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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 May 6, 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 were previously pending and subject to a final rejection dated November 6, 2025. In RCE, submitted May 6, 2026, claims 1-20 were cancelled and claims 51-70 were added. Therefore, claims 51-70 are currently pending and subject to the following non-final rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks on Page 10 of the Response regarding the previous interpretation of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), have been fully considered and are found to be persuasive in view of the amended claims.
Applicant’s remarks on Pages 10-11 of the Response, regarding the previous rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101, have been fully considered but are not found persuasive.
On Pages 10-11 of the Response, Applicant argues “New claims 51-70 are patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because they are directed to a specific technological improvement in the functioning of a navigation system … the present claims address a specific technical problem in navigation technology: the inability of conventional GPS systems to route to dynamic, moving targets because they rely on static destination inputs. See Specification at [0002]-[0006] (‘[conventional delivery processes] require[] a designated stationary and fixed location...’). Claim 51 recites the specific technological solution: "calculating... a target geographic range... by correlating the delivery time frame with navigational data associated with the vehicle..." This is not a generic business practice or ‘organizing human activity.’ It is a specific computational process that transforms a temporal constraint (time frame) into a spatial constraint (geographic range) using the vehicle's unique real-time telemetry. This improves the navigation computer's ability to process dynamic routing queries, much like the self-referential table in Enfish improved the database's ability to store data.”
Examiner notes, the technology of the GPS systems is not improved via these claims, rather the alleged improvement is to the abstract data processing processes associated with the potential problems associated with “rout[ing] to dynamic, moving targets”. The claimed invention does not accomplish this through any improvement to the way that GPS technology operates or provides data, but rather by modifying the abstract data inputs through the abstract process of “calculating... a target geographic range... by correlating the delivery time frame with navigational data associated with the vehicle”. As noted in MPEP 2106.05(a)(II), an improvement to the abstract idea is not an improvement to technology. Further, the “transform[ing] a temporal constraint (time frame) into a spatial constraint (geographic range) using the vehicle's unique real-time telemetry” in so far as it is claimed, merely describes the abstract data processing performed within the claimed invention and is therefore unhelpful in bringing the claims to eligibility. Specifically, “the vehicle’s unique real-time telemetry” is claimed as simply “navigational data associated with the vehicle”. That is, this allegedly unique telemetry amounts to mere abstract data that is processed by the invention, and is thus unhelpful in bringing the claims to eligibility. This stands in stark contrast to Enfish which provides a specific improvement to how computer databases operate on a technical level.
On Page 11 of the Response, Applicant argues “Even if the claims were viewed as reciting a mathematical concept (e.g., calculating a range), Desjardins confirms they are eligible if the claim "reflects the disclosed improvement." The Appeals Review Panel emphasized that examiners must look at the claim "as a whole" and not dismiss elements as "generic computer components" if those elements contribute to the technical solution. The claim integrates the range calculation into a practical navigation application by:
Limiting the Database Search: The claim requires determining vendors ‘based on...the calculated target geographic range.’ This is a technical improvement that streamlines data access, similar to the ‘reduced storage’ and ‘reduced complexity’ improvements credited in Desjardins.
Optimizing for Physical Travel: The claim requires optimization based on ‘minimizing a detour distance,’ anchoring the calculation to the physical movement of the vehicle.
Active Interface Reconfiguration: The claim requires ‘automatically updating the display... to include the calculated detour path.’ This is a specific improvement to the user interface, not merely displaying information.
Therefore, the claims are directed to a specific technological improvement in navigation systems and are patent-eligible.”
Examiner notes, in contrast to Desjardins, which discloses a technical improvement to machine learning technology through processes which eliminate the technical issue of catastrophic forgetting, the instant claims reflect no such technical improvement. The “limiting the database search” amounts to abstract filtering of data points prior to performing a search of the filtered data. This does not change or improve the way that databases operate, and does not represent an improvement to the technology of databases. Instead, this describes abstract processes performed by the invention in situations where a generic database is employed. The “optimizing physical travel” optimizes abstract data associated with a vehicle, but the physical movement of the vehicle, though represented by the abstract data, is in no way positively recited or affected by the claimed invention. The “active interface reconfiguration” representing a “specific improvement to the user interface” is presented only a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), thus the Examiner cannot determine the claims improve the technology (See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1)). The interface appears to be more closely related to ineligible interface discussed in Trading Tech, where the courts ruled that simply allegedly improving the display of information to a user using an interface did not constitute an improvement to the interface technology (See MPEP 2106.05(a)(II)).
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 51-70 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 51 and 61 recite “access(ing) a database of candidate vendors and candidate delivery locations to determine, based on the order and the calculated target geographic range, a plurality of candidate vendors and a plurality of candidate delivery locations;”
Examiner initially notes that while there is no haec verba requirement, newly added claim limitations must be supported in the specification through express, implicitly, or inherent disclosure (MPEP 2183). Further, when an explicit limitation in a claim "is not present in the written description whose benefit is sought it must be shown that a person of ordinary skilled would have understood, at the time the patent application was filed, that the description requires the limitation," Hyatt v. Boone, 146 F.3d 1348,1353, 47 USPQ2d 1128, 1131 (Fed. Cir. 1998), MPEP 2163.
Examiner notes that Paragraph [0020] of Applicant’s Specification states that “the delivery application server 120 may identify a plurality of candidate vendors that might fulfill the order. The delivery application server 120 may also identify a plurality of candidate delivery locations that might be used to deliver the order to the vehicle 110 at some point along or nearby the navigational route 112. The delivery application server 120 selects a target vendor 130 and a target delivery location 132 using one or more algorithms, cost functions, or other optimization techniques (discussed in further detail below).”, Paragraph [0076] states “Memory may be an electronic storage device provided as storage 614 that is part of control circuitry 612. As referred to herein, the phrase ‘electronic storage device’ or ‘storage device’ should be understood to mean any device for storing electronic data, computer software, or firmware, such as random-access memory, read-only memory, hard drives, optical drives, digital video disc (DVD) recorders, compact disc (CD) recorders, BLU-RAY disc (BD) recorders, BLU-RAY 3D disc recorders, digital video recorders (DVR, sometimes called a personal video recorder, or PVR), solid state devices, quantum storage devices, gaming consoles, gaming media, or any other suitable fixed or removable storage devices, and/or any combination of the same. Storage 614 may be used to store various types of content described herein as well as content data and application data that are described above.”
That is, no description of “accessing a database of candidate vendors and candidate delivery locations” is provided in the specification. The specification only disclose generally that the server/system “identifies” candidate vendors and delivery locations and that the server/system employs a memory as part of the control circuitry, but provides no detail or description of a database of candidate vendors and candidate delivery locations.
Claims 52-60 and 62-70 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 51-70 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 51-60 are directed to a method (i.e., a process); claims 61-70 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claims 51-70 all fall within the one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One
Independent claims 51 and 61 substantially recite causing display of a first navigational route;
receiving a request for delivery of an order to the vehicle, the request comprising a delivery time frame;
calculating a target geographic range along the first navigational route where the vehicle is predicted to be located during the delivery time frame by correlating the delivery time frame with navigational data associated with the vehicle;
accessing of candidate vendors and candidate delivery locations to determine, based on the order and the calculated target geographic range, a plurality of candidate vendors and a plurality of candidate delivery locations;
selecting 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 minimizing a detour distance from the first navigational route;
transmitting the target delivery location and the target vendor to the vehicle;
receiving a confirmation;
based at least in part on receiving the confirmation, transmitting an instruction to the target vendor to fulfill the order; [and (in claim 61)]
calculating a detour path from the first navigational route to the target delivery location; and
automatically updating the display of the first navigational route to include the calculated detour path.
The limitations stated above are processes/functions that under broadest reasonable interpretation covers “certain methods of organizing human activity” (commercial interactions) of enabling delivery of an order to a vehicle, and “mathematical concepts” (mathematical calculations) of calculating expected location ranges based on time inputs. 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 processor (claim 51), (ii) a user interface of a vehicle, (claims 51, 61), (iii) input/output circuitry (claim 61), (iv) control circuitry (claim 61), and (v) a database (claims 51, 61).
The additional elements of (i) a processor, (ii) a user interface of a vehicle, (iii) input/output circuitry, (iv) control circuitry, and (v) a database are recited at a high level of generality (see [0074] of the Applicant’s Specification discussing the processor and the control circuitry, [0079] discussing the user interface of a vehicle, [0073] discussing the input/output circuitry, and [0076] discussing the database) 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, 6, and 7 showing all the additional elements (i) a processor, (ii) a user interface of a vehicle, (iii) input/output circuitry, (iv) control circuitry, and (v) a database 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 52, 53, 55-57, 59, 60, 62-64, 66, 67, 69 and 70 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, 52, 53, 55-57, 59, 60, 62-64, 66, 67, 69 and 70 are also ineligible.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Dependent Claims 54, 58, 65, and 68 further narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations. These claims also recite the additional element the vehicle, which is recited at a high-level of generality (See [0018] of the Applicant’s Specification disclosing the vehicle) 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, the additional elements, when viewed individually and as a whole/ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are 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.
Therefore, the additional element of the vehicle 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 claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, claims 54, 58, 65, and 68 are ineligible.
Novel and Non-Obvious Over the Prior Art
Claims 51-70 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.
The next closest prior art is U.S. Patent Application No. 2022/0083966 to Sugimura et al (hereafter Sugimura). Sugimura discloses determining vendors and delivery points in association with a driver’s route.
The next closest prior art is U.S. Patent Application No. 2018/0012154 to Melton et al (hereafter Melton). Melton discloses accessing a database to gather information on potential vendor and delivery site locations.
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. Specifically, Bader in view of Koh and further in view of Cupps and even further in view of Li and even further in view of Jha and even further in view of Sugimura and even further in view of Melton fail to explicitly disclose “based at least in part on receiving the confirmation, transmitting an instruction to the target vendor to fulfill the order; calculating a detour path … and automatically updating the display of the first navigational route on the user interface to include the calculated detour path. Therefore, the claims are rendered novel and non-obvious over the prior art.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights