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 .
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 1-8, 10, 12-18, 20-23 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.
In accordance with the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the examiner is to perform an analysis (Step 1, Step 2A (Prong One and Prong Two), and Step 2B) to evaluate whether the claims are drawn to patent-eligible subject matter.
Step 1 – Evaluate whether the claimed subject matter fails within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
In the instant case, each of the pending claims is directed to one of the statutory categories. Consequently, the analysis proceeds to the two-step framework previously set forth in Alice/Mayo.
Revised Step 2A: Prong One – Evaluate Whether the Claim Recites a Judicial Exception
To determine whether a claim recite an abstract idea, examiners are to (a) identify the specific limitations the claims under examination that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea and (b) determine whether the identified limitations falls within one of the following subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance:
(a) Mathematical concepts—mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
(b) Certain method of organizing human activity—fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal integration (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities of behaviors; business relationships); maintaining personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
(c) Mental processes—concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed (ineligible) subject matter:
1. (Currently Amended) A method comprising: receiving, by a velocity, and the geofence will trigger sending a second message to the service provider to begin preparing the item when the transporter crosses the geofence.
The claims recite a method of determining when a service provider is to begin preparing the item based on time factors. The claim limitations recite an abstract idea and are concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, and judgment. Accordingly, the claim requires further analysis under Prong Two.
Revised Step 2A: Prong Two – If the Claim Recites a Judicial Exception, Evaluate Whether the Claim Recites Additional Elements that Integrate the Exception into a Practical Application of that Exception.
A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. With respect to claims 1-8, 10, 12-18, 20-23, these claims include a server computer, transporter user device(s), an end user device, first and second machine learning models, and an autonomous vehicle. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and amount to applying the judicial exception by a general-purpose computer. Consequently, these claims fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and are directed toward the judicial exception.
Step 2B: If the Claim is directed to a Judicial Exception, Evaluate Whether the Claim Provides an Inventive Concept.
If a claim has been determined to be directed to a judicial exception under revised Step 2A, examiners should then evaluate the additional elements individually and in combination under Step 2B to determine whether the provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). Here, in regards to claims 1-8, 10, 12-18, 20-23, the additional elements of a server computer, transporter user device(s), an end user device, first and second machine learning models, and an autonomous vehicle fail to provide an inventive concept and when considered separately and in combination, the elements do not add significantly more. Rather, the additional elements receive and process data, which are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d) (e.g., use of a computer for electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2359, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log). Further, the examiner takes Official Notice that autonomous vehicles are well known in the art of inventory and delivery to move a good from one place to another at a particular time.
Moreover, “considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of [applicant’s] claims add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately.” Alice v. CLS Bank, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1985 (2014). Consequently, the Examiner concludes that the claims do not recite significantly more than the abstract idea, and consequently remain ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-8, 12-18, 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 0152163, hereinafter ‘163, in view of US 20140249938, hereinafter ‘938.
Regarding the claims, ‘163 discloses a dispatching delivery service with a central controller connected to meal delivery drivers, customers, and restaurants whereby the controller monitors various parameters including, but not limited to, traffic and weather conditions, driver availability, restaurant conditions, driver history, customer location, driver location, and restaurant location to minimize delays and maximize deliveries.
PNG
media_image1.png
690
967
media_image1.png
Greyscale
‘163 does not but ‘938 does teach: the use of a geofence, adjusting a location of a geofence that will trigger a message to the restaurant to begin preparing the item when the driver crosses the geofence. (see at least ‘938 paragraphs 4-5, 27, 30-32, 38-39, 44-45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective time of filing of the present application to include the use of a geofence, adjusting a location of the geofence that triggers a message to the restaurant to begin preparing the item when the driver crosses the geofence, in view of ‘938, in order to maintain the “accuracy of creating and finishing the order at the restaurant for the customer” (See ‘938, paragraph 0003).
Regarding claims 2-8 and 12-13, the combination of ‘163 and ‘938 render the limitations obvious for the reason provided in the paragraph above.
Regarding claim 1, paragraph 47 of ‘938 teaches using transporter velocity to determine the geofence. The specific algorithm is a matter of design choice and made obvious.
In regards to remaining claims 15-18, the claims recite similar limitations as claims 1-8, 12-14 and consequently are rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 0152163, hereinafter ‘163, in view of US 20140249938, hereinafter ‘938, as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of WO 2016166708, hereafter ‘708.
The combination of ‘163 and ‘938 lack the specific teaching of using machine learning models to determine preparation time and transporter time.
‘708 teaches using machine learning models to determine user preferences for items (and hence reflects preparation time) and further teaches travel information (see at least paragraphs 170-172).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify ‘163 in view of ‘938 to further utilize machine learning models (the type of model being a design choice), in light of ‘708, in order to provide “better business value” (See ‘708, paragraph 18).
Examiner’s Response to Applicant’s Arguments received 11/03/2025
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 101 and 103 are not convincing.
Regarding 101, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor do they provide an inventive concept.
Regarding 103, the applicant’s attention is drawn to the ‘938 reference and in particular paragraphs 44-48 reproduced below for convenience. In light of the teachings surrounding the geofence and the modification of the location of the geofence, the combination of ‘163 and ‘938, as demonstrated above, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and remains proper.
PNG
media_image2.png
865
1264
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art cited in the PTO-892 made of record and necessarily relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 Florian "Ryan" Zeender whose telephone number is (571) 272-6790. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:30-5:30pm 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.
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.
Florian Zeender
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3627
/FLORIAN M ZEENDER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627