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
This action is in response to the reply filed November 07, 2025.
Claims 1 and 11 have been amended.
Claims 10 and 20 have been cancelled.
Claims 21-22 have been newly submitted.
Claims 1-9, 11-19, and 21-22 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
The previous rejection under 35 USC 103 has been withdrawn in response to Applicant’s arguments. Specifically, the arguments filed November 07, 2025 on p. 7-8 regarding the difference between the predictive alternate route scoring of Kumar and the claimed generation of a second route based on historical analysis (i.e. route evaluation score) of a route compared to a baseline. Therefore, Examiner agrees the combination of Khasis and Kumar does not teach “calculating, in the one or more processors, based on comparing the identified standard for each of the plurality of sequences with the portion of the delivery route data, a route evaluation score of the first delivery route, the route evaluation score comprising a difference between the portion of the delivery route data and the identified standard for each of the plurality of identified sequences.” In addition to Khasis and Kumar, Skaaksrud et al. (U.S. P.G. Pub. 2017/0013547 A1) is made of record and shows in [0628] that checkpoints within a route are assessed to determine whether to reassign checkpoints as a new baseline for the checkpoint but the checkpoints are not a route and the assessment occurs during the route not after the route using breadcrumb data.
Applicant’s remaining arguments filed November 07, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the previous rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant submitted the following remarks:
Further, the amended claims are drawn to improvements to the technology and technical field of delivery logistics. Claim 1 has been amended to recite "breadcrumb data" and using the "breadcrumb data" to improve routing and other features in the technical field of item logistics and delivery. New Claims 21-22 also recite a practical application of the alleged abstract idea by transmitting the updated second delivery route and "causing a vehicle to navigate to one or more locations along the generated second delivery route."
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Breadcrumb data is only a particular type of data. Recitation of particular types of data and what do with that data has been found to be routine when, as here, the manipulation of this data amounts to basic logical determinations. See Return Mail, Inc. v. USPS, 868 F.3d 1350, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2017). See MPEP 2106.05(g). The radio link is recited at a high level of generality and is used merely for sending and receiving route information which is a generic computer function. The causing a vehicle to navigate by a vehicle navigation component is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to implement the identified abstract idea. Examiner notes this navigation, as explained in specification [0122], is distinct from the autonomous vehicle control discussed in specification [0123].
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 1-9, 11-19, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Alice/Mayo Framework Step 1:
Claims 1-9 and 21 recite a series of steps and therefore recite a process.
Claims 11-19 and 22 recite a combination of devices and therefore recite a machine.
Alice/Mayo Framework Step 2A – Prong 1:
Claims 1 and 11, as a whole, are directed to the abstract idea of generating a delivery routing based on a comparison of route data to identified standards for route activities, which is a method of organizing human activity and mental process. The claims recite a method of organizing human activity because the identified idea is a fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk) by reciting using identified route standards to generate a routing. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A). The claims recite a method of organizing human activity because the identified idea is managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) by reciting rules or instructions for identifying which activities are require generating a new delivery route. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C). The claims recite a mental processes because the identified idea contains limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) by reciting observing how route data compares to an identified standard and generating a new route based on the comparison. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The method of organizing human activity and mental process of “generating a delivery routing based on a comparison of route data to identified standards for route activities,” is recited by claiming the following limitations: receiving delivery route data, identifying activities, identifying sequences, identifying a standard for each sequence, comparing standards to route data, calculating a route evaluation score, and generating a route. The mere nominal recitation of a carrier device and a processor does not take the claim of the method of organizing human activity or mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
With regards to Claims 9, 19, and 21-22, the claims further recite the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea) by reciting the following limitations: identifying frequent activities, identifying locations associated with frequent activities, ordering the route based on activity locations, and navigating a second delivery route.
Alice/Mayo Framework Step 2A – Prong 2:
Claims 1 and 11 recite the additional elements: a carrier device and a processor. These carrier device and processor limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Taken individually 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.
Considering the limitations containing the judicial exception as well as the additional elements in the claim besides the judicial exception does not amount to a practical application of the abstract idea. The claim as a whole does not improve the functioning of a computer or improve other technology or improve a technical field. The claim as a whole is not implemented with a particular machine. The claim as a whole does not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state. The claim as a whole is not applied in any meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of identifying unexpected slowdowns in a delivery route 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 route refinement process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Alice/Mayo Framework Step 2B:
Claims 1 and 11 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims recite a generic computer performing generic computer function by reciting a carrier device and a processor. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1341 (describing a “processor” as a generic computer component); Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324–25 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims reciting an “interface,” “network,” and a “database” are nevertheless directed to an abstract idea); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347–48 (discussing the same with respect to “data” and “memory”). The claims recite generic computer functions by reciting receiving and transmitting information (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec; TLI Communications LLC; OIP Techs.; buySAFE, Inc.) and processing information (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) performing repetitive calculations, Flook; Bancorp Services). The specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the following additional elements because they are described in a manner that indicates the elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a): a carrier device (Specification [0040], [0067], [0139]) and a processor (Specification [0216]). See MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2). The claims add the words “apply it” or words equivalent to “apply the abstract idea” such as instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer by reciting a carrier device and a processor. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims recite insignificant extrasolution activity (i.e. mere data gathering, selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, or an insignificant application) by gathering gyroscope, accelerometer, and a location data. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The claims limit the field of use by reciting carrier deliveries. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. See MPEP 2106.05(a). Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. See MPEP 2106.05(b). Therefore, the claims do not include additional elements alone, and in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
With regards to Claims 8, 17, and 21-22, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Regarding claims 8, 17, and 21-22, the specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the following additional elements because they are described in a manner that indicates the elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a): a gyroscope (Specification [0139], [0154]), an accelerometer (Specification [0139], [0154]), a location detection circuit (Specification [0040], [0067]), a radio link (Specification [0120]), and a vehicle navigation component (Specification [0122]). See MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2). Claims 8, 17, and 21-22 add the words “apply it” or words equivalent to “apply the abstract idea” such as instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer by reciting a gyroscope, an accelerometer, a location detection circuit, a radio link, and a vehicle navigation component. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Claims 8, 17, and 21-22 recite insignificant extrasolution activity (i.e. mere data gathering, selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, or an insignificant application) by reciting gathering gyroscope, accelerometer, a location data, receiving route updates, and causing a vehicle to navigate. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. See MPEP 2106.05(a). Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. See MPEP 2106.05(b). Therefore, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Remaining Claims:
With regards to Claims 2-7, 12-16, and 18, these claims merely add a degree of particularity to the limitations discussed above rather than adding additional elements capable of transforming the nature of the claimed subject matter. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, the claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Skaaksrud et al. (U.S. P.G. Pub. 2017/0013547 A1).
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 SCOTT M TUNGATE whose telephone number is (571)431-0763. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 - 4:30 EST.
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.
/SCOTT M TUNGATE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628