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 responsive to Applicant’s claims filed 12/08/2025.
Claims 1-20 and 35 have been canceled.
Claims 21 and 28 have been amended.
Claims 21-34 and 36-41 are currently pending and have been examined here.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see pages 8-14 of Applicant’s Response filed 12/08/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, on pages 9-10, that the claims do not recite one or more abstract ideas. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant argues, on page 9, that the claims require the performance of steps using a computer, and therefore cannot recite a mental process. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner respectfully notes that, but for the mere requirement to implement the steps using a generic computer component, the elements of the claim could in fact be practically performed in the human mind. The process need only be practically performed in the human mind in order to recite the abstract idea. Such is the case here, as vehicle routing could be performed by hand using the mind and pen and paper. Applicant’s arguments are therefore unpersuasive.
Applicant argues, on page 10, that the claims amount to a practical application of the one or more abstract ideas since the claims use continuously receive GPS location information. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner respectfully notes that the receipt of GPS location information could be performed mentally and therefore recites a mental process. What’s more, this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity since commercial shipment companies would receive GPS location information of their vehicles in performing shipment services for their customers. The mere requirement to perform this step “continuously” amounts to the mere speeding up the performance of these abstract ideas using a general purpose computer, and therefore does not bring forth any technical improvement or benefit. Applicant’s arguments are therefore unpersuasive.
Applicant argues, on pages 11-12, that the recite significantly more than the abstract ideas which they recite. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant argues that the claims require the causing of the transfer of the item from the first resource to the second resource, and therefore, the claims add something to the claims which amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner respectfully notes that the limitation merely requires that either the first or second resource comprise an autonomous vehicle. As such, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation still encompasses a delivery person (a first, non-autonomous resource) placing a shipment into a second, autonomous, resource. This step comprises certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment entities would perform package transfers between delivery resources in performing commercial shipment services for customers. Finally, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents the mere instruction to apply the above judicial exceptions since this limitation merely recites only the idea of a solution or outcome and fails to recite details of how the transfer of the item is actually accomplished. No mechanism is recited for performing this step, and no details are recited as to how the transfer is actually accomplished.
Applicant argues that the novelty/non-obviousness of the claims lends credence to the notion that the claims add something other than that which is well-understood routine and conventional in the field. Examiner respectfully disagrees, and notes that novelty and non-obviousness are separate inquiries which have no bearing on the 35 U.S.C. 101 analysis.
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 21-34 and 36-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The claims are drawn to ineligible patent subject matter, because the claims are directed to a recited judicial exception to patentability (an abstract idea), without claiming something significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Claims are ineligible for patent protection if they are drawn to subject matter which is not within one of the four statutory categories, or, if the subject matter claimed does fall into one of the four statutory categories, the claims are ineligible if they recite a judicial exception, are directed to that judicial exception, and do not recite additional elements which amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 375 U.S. ___ (2014). Accordingly, claims are first analyzed to determine whether they fall into one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter. Then, if the claims fall within one of the four statutory categories, it must be determined whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). In determining whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception, the claim is first analyzed to determine whether the claim recites a judicial exception. If the claim does not recite one of these exceptions, the claim is directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. If the claim recites one of these exceptions, the claim is then analyzed to determine whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. Claims which integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception are directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. If the claim fails to integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Finally, if the claims are directed to a judicial exception to patentability, the claims are then analyzed determine whether the claims are directed to patent eligible subject matter by reciting meaningful limitations which transform the judicial exception into something significantly more than the judicial exception itself. If they do not, the claims are not directed towards eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding independent claims 21 and 28 the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (a machine and a process, respectively.) The claimed invention of independent claims 21 and 28 is directed to a judicial exception to patentability, an abstract idea. The claims include limitations which recite elements which can be properly characterized under at least one of the following groupings of subject matter recognized as abstract ideas by MPEP 2106.04(a):
Mathematical Concepts: mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity: fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes: concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)
Claims 21 and 28, as a whole, recite the following limitations:
. . . receive item delivery requests, each item delivery request comprising a pickup location, a delivery location, and item information corresponding to an item to be delivered; (claims 21 and 28; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could receive item delivery requests comprising this information; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment entities would receive item delivery requests in performing commercial shipment services for customers)
. . . storing a plurality of predetermined resource routes traveled by a plurality of resources. . . (claims 21 and 28; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could store a plurality of predetermined resource routes; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment entities would store a plurality of predetermined resource routes in performing commercial shipment services for customers)
identify a plurality of potential nodes each located within a predetermined threshold distance of at least two of the plurality of predetermined resource routes; (claims 21 and 28; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could identify a plurality of potential nodes within threshold distances of routes; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment entities would identify a plurality of potential nodes within threshold distances of routes in performing commercial shipment services for customers)
remove an individual transfer node from the plurality of stored transfer nodes based at least in part on one or more adverse reports received from resources traveling to or from the individual transfer nodes;
and for individual item delivery requests:
. . . continuously receive real-time GPS geolocation information relating to a first geolocation of a first device associated with a first resource, and a second geolocation of a second device associated with a second resource, wherein the first resource and the second resource are delivery vehicles: (claims 21 and 28; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since, but for the requirement to “continuously” receive this GPS data (which comprises merely increasing the speed of the data processing using the capabilities of a general purpose computer, as outlined below) a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could receive GPS locations relating to first and second geolocations of delivery vehicles; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment entities would receive geolocations of vehicles in performing commercial shipment services for customers)
determine, from the plurality of predetermined resource routes, a first resource route, associated with the first resource, that passes within a first threshold distance relative to the pickup location; (claims 21 and 28; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could determine routes that pass within threshold distances of pickup and delivery destinations; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment entities would determine routes that pass within threshold distances of pickup and delivery destinations in performing commercial shipment services for customers)
determine, from the plurality of predetermined resource routes, a second resource route, associated with the second resource, that passes within the first threshold distance relative to the delivery location; (claims 21 and 28; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could determine routes that pass within threshold distances of pickup and delivery destinations; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment entities would determine routes that pass within threshold distances of pickup and delivery destinations in performing commercial shipment services for customers)
determine, from among the plurality of potential nodes, a transfer node disposed within a second threshold distance relative to at least a portion of the first resource route and at least a portion of the second resource route; (claims 21 and 28; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could determine transfer nodes within threshold distances of routes; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment entities would determine transfer nodes within threshold distances of routes in performing commercial shipment services for customers)
and determine, based on the real-time GPS geolocation, a modified first resource route that passes within a third threshold distance relative to the transfer node and a modified second resource route that passes within the third threshold distance relative to the transfer node, (claims 21 and 28; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could determine modified routes which pass within threshold distances of transfer nodes; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment entities would determine modified routes which pass within threshold distances of transfer nodes in performing commercial shipment services for customers)
transmit the modified first resource route and a first item transfer instruction. . . and . . . direct the first resource via the modified first resource route to a location at or within the third threshold distance relative to the transfer node; (claims 21 and 28; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could send modified resource routes to delivery personnel; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment entities would send modified resource routes to delivery personnel in performing commercial shipment services for customers)
and transmit the modified second resource route, a second item transfer instruction and an item delivery instruction. . . and automatically direct the second resource via the second modified resource route to the location at or within the third threshold distance relative to the transfer node, for effectuating a transfer of the item from the first resource to the second resource based on the first and second item transfer instruction for delivery of the item to the delivery location according to the item delivery instruction; (claims 21 and 28; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could send modified resource routes and instructions for package transfers to delivery personnel; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment entities would send modified resource routes and instructions for package transfers to delivery personnel in performing commercial shipment services for customers)
wherein upon arriving at or within the third threshold distance relative to the transfer node at least one of the first item transfer instruction and second item transfer instruction causes the first resource to transfer the item to the second resource. (claims 21 and 28; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since its broadest reasonable interpretation still includes an instruction which causes a delivery person to transfer an item from a first resource to a second resource. This step comprises certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment entities would perform package transfers between delivery resources in performing commercial shipment services for customers)
Moving forward, the above recited abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
The added limitations do not represent an integration of the abstract idea into a practical application because:
the claims represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, and merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
the claims merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (activity which can be characterized as incidental to the primary purpose or product that is merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim). See MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or
the claims represent mere general linking of the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2016.05(h)
Beyond those limitations which recite the abstract idea, the following limitations are added:
a processor configured to (claims 21, 28; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
and a dynamic router processor in communication with a memory (claims 21, 28; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
a first device (claims 21, 28; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
a second device (claims 21, 28; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
wherein upon arriving at or within the third threshold distance relative to the transfer node at least one of the first item transfer instruction and second item transfer instruction causes the first resource to transfer the item to the second resource. (Claims 1, 28; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents the mere instruction to apply the above judicial exceptions since this limitation merely recites only the idea of a solution or outcome and fails to recite details of how the transfer of the item is actually accomplished. No mechanism is recited for performing this step, and no details are recited as to how the transfer is actually accomplished)
. . . continuously receive real-time GPS geolocation information. . . (claims 21, 28; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity, wherein the limitation merely increases the speed of receipt of real-time GPS geolocation information using the capabilities of a general purpose computer; merely requiring that the receipt of GPS location information be performed “continuously” therefore does not direct the claim to patent eligible subject matter under step 2A Part II)
The claims, as a whole, are directed to the abstract idea(s) which they recite. The claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)). Therefore, because the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea) and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claims, as a whole, are directed to the judicial exception.
Turning to the final prong of the test (Step 2B), independent claims 21 and 28 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because there are no meaningful limitations which transform the exception into a patent eligible application.
As outlined above, the claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)).
Furthermore, no specific limitations are added which represent something other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Besides performing the abstract idea itself, the generic computer components only serve to perform the court-recognized well-understood computer functions of receiving or transmitting data over a network, performing repetitive calculations, electronic record keeping, and storing and retrieving information in memory. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. The specification details any combination of a generic computer system program to perform the method. Generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be routine in any computer implementation and because the Alice decision noted that generic structures that merely apply the abstract ideas are not significantly more than the abstract ideas. Therefore, independent claims 21 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to ineligible subject matter.
Claims 22-27 and 29-40, recite the same abstract idea as their respective independent claims.
The following additional features are added in the dependent claims:
Claims 22 and 29:
wherein the dynamic router processor is further configured to receive real time or near-real time location information corresponding to individual resources located along the predetermined resource routes.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could receive real time or near real time location information; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment entities would receive this information in performing commercial shipment services for customers.
Claims 23 and 30:
wherein the dynamic router processor selects the transfer node based at least in part on the location information.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could select a transfer node based on location information; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment entities would select a transfer node based on location information in performing commercial shipment services for customers.
Claims 24 and 31:
wherein the item delivery instruction comprises at least one of an identifier of the delivery location or directions to the delivery location.
This limitation merely alters the type of delivery instruction used in the abstract idea above, and therefore further recites one or more abstract ideas for the reasons outlined above.
Claims 25 and 32:
wherein the dynamic router processor is further configured to add, modify, and remove an individual transfer node from the plurality of potential nodes, based at least in part on aggregated resource location data associated with the plurality of predetermined resource routes.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could add, modify or remove nodes based on resource data; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment entities would add, modify, or remove nodes based on resource location data in performing commercial shipment services for customers.
Claims 26 and 33:
wherein the processor is further configured to: cause the first device to display the first item transfer instruction and the modified first resource route and provide, to the first resource, a visual and/or audio alert when the first item transfer instruction is displayed;
and cause the second device to display the second item transfer instruction, the item delivery instruction and the modified second resource route and provide, to the second resource, a visual and/or audio alert when the item transfer instruction is displayed.
Regarding the provision of the route and the generation of an alert, broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could provision a route and generate an alert; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment entities would provision routes and generate alerts in performing commercial shipment services for customers. Regarding the use of a display, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use.
Claims 27 and 34:
wherein the first item transfer instruction comprises identification information associated with the second resource, and wherein the second item transfer instruction comprises identification information associated with the first resource.
This limitation merely alters the type of item transfer instruction used in the abstract idea above, and therefore further recites one or more abstract ideas for the reasons outlined above.
Claim 36:
wherein the one or more adverse reports correspond to safety conditions of the individual transfer node.
This limitation merely alters the type of adverse report used in the abstract idea above, and therefore further recites one or more abstract ideas for the reasons outlined above.
Claim 37:
wherein the one or more adverse reports correspond to efficiency of utilization of the individual transfer node for transfer of the item from the first resource to the second resource.
This limitation merely alters the type of adverse report used in the abstract idea above, and therefore further recites one or more abstract ideas for the reasons outlined above.
Claim 38:
wherein the one or more adverse reports include traffic conditions at or near the individual transfer nodes, and/or parking access and time at or near the individual transfer nodes.
This limitation merely alters the type of adverse report used in the abstract idea above, and therefore further recites one or more abstract ideas for the reasons outlined above.
Claim 39:
wherein at least one of the first and the second resource comprises an individual human.
This limitation merely alters the type of delivery resource used in the abstract idea above, and therefore further recites one or more abstract ideas for the reasons outlined above.
Claim 40:
receiving a subsequent request for delivery of a second item from a second pickup location to a second delivery location within a requested time period;
determining that the delivery of the second item cannot be performed within the requested time period, based at least in part on the second pickup location, the second delivery location, and real time or near-real time location information corresponding to one or more resources;
and sending, to a user interface associated with the subsequent request, a notification that the delivery of the second item cannot be performed within the requested time period.
Regarding the receiving, determining and sending steps, broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could perform these steps; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since they recite steps which would be performed by commercial shipment entities in performing commercial shipment services for customers. Regarding the use of user interface, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use.
Claim 41:
wherein at least one of the resource or second resource is an autonomous vehicle.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use. Furthermore, regarding the transfer step applied above, the limitation merely requires that either the first or second resource comprise an autonomous vehicle. As such, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation still encompasses a delivery person (a first, non-autonomous resource) placing a shipment into a second, autonomous, resource. This step comprises certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment entities would perform package transfers between delivery resources in performing commercial shipment services for customers. Finally, regarding the application of the transfer step to the autonomous vehicle, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents the mere instruction to apply the above judicial exceptions since this limitation merely recites only the idea of a solution or outcome and fails to recite details of how the transfer of the item is actually accomplished. No mechanism is recited for performing this step, and no details are recited as to how the transfer is actually accomplished.
The above limitations do not represent a practical application of the recited abstract idea. The claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)). Therefore, because the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea) and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claims are also directed to the judicial exception.
Furthermore, the added limitations do not direct the claim to significantly more than the abstract idea. No specific limitations are added which represent something other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, none of the dependent claims 22-27 and 29-40, individually, or as an ordered combination, are directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Please see MPEP §2106.05(d)(II) for a discussion of elements that the Courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional, activity in particular fields.
Please see MPEP §2106 for examination guidelines regarding patent subject matter eligibility.
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 EMMETT K WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2624. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 6 a.m. - 4:45 p.m..
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, Resha Desai can be reached on 571-270-7792. 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.
/EMMETT K. WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628