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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/01/2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 6, and 10 are amended. Claims 2, 3, 7, 8, 11, and 12. Claims 1, 4-6, 9, 10, 13, and 14.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/01/2026 regarding 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims are integrated into a practical application, specifically the amended claim limitations of claim 1 which recite: “…wherein a device of the delivery agent sends a message to the at least one processor that the device of the delivery agent has passed by a device other than the customer device; wherein the at least one processor sends and advertising message to the device other than the customer device”. Examiner disagrees. The amended claim limitations are further directed to the abstract idea grouping certain methods of organizing human activity. The claims are drawn towards a delivery system used to track the delivery of goods from a merchant to a customer by a delivery agent (using wireless beacons), and recite limitations that correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal interactions, relationships, or behavior; commercial interactions; business relations). The amended limitation that the delivery agent device sends a message to the processor that the device has passed by another device other than the customer corresponds to managing personal interactions, behavior, or relationships. Further, sending an advertising message to the device other than the customer device amounts to commercial interactions. MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II) makes it clear that the certain methods of organizing human activity sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. The use of the various participants devices (the delivery agent, customer, merchant, device of someone or some entity other than the customer) does not take the claims out of the certain methods of organizing human activity sub-grouping. Additionally, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application simply because the claims recite the additional elements of: at least one processor, a customer device, a merchant device, a device of a delivery agent, a device other than the customer device, wireless beacons, a first and second signal of the wireless beacon, and non-transitory storage medium (claim 10). The additional elements of the processor, customer device, wireless beacons (and the signals of the beacons being transmitted/received), non-transitory storage medium, and merchant device are computer components recited at a high-level of generality performing the above-mentioned limitations. The combination of the additional elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. Further, the additional elements of the wireless beacons and first and second signals amount to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use (the delivery of goods to customers). Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Applicant argues that “the claimed invention provides a management system to detect potential customers along the delivery agent's route and send advertising to them. This may allow the delivery agent to be more efficient by making more deliveries on this one route in the future”. Applicant’s argument provides further proof that the invention at best is drawn towards a judicial exception (certain methods of organizing human activity), and that any alleged improvement is an improvement in the judicial exception itself and not an improvement in computers or technology. It is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the judicial exception itself (e.g., a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology (emphasis added). For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG LLC, the court determined that the claim simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology. Similarly, the Applicant’s claim recitations are an improvement in the judicial exception, not an improvement in technology. For instance, improving “efficiency for the delivery agent and increase sales for the merchants associated with the management system” as applicant argues is at beast an improvement in commercial interactions (advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations).
Applicant further argues that their claims are similar to McRO, Inc. dba Planet Blue v. Bandai Namco Games American Inc., 120 USPQ2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("McRO"). Examiner disagrees. Applicant’s claims are in no way analogous to McRO. . McRO is directed to an improvement “providing an integrated method embodied in computer software…for the rapid, efficient lip synchronization and manipulation of character facial expressions[.]” The invention utilizes “a plurality of morph weight set transition rules” for “determining when to set keyframes[,] and setting those keyframes…taking into consideration the differences in mouth positions for similar phonemes based on context.” For example, where an animator previously would have had to subjectively identify a problem with an animated face saying “hello” after silence, and insert a keyframe for the appropriate time in which the model would start to open its mouth, the invention uses rules to automatically set that appropriate keyframe." The McRO specifications describe that in the relevant art, applying the appropriate data points for basic sound phonemes, e.g. ‘aah,’ ‘ee,’ or ‘oo,’ was usually done using a “keyframe” approach. McRO, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 16703 at *7. In a keyframe approach, an animator sets the morph weights at certain important times, between which a computer program “interpolates” (filling in the data points between those morph weights). Id. at *8. The patents state that this method requires the animator to manually set a tediously high number of keyframes, which is time consuming, and can be inaccurate. Id. Applicant’s claims are in no way analogous to McRO. The basis for the court’s decision was not that the claims provide "a particular way to achieve a desired outcome," instead the basis for the court’s decision was that the claims improved a computer-related technology by enabling the computer to perform functions that previously could not be performed by a computer and that required the subjective judgement of a human. The court emphasized both the specific claiming of the rules and the specification’s explanation of how the claimed rules enabled the automation of these specific animation tasks that previously could not be automated. This enabling of functionality that could not previously be performed by a computer was what amounted to the improvement in computer-related technology, not the simple recitation of a set of particular rules. As such, the claims at hand are not analogous to a computer-related technology that enables new functions that a computer could not have previously performed. Therefore, the Applicant’s claims are still patent ineligible for reasons set forth above.
Under Step 2B, applicant states that the Office Action cites no art against the existing claims to show that their features are "well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field." If they are, then the Applicant requests that art from the field be shown that teaches this method. Being that there was no well-understood, routine, and conventional classification nor analysis for the additional elements under step 2B, that request is denied. It appears that applicant is unfamiliar with the requirements of the analysis under Step 2B. At Step 2B, there is no requirement for evidence to support a finding that the exception is not integrated into a practical application or that the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the exception unless the Examiner asserts that additional limitations are well-understood, routine, conventional activities in Step 2B.
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 4-6, 9, 10, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 13, and 14 recite a method (i.e. process), claims 6 and 9 recite an apparatus (i.e. machine), and claim 10 recites a non-transitory storage medium (i.e. machine or article of manufacture). Therefore claims 1, 4-6, 9, 10, 13, and 14 fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Independent 1, 6, and 10 recite the limitations of receiving an order for goods and/or services from a [customer device] for delivery; transmitting the order to [a merchant device], [the merchant device] having a pool of [wireless beacons] for use with the delivery and from which one of[ the wireless beacons] is to be pulled by a delivery agent; receiving a first indication from [the merchant device] that [a first signal from a wireless beacon] of the delivery agent has been received; associating [the wireless beacon] of the delivery agent with the received order; receiving current location information from [the customer device]; transmitting the received current customer location information to the delivery agent; receiving a second indication from [the customer device] that [a second signal from the wireless beacon] of the delivery agent has been received, wherein receipt of the second signal from the wireless beacon of the delivery agent by the customer device indicates proximity of the wireless beacon of the delivery agent to the customer device; and in response to receiving the second indication from [the customer device] determining that the order has been delivered and returning [the wireless beacon] of the delivery agent back to the pool for a subsequent order from the merchant, thereby allowing the returned [wireless beacon] to be available for use by another delivery agent; wherein [a device of the delivery agent] sends a message to the at least one [processor] that the device of the delivery agent has passed by [a device other than the customer device]; wherein the at least one [processor] sends an advertising message to the [device other than the customer device]; wherein [the merchant device] stores a plurality of unique identifiers corresponding to a plurality of delivery agents in [a memory]; and wherein each unique identifier associated with [the wireless beacons] from the pool is stored in [the memory], each unique identifier corresponding to a different delivery agent, and the first and second indications include the unique identifier. The invention and claims are drawn towards a delivery system used to track the delivery of goods from a merchant to a customer by a delivery agent (using wireless beacons), and the claims recite limitations that correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal interactions, relationships, or behavior; commercial interactions; business relations), as evidenced by limitations detailing receiving a customer order and transmitting the order to a merchant, associating the [wireless beacons] of the delivery agent with the order, receiving and transmitting customer location, sending an advertising message to a [device other than the customer device], etc. The claims recite limitations that correspond to mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), as evidenced by limitations such as receiving a first indication from the [merchant device] that a [first signal] from a [wireless beacon] of the delivery agent has been received; associating the [wireless beacon] of the delivery agent with the received order; receiving a second indication from the [customer device] that a [second signal] from the [wireless beacon] of the delivery agent has been received; receiving and transmitting customer location information to the delivery agent; and in response to receiving the second indication from the [customer device], determining that the order has been delivered; (claims 1 and 6) the [merchant device] stores a plurality of unique identifiers corresponding to a plurality of delivery agents in [a memory], and (claim 10): associating one of unique identifiers stored in [a memory] with the received order. A judgment (that the order has been delivered, or that the order has been picked up and is in custody of the delivery agent) is determined by the observed or evaluated data (receiving the indication from the customer or delivery agent). The claims recite an abstract idea.
Note: The features or elements in brackets in the above section are inserted for reading clarity, but are analyzed as “additional elements” under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application simply because the claims recite the additional elements of: at least one processor, a customer device, a merchant device, a device of a delivery agent, a device other than the customer device, wireless beacons, a first and second signal of the wireless beacon, and non-transitory storage medium (claim 10). The additional elements of the processor, customer device, wireless beacons (and the signals of the beacons being transmitted/received), non-transitory storage medium, and merchant device are computer components recited at a high-level of generality performing the above-mentioned limitations. The combination of the additional elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. Further, the additional elements of the wireless beacons and first and second signals amount to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use (the delivery of goods to customers). Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 4, 5, 9, 13, and 14 recite additional limitations that are further directed to the abstract idea analyzed in the rejected claims above. The claims also recite additional elements that have been analyzed in the rejected claims above. Thus, claims 4, 5, 9, 13, and 14 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 4-6, 9, 10, 13, and 14 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
The closest U.S. patent/patent application reference found is the Gishen (2015/0081581) reference. The applicant’s invention is directed towards a method of tracking and enhancing delivery service with the use of wireless beacons as described by receiving by a processor an order for goods or services from a first (customer) device transmitting the order to the second (merchant) device. Gishen discloses a method for facilitating secure ordering and delivery of good or services including transmitting the order to the merchant device, associating the wireless indication of the delivery agent with the received order, and a second indication from the customer device that the order has been delivered. The applicant’s invention also discloses receiving an indication from the second (merchant) computing device that a signal from a third (delivery agent) computing device has been detected by the second (merchant) computing device. Gishen reference discloses this limitation as well. The reference lacks the limitation that each unique identifier associated with the wireless beacons from the pool is stored in memory, and each unique identifier corresponds to a different delivery agent.
The closest non-patent literature reference found is the article “Automatically tracking engineered components through shipping and receiving processes with passive identification technologies” (Grau, et. al., 2012). The reference discloses RFID technologies, both active and passive tags, used in a delivery and/or shipping environment to tack the flow of engineered components during shipment and receipt processes. The article does not explicitly disclose, however, the limitation that each unique identifier associated with the wireless beacons from the pool is stored in memory, and each unique identifier corresponds to a different delivery agent.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIONE N SIMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5513. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 7:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m..
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at 571-270-1833. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
DIONE N. SIMPSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3628
/DIONE N. SIMPSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights