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
Due to communications filed 7/31/25, the following is a final office action. Claims 1, 20 and
21 are amended. Claims 1- 21 are pending in this application and are rejected as follows. The previous
Office Action has been modified to reflect claim amendments.
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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C, 101 because the claimed invention is directed to the
judicial exception (I.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) of facilitating autonomous delivery using user interfaces and network communications, through receiving, displaying, and transmitting, without significantly more.
With regard to the present claims 1-20, these claim recites a series of steps and, therefore, is a
process, and ultimately, is statutory. In addition, the claim recites a judicial exception. The claims as a
whole recite a method of "Mental Processes". The claimed invention isa method that allows for access,
analysis, update and communication of electronic delivery records, which are concepts performed in the
human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). The mere nominal recitation of a
generic computer/computer network does not take the claim out of the Mental Processes" grouping.
Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea. Furthermore, the claims are not integrated into a practical
application.
The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally "apply" the concept of accessing,
analyzing, updating and communicating shipment information in a computer environment. The claimed
computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to
perform an existing shipment records update process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a
generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Finally, the claims do not recite an
inventive concept.
As noted previously, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally "apply" the concept
of accessing, analyzing, updating and communicating information related to delivery records in a
computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significant
more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/24/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the 101 rejection, Applicant submits that amended claim 1 is directed to eligible subject matter since amended claim 1 now includes improvements to a technology or technical field, and specifically “wherein the delivery SDK within a second third-party application running on the user device previously transmitted the at least one previous delivery location to the UAV delivery server”. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim limitation is collecting delivery locations, transmitting the to a server, and retrieving/displaying them later, which is merely data collection, storage and reuse – an abstract idea. (See Customedia -uses data to tailor later interactions.). In addition, nothing about this step changes how a computer, network or UAV operates. Furthermore, maintaining previously transmitted delivery locations is a routine data persistence function performed by conventional computing systems. With regard to the SDK, it merely sends data, receives data and displays data, which is basic SDK behavior. Overall, the claim limitation is merely an additional abstract idea transmission step that supports the abstract idea and does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
With regard to Applicant stating that the first third party application enables the first third-party application to access “previous delivery locations” and “leveraging route information or map data generated for an area”, this still does not overcome the 101 rejection since even though access is given to the app to prior locations and map data, it still does not change how the app processes, stores and uses data technically. Furthermore, the claim does not recite a technical mechanism by which the sharing of information across applications improves the functioning of the application or the UAV delivery system. Ultimately, providing additional data to an application improves user experience, not the underlying technology or workflow (See Customedia).
Applicant further argues that the 35 101 rejection of claim 1is inappropriate because the office’s withdrawal of the 35 USC 103 rejection is based upon the same claim feature that forms the basis for the technical improvement. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Although the cited feature was not taught or suggested by the prior art, it still constitutes an abstract idea implemented using generic technology.
Applicant further argues that the 35 USC 101 rejection is improper since the limitations cannot be performed in the human mind (autonomously delivering by the UAV). However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Although the claim does disclose UAV, the claim as a whole is directed to an abstract idea of coordinating delivery using generic user interfaces and network communications. The UAV is merely used to implement the abstract idea.
Applicant also argues that claim 1 is integrated into a practical application, and overcomes the 101 rejection since it is similar to Example 46. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Unlike Example 46, the present claim does not recite a specific automatic control of a physical process. The UAV is merl instructed to perform delivery after abstract coordination steps, and doesn’t operate in a closed-loop control system. based on sensed conditions or technical parameters.
Applicant argues that the Office ahs not established a Prima Facie Case of Unpatentability under 101, and the Office Action should point to specific claim limitations that recites the judicial exception. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The abstract idea has been identified as facilitating autonomous delivery using user interfaces and network communications, as recited by the receiving, displaying, and transmitting the limitations stated in the claim.
For similar reasons, independent claims 20 and 21 are still rejected under 35 USC 101.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Akiba Robinson whose telephone number is 571-272-6734 and email is Akiba.Robinsonboyce@USPTO.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 6:30am-4:30pm.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor, Nathan Uber can be reached on 571-270-3923. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is (703) 305-3900.
February 9, 2026
/AKIBA K ROBINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628