DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 were previously pending and subject to a non-final rejection dated July 10, 2025. In Response, submitted October 10, 2025, claims 1 and 11 were amended. Therefore, claims 1-20 are currently pending and subject to the following final rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks on Pages 11-13 of the Response, regarding the previous rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101, have been fully considered and are not found persuasive.
On Pages 11-13 of the Response, Applicant argues “Claims 1-20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. This rejection is respectfully traversed. Applicant respectfully submits that claims 1 and 11 are directed to statutory subject matter because they amount to significantly more than abstract idea. … Applicant's claim also fits with the rationale of Example 23 because, when viewing the computer limitations (e.g., the user interface and the processor) as an ordered combination with the remaining limitations, the claim demonstrates an improvement to the device's ability to display navigation instructions and interact with the user (i.e., significantly more than the abstract idea). The claim recites additional elements that, when considered as an ordered combination, demonstrate an improvement to a user interface for displaying navigation instructions to a user. In particular, the claim describes an ordered combination of steps that automatically modify the displayed navigation instructions without requiring the user to manually input a new destination. The claim further recites the limitations of: (a) causing display of navigation instructions on a user interface of a first device; (b) detecting a request for delivery of an order to the vehicle; (c) accessing delivery information corresponding to a delivery driver; (d) determining a plurality of candidate vendors and candidate delivery locations; (e) assigning a target vendor to the order based on optimization of input criteria; (f) transmitting the order to the target vendor; (g) transmitting the target delivery location and target vendor to the first device; (h) automatically adjusting at least a portion of the navigation instructions; and (i) automatically updating display of the navigation instructions on the user interface of the first device. These limitations are not merely attempting to limit the optimization to a particular technological environment. Instead, these claim limitations recite a specific application of the optimization algorithm that improves the display function of a device that displays driving directions on a user interface. Conventional systems require a user that places a delivery order to a particular destination to provide manual input that modifies the navigation instructions to include the destination via a user interface. The claim limitations remove this requirement, since the only user input required is the initial request for delivery of an order to the vehicle. Automatically modifying the navigation instructions to include an automatically determined delivery location without additional manual inputs constitutes a technical improvement because it allows the device to provide improved functionality with fewer manual inputs. This constitutes an improvement to the user interface of the device that goes beyond simply making processes faster or more efficient. Accordingly, taking all the claim elements both individually and as an ordered combination, claims 1 and 11, as amended, amount to significantly more than abstract idea because they are integrated into practical application. For at least these reasons, Applicant respectfully submits that each of independent claims 1 and 11 is patentable. Applicant further respectfully submits that dependent claims 2-10 and 12- 20 are patentable by virtue of their respective direct and ultimate dependencies from allowable independent claim 1 and 11.”
Examiner notes, the eligible claim 4 of example 23 sets out, in the background section, a specific technical problem of GUIs and provides a specific technical solution, which is subsequently reflected in eligible claim 4. To the contrary the argument sets forth an improvement in “display[ing] display navigation instructions and interact[ing] with the user” which is an abstract idea. The instant claims serve to allegedly improve the abstract processes through which data is gathered, processed, and displayed but does not improve the technologies (such as, the user interface) themselves that are used to perform these abstract ideas.
Examiner further notes, as will be discussed further in the detailed rejection below, “automatically modify[ing] the displayed navigation instructions without requiring the user to manually input a new destination”, “(a) causing display of navigation instructions …; (b) detecting a request for delivery of an order to the vehicle; (c) accessing delivery information corresponding to a delivery driver; (d) determining a plurality of candidate vendors and candidate delivery locations; (e) assigning a target vendor to the order based on optimization of input criteria; (f) transmitting the order to the target vendor; (g) transmitting the target delivery location and target vendor to the first device; (h) automatically adjusting at least a portion of the navigation instructions; and (i) automatically updating display of the navigation instructions” are recitations of the abstract idea, and are therefore unhelpful in bringing the claims to eligibility. The additional elements used to perform these abstract ideas (i.e., a user interface and a first device) are recited at such high levels of generality that they merely amount to tools used to perform the recited abstract idea (i.e., “apply it”), and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more whether they are considered individually or as a whole/ordered combination. Further still, no “optimization algorithm” is positively recited within the claims, however “display[ing] driving directions” is an abstract idea, and improvements to the abstract idea, such as displaying driving directions is not an improvement to the technology. See MPEP 2106.05(A)(II).
Examiner additionally notes, “Conventional systems require[ing] a user that places a delivery order to a particular destination to provide manual input that modifies the navigation instructions to include the destination via a user interface” is not supported within the specification, and therefore this problem is presented in only a conclusory manner. However, it is also noted that “require[ing] a user that places a delivery order to a particular destination to provide manual input that modifies the navigation instructions to include the destination” is an abstract idea, and alleged improvements to this abstract idea, such as “remov[ing] this requirement, [so that] the only user input required is the initial request for delivery of an order to the vehicle” and “[a]utomatically modifying the navigation instructions to include an automatically determined delivery location without additional manual inputs” are improvements to the abstract idea, and therefore not improvements to the technology. That is, while “fewer manual inputs” may be required in the instant invention, this advantage is gained, not through improvement to the technologies being utilized, but through improvements to the abstract ideas of gathering, processing, and displaying data. Therefore, after full and proper analysis, the claims remain ineligible over 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 11 recites "the processor" in limitation 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes this limitation will be interpreted as "a processor". Claims 12-20 are rejected by virtue of dependency.
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.
Step 1
Claims 1-10 are directed to a method (i.e., a process); claims 11-20 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claims 1-20 all fall within the one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One
Independent claims 1 and 11 substantially recite causing display of navigation instructions, wherein the navigation instructions correspond to a first navigational route that a vehicle is travelling along on;
detecting a request for delivery of an order to the vehicle within a delivery time frame, wherein the request is detected while the navigation instructions corresponding to the first navigational route are displayed;
accessing delivery information corresponding to a delivery driver, wherein the delivery information comprises at least a current location of the delivery driver and a second navigational route that the delivery driver is traveling along;
determining, based on the order and the first navigational route, a plurality of candidate vendors and a plurality of candidate delivery locations;
assigning to the order a target vendor from the plurality of candidate vendors and a target delivery location from the plurality of candidate delivery locations based on optimizing one or more predetermined input criteria, wherein the one or more predetermined input criteria comprises at least a required travel distance for the delivery driver to fulfill the order;
transmitting the order to the target vendor;
based on receiving confirmation from the target vendor that the target vendor can fulfill the order within the delivery time frame:
transmitting the target delivery location and the target vendor;
automatically adjusting at least a portion of the navigation instructions corresponding to the first navigational route to include the target delivery location; and
automatically updating display of the navigation instructions corresponding to the first navigational route to include the adjusted portion of the navigation instructions corresponding to the first navigational route.
The limitations stated above are processes/functions that under broadest reasonable interpretation covers “certain methods of organizing human activity” (commercial or legal interactions) of enabling delivery of an order to a vehicle. Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1 and 11 as a whole amount to: (i) merely invoking generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (or an equivalent). The claim recites the additional elements of: (i) a first device in a vehicle (claims 1, 11), (ii) a user interface, (claims 1, 11), (iii) input/output circuitry (claim 11), (iv) control circuitry (claim 11), and (v) a processor (claim 1, 11).
The additional elements of (i) a first device in a vehicle, (ii) a user interface, (iii) input/output circuitry, (iv) control circuitry, and (v) a processor are recited at a high level of generality (see [0018] of the Applicants Specification discussing the first device in a vehicle travelling along a first navigational route, [0079] discussing the user interface, [0073] discussing the input/output circuitry, and [0074] discussing the control circuitry and the processor) such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination [See Figures 1 and 6 showing all the additional (i) a first device in a vehicle, (ii) a user interface, (iii) input/output circuitry, (iv) control circuitry, and (v) a processor in combination], do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements amount to no more than: (i) “apply it” (or an equivalent), and are not a practical application of the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., (i) merely invoking the generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)), 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/ordered combination, nothing in the claims adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1 and 11 are ineligible.
Dependent Claims 2-10, and 12-20 merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations. For reasons described above with respect to claims 1 and 11 these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, claims 2-10, and 12-20 are also ineligible.
Novel and Non-Obvious Over the Prior Art
Claims 1-20 are novel and non-obvious over the prior art; however, these claims are subject to the above rejections.
The closest prior art is U.S. Patent Application No. 2021/0049551 to Bader et al (hereafter Bader). Bader discloses creation of navigational routes for customers and delivery drivers, and creation and assignment of orders.
The next closest prior art is U.S. Patent Application No. 2020/0208997 to Koh et al (hereafter Koh). Koh discloses determination of waypoints and transmitting them to users of the system, as well as adjusting routes to accommodate the waypoints.
The next closest prior art is U.S. Patent No. 5,991,739 to Cupps et al (hereafter Cupps). Cupps discloses determining candidate vendors and delivery locations based on the order and routes.
The next closest prior art is U.S. Patent No. 11,615,370 to Li et al (hereafter Li). Li discloses accessing delivery driver current location and routing information and optimizing assignments factoring in required travel distance.
The next closest prior art is U.S. Patent Application No. 2019/0333130 to Jha et al (hereafter Jha). Jha discloses automatically adjusting a deliverer’s route in response to a customer confirmation, but does not explicitly disclose adjusting the customer’s route to include a waypoint (delivery location) in response to a vendor’s confirmation.
While the closest prior art above teaches the various aspects of the claimed invention individually, the combination of these references are not obvious in such a way that they would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention. Additionally, these references fail to explicitly disclose the automatic inclusion of the adjusted portion of the navigation portion to the first navigational route based on confirmation of fulfillment ability from the target vendor. Therefore, the claims are rendered novel and non-obvious over the prior art.
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 DAVID G GODBOLD whose telephone number is (571)272-5036. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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 S 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.
/DAVID G. GODBOLD/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/SHANNON S CAMPBELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628