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 Claim
The following is a Final Office Action in response to communications filed on 19 of September 2025.
Claims 1 and 11 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and are rejected as described below.
Response to Argument/Remarks
35 USC § 101
Applicant asserts that claims 1 and 11 are not directed to an abstract idea. Particularly, claims 1 and 11 are not directed to fundamental economic practices or principals, commercial or legal interactions, or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Rather, the claims improve the technology of automated delivery vehicles by adding additional functions to the vehicles and automatically modifying their behavior. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Prong I of step 2A evaluates whether the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon) if the claim recites and exception then the examiner advances to Prong Two which evaluates whether the claims recite additional elements (e.g. computer components) that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. Under Prong I, the claims are aimed at collecting data from the autonomous vehicle to include location, route, and delivery deadline, receive a rideshare request from a passenger and communicate to the passenger a rideshare request confirmation. The steps of gathering data, analyzing data, and outputting results, constitute "analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category." Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (claims directed to certain arrangements involving contractual relations are directed to abstract ideas). The Federal Circuit has held that claims directed to "analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, [are] essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category." Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. The Supreme Court recognized this in Benson, determining that a mathematical algorithm for converting binary coded decimal to pure binary within a computer’s shift register was an abstract idea. The Court concluded that the algorithm could be performed purely mentally even though the claimed procedures "can be carried out in existing computers long in use, no new machinery being necessary." 409 U.S at 67, 175 USPQ at 675. See also Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699 (concluding that concept of "anonymous loan shopping" recited in a computer system claim is an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer"). Thus, the claims recite the judicial exceptions of commercial or legal interactions, organizing human activity, and a mental process (i.e. observation, judgment). Meanwhile, McRO was directed to an improvement in computer animation, and not merely an abstract concept and have no bearing on whether a claim recites an abstract idea. Instead, McRO is aimed at 2A Prong II of the Alice test. However, unlike McRO, the amended claims can be devised by a human with the aid of pen and paper in the same manner dispatchers have done in the past long before the advent of computers or the internet.
The applicant asserts that claims 1 and 11 are directed a technical solution to the specific technical problem of integrating passenger transport with freight logistics. See e.g., DDR Holdings, LLC. v. Hotels.com, L.P. The technical solution of the claims improves the functionality of prior art technology (e.g. autonomous delivery vehicles) by enabling the delivery vehicles to perform an additional, function of transporting passengers. Particularly, the technical solution defined in claims 1 and 11 allows the autonomous delivery vehicles to perform this additional function while adhering to previously-established delivery deadlines, and only vehicles which can meet the delivery deadline are eligible to pick up a passenger. Thus, the claims alter the physical function of the autonomous delivery vehicles, changing their real-world behavior. The examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the examiner notes that there isn’t any “cargo/freight” language in being claimed, and under the broadest reasonable interpretation delivery can be of goods (i.e. USPS, Amazon), food (i.e. UberEats, DoorDash, etc.), or people (i.e. riders/passengers). While the specification may help illuminate the true focus of a claim, when analyzing patent eligibility, reliance on the specification must always yield to the claim language in identifying that focus." Id. at 766; see also Trinity Info Media, 72 F.4th at 1363 ("Our focus is on the claims, as informed by the specification."). At bottom, we must "articulate what the claims are directed to with enough specificity to ensure the step one inquiry is meaningful." Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Therefore, the invention remains an abstract idea merely applied by generic computer components disclosed at a high level of generality and do not satisfy the Alice Test. Further, the use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
The applicant asserts that at least monitoring the location and velocity of autonomous delivery vehicles and matching the vehicles with a particular rideshare request while adhering to delivery deadlines is not an "existing process" or a "well-understood, routine, conventional activity." Office Action pg. 5; MPEP 2106.05(d). "[C]ourts have held computer-implemented processes to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus eligible), where generic computer components are able in combination to perform functions that are not merely generic." DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, LP, 773 F.3d 1245, 1258-59, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106-07 (Fed. Cir. 2014). As the additional elements in DDR Holdings were held to amount to significantly more "because they modified conventional Internet hyperlink protocol to dynamically produce a dualsource hybrid webpage, which differed from the conventional operation of Internet hyperlink protocol that transported the user away from the host's webpage to the third party's webpage when the hyperlink was activated," the additional elements in claims 1 and 11 modify conventional autonomous delivery vehicles by providing the vehicles with an additional function. MPEP 2106.05(d) (citing DOR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1258-59, 113 USPQ2d at 1106-07). The examiner respectfully disagrees. Because the examiner determined that the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, the examiner proceeds to Step 2B of the Eligibility Guidelines, which asks whether there is an inventive concept. As discussed above, there is no evidence in the record that the steps in the claims are accomplished in a non-conventional way. The Examiner therefore concluded that the claim used generic, conventional, technology to implement the abstract idea and that there is no improvement to an “existing technology.” Final Act. 4. Assuming arguendo the monitoring of location and speed of autonomous vehicle is done in real-time, it doesn’t change the examiner’s rationale. Regarding, “real-time”, “Examiners should keep in mind that both product claims (e.g., computer system, computer-readable medium, etc.) and process claims may recite mental processes. For example, in Mortgage Grader, the patentee claimed a computer-implemented system and a method for enabling borrowers to anonymously shop for loan packages offered by a plurality of lenders, comprising a database that stores loan package data from the lenders, and a computer system providing an interface and a grading module. The Federal Circuit determined that both the computer-implemented system and method claims were directed to “anonymous loan shopping”, which was an abstract idea because it could be “performed by humans without a computer.” 811 F.3d. at 1318, 1324-25, 117 USPQ2d at 1695, 1699-1700. See also FairWarning IP, 839 F.3d at 1092, 120 USPQ2d at 1294 (identifying both system and process claims for detecting improper access of a patient's protected health information in a health-care system computer environment as directed to abstract idea of detecting fraud); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 776 F.3d 1343, 1345, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (system and method claims of inputting information from a hard copy document into a computer program). Accordingly, the phrase “mental processes” should be understood as referring to the type of abstract idea, and not to the statutory category of the claim… Examples of product claims reciting mental processes include:… A wide-area real-time performance monitoring system for monitoring and assessing dynamic stability of an electric power grid – Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d at 1351 and n.1, 119 USPQ2d at 1740 and n.1…” See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machines, article of manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. ____ (2014). See MPEP 2106.03(II).
The claims are then analyzed to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception. MPEP §2106.04(a). In determining, whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite a judicial exception (Prong One of Step 2A), and whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Prong Two of Step 2A). See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“PEG” 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 (Jan. 7, 2019)).
With respect to 2A Prong 1, claim 1 recites “comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium storing processor-executable instructions that when executed by the one or more processors causes the one or more processors to: receive one or more trip itineraries from a plurality of autonomous vehicle devices associated with a plurality of autonomous delivery vehicles, each trip itinerary of the one or more trip itineraries having an autonomous vehicle identifier, at least one pick-up region along a route to a final destination, an autonomous vehicle time associated with the at least one pick-up region, and a delivery deadline, each autonomous vehicle identifier being linked with autonomous vehicle data associated with a particular autonomous delivery vehicle of the plurality of autonomous delivery vehicles, the autonomous vehicle data including an authority owner name, a motor carrier name, and a motor carrier number; receive a rideshare request from at least one passenger device, the rideshare request identifying passenger data, and having a pick-up location, a drop- off location, and a pick-up time, the at least one passenger device being associated with the passenger data, the passenger data identifying at least a passenger name; receive and monitor location data from the plurality of autonomous vehicle devices associated with the plurality of autonomous delivery vehicles, the location data indicative of a current location and/or a velocity of each of the plurality of autonomous delivery vehicles; determine at least one eligible autonomous delivery vehicle from the plurality of autonomous delivery vehicles based at least in part upon the location data and the delivery deadline of each trip itinerary of the one or more trip itinerary; match the rideshare request with at least one trip itinerary of the one or more trip itinerary associated with the at least one eligible autonomous delivery vehicle as a list of matched itineraries; generate a passenger manifest including the passenger name identified by the rideshare request, the autonomous vehicle data identified by a particular trip itinerary of the list of matched itineraries, and a signature of an authority owner, the passenger manifest further including at least the pick- up location, the drop-off location, a date of travel based on the autonomous vehicle time, a motor carrier name, and a motor carrier number; book a ridesharing trip including the passenger with the particular autonomous vehicle associated with the particular trip itinerary; provide the autonomous vehicle device associated with the particular trip itinerary with the rideshare request; transmit a rideshare request confirmation to the passenger device to cause the passenger device to display the rideshare request confirmation; store the passenger manifest in the one or more memories”. Claim 11 discloses similar limitations as Claim 1, as disclosed, and therefore recites an abstract idea.
More specifically, claims 1 and 11 are directed to “Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity” such as “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)” and “commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)”, and “Mental Processes” such as “concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)” as discussed in MPEP §2106.04(a)(2), and in the 2019-01-08 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 further recite abstract idea(s) contained within the independent claims, and do not contribute to significant more or enable practical application. Thus, the dependent claims are rejected under 101 based on the same rationale as the independent claims.
Under Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, the examiner acknowledges that Claims 1 and 11 recite additional elements yet the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. In order for the judicial exception to be “integrated into a practical application”, an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim “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.” PEG, 84 Fed. Reg. 54 (Jan. 7, 2019). The courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application when “an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.” PEG, 84 Fed. Reg. 55 (Jan. 7, 2019); MPEP § 2106.05(h). The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
In particular, claims 1 and 11 recite additional elements boldened and underlined above. These are generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are mere instructions to apply an exception, because it does no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process. Further, the remaining additional element italicized above reflect insignificant extra solution activities to the judicial exception. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
With respect to step 2B, claims 1 and 11 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim recites the additional elements described above. These are generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are mere instructions to apply an exception, because it does no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process, as evidenced by at least ¶42-47 "The system 10 is provided with at least one host system 12 (hereinafter “host system 12”), a plurality of passenger devices 14 (hereinafter “passenger device 14”) operated by a passenger 15, a plurality of autonomous vehicle devices 16 (hereinafter “autonomous vehicle device 16”), and a network 18. In some embodiments, the system 10 may include at least one external system 19 (hereinafter “external system 19”) for use by a truck operating authority to add, delete, or modify autonomous vehicle information and privileges, manage autonomous vehicle itineraries, and manage passenger authorization manifests. The system 10 may be a system or systems that are able to embody and/or execute the logic of the processes described herein. Logic embodied in the form of software instructions and/or firmware may be executed on any appropriate hardware. For example, logic embodied in the form of software instructions and/or firmware may be executed on a dedicated system or systems, on a personal computer system, on a distributed processing computer system, and/or the like. In some embodiments, logic may be implemented in a stand-alone environment operating on a single computer system and/or logic may be implemented in a networked environment such as a distributed system using multiple computers and/or processors as depicted in FIG. 1, for example. The network 18 may permit bi-directional communication of information and/or data between the host system 12, the passenger device 14, the autonomous vehicle device 16, and/or the external system 19. The network 18 may interface with the host system 12, the passenger device 14, the autonomous vehicle device 16, and/or the external system 19 in a variety of ways. For example, in some embodiments, the network 18 may interface by optical and/or electronic interfaces, and/or may use a plurality of network topographies and/or protocols including, but not limited to, Ethernet, TCP/IP, circuit switched path, combinations thereof, and/or the like. For example, in some embodiments, the network 18 may be implemented as the World Wide Web (or Internet), a local area network (LAN), a wide area network (WAN), a metropolitan network, a 4G network, a 5G network, a satellite network, a radio network, an optical network, a cable network, a public switch telephone network, an Ethernet network, combinations thereof, and the like, for example. Additionally, the network 18 may use a variety of network protocols to permit bi-directional interface and/or communication of data and/or information between the host system 12, the passenger device 14, the autonomous vehicle device 16, and/or the external system 19”.
Claims 2-10 and 12-20 do not disclose additional elements, further narrowing the abstract ideas of the independent claims and thus not practically integrated under prong 2A as part of a practical application or under 2B not significantly more for the same reasons and rationale as above.
After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination, Examiner has determined that the claims are directed to the above abstract ideas and do not amount to significantly more. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, No. 13–298.
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 extension fee 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 MATHEUS R STIVALETTI whose telephone number is (571)272-5758. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30-5:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rutao (Rob) Wu can be reached on (571)272-7761. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-1822.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/MATHEUS RIBEIRO STIVALETTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623 11/14/2025