypoint determinations”. Applicant also argues that the claims recite similar improvements of “enabling more efficient and accurate deliveries by empirically identifying and verifying real-world stopping points, reducing wasted time and emissions, and increasing the system's adaptability in changing environments” (Remarks p. 15-16). The above improvements, as set forth in Applicant’s specification and Remarks, are not improvements to technology or a technical field. Instead, they are improvements to the abstract idea of identifying temporary stopping locations and routes for the delivery and receipt of items. An improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology (see MPEP 2106.05(a)(II)).
Applicant further argues that the claims integrate any judicial exception into a practical application similar to Desjardins. Specifically, that the “explicit recitation of updating the model based on feedback and then successfully applying that updated model to a new set of data is a direct claim to a process that continually improves the operation of the autonomous vehicle delivery system” (Remarks p. 16). Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claimed use of feedback to update and improve the machine learning model is not an improvement to technology. See Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., 134 F.4th 1205 (Fed. Cir. 2025). In that case, similar to here, “[t]he requirements that the machine learning model be ‘iteratively trained’ or dynamically adjusted in the Machine Learning Training patents do not represent a technological improvement” because “[i|terative training using selected training material and dynamic adjustments based on real-time changes are incident to the very nature of machine learning.” Id. at 1212.
Lastly, Applicant argues that the claims recite “significantly more”. Specifically, that “driving of the autonomous vehicles is not ‘insignificant extra-solution activity’: it is an integral part of the claimed feedback and verification cycle that makes the system adaptive and technologically superior” similar to the movement of the molding press in Diehr (Remarks p. 17). Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the specification only contains a brief, high-level description of using an autonomous vehicle as the transporter vehicle (see paragraph [0034] – “If the transporter is an autonomous vehicle and is the transporter vehicle 115, then the transporter user device 114 can be part of the transporter vehicle 115”). Examiner further notes that the identification of waypoints is performed on a generic computer, also described at a high-level of detail, which then provides “provide maps and routing instructions” (see paragraph [0044]) to the transporter vehicle. As such, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the driving of autonomous vehicles does not go beyond generally linking or providing insignificant extra-solution activity as described in more detail in the 101 rejection below.
Accordingly, the rejection is maintained,
Claim Objections
Claims 1- 3, 5-7, 9-11, 13, 15, and 22-26 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites, “and autonomously driving, by the first autonomous vehicle using the first navigational data, the first map and the first routing instructions, from the service provider location to the waypoint location” (emphasis added). It appears that this limitation contains a typographical error where there is an extra “and” in the list of limitations. For the purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted to omit the extra “and” to read, “autonomously driving, by the first autonomous vehicle using the first navigational data, the first map and the first routing instructions, from the service provider location to the waypoint location” (emphasis added). Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2, 3, 5-7, 9-11, 13, 15, and 22-26 are objected to by virtue of dependency on claim 1.
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, 9-11, and 13-23 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 and 16 recite, receiving a first fulfillment request from an end user, the first fulfillment request for delivery of a first item from a service provider location to a destination address where the end user is located;
responsive to receiving the first fulfillment request from the end user, obtaining historical data of transporters that previously delivered items to the destination address, the historical data comprising time-series location data and accelerometer data generated by the transporters;
determining that there is not enough historical data of transporters that previously delivered items to the destination address in the obtained historical data;
in response to determining that there is not enough historical data of transporters that previously delivered items to the destination address in the obtained historical data, obtaining historical data of transporters that previously delivered items to addresses proximate to the destination address;
determining a first temporary transporter location by clustering the time-series location data in the historical data of the transporters that previously delivered items to the destination address and addresses proximate to the destination address using a process to identify a centroid of a data cluster corresponding to a location where transporter user devices were temporarily motionless;
determining a first motion type for the first temporary transporter location by analyzing the accelerometer data in the historical data of the transporters that previously delivered items to the destination address and addresses proximate to the destination address to distinguish between a least a first motion pattern and a second motion pattern, and classify the first motion type based on the analysis;
determining a first tag for the temporary transporter location based on the first motion type, the first tag indicating that the first temporary transporter location is a first waypoint location relative to the destination address, wherein the first temporary transporter location was not previously identified as a waypoint location;
transmitting to a first transporter, first navigational data, first routing instructions, and a first map comprising a route from the service provider location to the destination address via the waypoint location;
routing, using the first navigational data, the first map and the routing first instructions;
and driving, using the first navigational data, the first map and the first routing instructions, from the service provider location to the waypoint location;
receiving from the first transporter, feedback that the first temporary transporter location is correctly associated with the waypoint location;
receiving a second fulfillment request, the second fulfillment request
for delivery of a second item from the service provider location to the destination address where the end user is located;
responsive to receiving the second fulfillment request, obtaining historical data of transporters that previously delivered items to the destination address, the historical data comprising time-series location data and accelerometer data generated by GPS modules and accelerometers in transporter user devices of the transporters;
determining a second temporary transporter location by clustering the time-series location data obtained in response to receiving the second fulfillment request;
determining a second motion type for the second temporary transporter location by analyzing the accelerometer data the time-series location data obtained in response to receiving the second fulfillment request to distinguish between at least the first motion pattern and the second motion pattern, and classifying the second motion type based on the analysis;
determining a second tag for the second temporary transporter location based on the second motion type, the second tag being the same as the first tag, wherein the second temporary transporter location is the waypoint location;
transmitting to a second transporter, second navigational data, second routing instructions, and a second map comprising the route from the service provider location to the destination address via the waypoint location;
routing, using the second navigational data, the second map and second the routing instructions;
and driving using the second navigational data, the second map and the second routing instructions, from the service provider location to the waypoint location.
Independent claim 18 recites, receiving a fulfillment request, the fulfillment request for delivery of an item from a service provider location to a destination address where the end user is located,
responsive to receiving the fulfillment request, obtaining historical data of transporters that previously delivered items to the destination address, the historical data comprising time-series location data and accelerometer data generated by the transporters,
determining that there is not enough historical data of transporters that previously delivered items to the destination address in the obtained historical data,
in response to determining that there is not enough historical data of transporters that previously delivered items to the destination address in the obtained historical data, obtaining historical data of transporters that previously delivered items to addresses proximate to the destination address;
determining a temporary transporter location by clustering the time-series location data in the historical data of the transporters that previously delivered items to the destination address and addresses proximate to the destination address;
determining a motion type for the temporary transporter location using the accelerometer data in the historical data of the transporters that previously delivered items to the destination address and addresses proximate to the destination address;
determining a tag for the temporary transporter location based on the motion type, the tag indicating that the temporary transporter location is a waypoint location relative to the destination address, wherein the temporary transporter location was not previously identified as a waypoint location;
transmitting routing instructions, and a map comprising a route from the service provider location to the destination address via the waypoint location;
routing, using the navigational data, the map and the routing instructions;
receiving feedback that the temporary transporter location is correctly associated with the waypoint location;
and drive using the navigational data, the map and the routing instructions, from the service provider location to the waypoint location.
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, identifying temporary stopping locations and routes for the delivery and receipt of items are establishing business relationships and performing sales activities. Examiner particularly notes that, per paragraphs [0028, and 0038] of Applicant’s specification, a user is one who purchases items from merchants for delivery, which clarifies the business relationships. As such, the limitations fall into certain methods of organizing human activity.
Furthermore, the limitations above are processes that under broadest reasonable interpretation cover “mental processes” (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion). Specifically identifying motion types and determining waypoint locations based on motion types, can 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, 16, and 18 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”; generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use; and/or adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Claims 1, 16, and 18 recite the following additional elements to perform the above recited steps: a computer (claims 1, 16, and 18), a communications network (claims 1, 16, and 18), GPS modules (claims 1, 16, and 18), accelerometers (claims 1, 16, and 18), end user device (claims 1, 16, and 18), transporter user devices (including a first transporter user device and a second transporter user device) (claims 1, 16, and 18), unsupervised machine learning clustering (claims 1, 16, and 18), a machine learning model (including updating the machine learning model using the feedback) (claims 1, 16, and 18), long range antennas in the first and second transporter user device (claims 1, 16, and 18), a processor (claims 16 and 18), and a computer-readable medium (claims 16 and 18). 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, 16, and 18 recite the additional elements of a first autonomous vehicle and a second autonomous vehicle (including “causing the autonomous vehicle to autonomously drive from the service provider location to the waypoint location so that the autonomous vehicle travels from the service provider location to the waypoint location”). This additional element is described at 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., delivering items using an autonomous vehicle).
Additionally, the limitations of “causing the first autonomous vehicle to autonomously drive from the service provider location to the destination address via the waypoint location so that the autonomous vehicle travels from the service provider location to the waypoint location” and “causing the second autonomous vehicle to autonomously drive from the service provider location to the waypoint location so that the second autonomous vehicle travels from the service provider location to the waypoint location” amount to an insignificant application, which is a form of 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.
MPEP 2106 Step 2B:
Claims 1, 16, and 18 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 “causing the first autonomous vehicle to autonomously drive from the service provider location to the destination address via the waypoint location so that the autonomous vehicle travels from the service provider location to the waypoint location” and “causing the second autonomous vehicle to autonomously drive from the service provider location to the waypoint location so that the second autonomous vehicle travels from the service provider location to the waypoint location” Examiner notes that the autonomous vehicle is only briefly mentioned in Applicant’s specification and is described at a very high level of generality (see paragraph [0034] of Applicant’s specification). This indicates that using an autonomous vehicle to perform a delivery (including “causing” it to drive from one location to another) is well-understood, routine and conventional activity previously known in the industry (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)).
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, 5-7, 9-11, 17, and 22-23, recite additional details that merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations. For these reasons, as described above with respect to claims 1, 16, and 18, these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application or significantly more that the abstract idea. Thus, claims 3, 5-7, 9-11, 17, and 22-23, are also ineligible.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A- Prong 2:
Dependent claims 2 and 15 recite additional details that merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea. The claims also recite the additional elements of a location evaluation computer (claim 2), a central server (claim 2), and a mobile phone (clam 15). These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality such that when viewed as a whole, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Dependent claims 13 and 19 recite additional details that merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea. Claims 13 and 19 also recite the additional elements of an autonomous car (claim 13) and automobiles (claims 19). 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 (delivery by motor vehicles (including autonomous vehicles)) (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
MPEP 2106 Step 2B:
With respect to claims 2 and 15, 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 location evaluation computer, a central server, and a mobile phone 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 2 and 15 are also ineligible.
With respect to claims 13 and 19, 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 elements of an autonomous car and automobiles, 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 13 and 19are also ineligible.
Allowable Over the Prior Art
Available prior art, alone or in combination, fails to teach all of the claim limitations in the independent claims. However, Examiner notes that the claims are subject to the rejection under 35 USC § 101.
The following limitations are not taught by prior art:
responsive to receiving the first fulfillment request from the end user device, obtaining, by the computer, historical data of transporters that previously delivered items to the destination address
determining, by the computer, that there is not enough historical data of transporters that previously delivered items to the destination address in the obtained historical data; in response to determining, by the computer that there is not enough historical data of transporters that previously delivered items to the destination address in the obtained historical data, obtaining historical data of transporters that previously delivered items to addresses proximate to the destination address
determining, by the computer, a first motion type for the first temporary transporter location by analyzing, using a machine learning model, the accelerometer data in the historical data of the transporters that previously delivered items to the destination address and addresses proximate to the destination address to distinguish between a least a first motion pattern and a second motion pattern, and classify the first motion type based on the analysis
The closest prior art is as follows:
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0044198 to Meister (Meister). Meister teaches, determining temporary transporter locations using machine learning and clustering. However, Meister does not teach determining and tagging the motion type, or using data of transporters that previously delivered to the destination address or an address proximate the destination address.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0156680 to Tripathy et al. (Tripathy). Tripathy teaches obtaining historical data of transporters that have previously delivered items to the destination address and locations proximate the destination address. However, Tripathy does not teach, determining that there is not enough historical data or determining and tagging the motion type.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0077276 to Mitchell et al. (Mitchell). Mitchell teaches, determining and tagging the motion type. However, Mitchell does not teach, analyzing accelerometer data or historical data of transporters that have previously delivered to the destination address or an address proximate the destination address.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2006/0224398 to Lakshman et al. (Lakshman). Lakshman teaches, determining that there is not enough historical data for a destination address and, in response, using data points from an address that is adjacent to or near given destination. However, Lakshman does not teach, determining and tagging the motion type.
NPL “Evaluation of machine learning methodologies to predict stop delivery times from GPS data” to Hughes et al. (Hughes). Hughes teaches, machine learning techniques to predict delivery stop delivery times, including regression-based machine learning approaches and a basic K-nearest-neighbor model, and determining a stop location.
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