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
Claims 1-4, 6-8, and 10-24 were previously pending and subject to a non-final rejection dated April 30, 2026. In Response, submitted July 14, 2026, claims 1, 10, 13, and 16 were amended; claim 12 was cancelled; and claim 25 was added. No new subject matter was introduced in these amendments. Therefore, claims 1-4, 6-8, 10, 11, and 13-25 are currently pending and subject to the following final rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks on Pages 12-16 of the Response, regarding the previous rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101, have been fully considered and are not found persuasive.
On Page 12 of the Response, Applicant argues “With respect to the asserted Step 2[A], Prong One analysis of claims 1 and 16 (Office Action, pages 16-18), Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection for the reasons of record. The rejection fails to distinguish between whether the claims merely involve an abstract concept, as opposed to whether the claims are solely directed to an abstract idea.”
Examiner notes, paragraph 32 of the cited previous Office Action, mailed April 30, 2026 (hereafter previously cited Office Action), states the findings of the analysis of the claims under Step 2A, Prong Two is that the claims are “directed to an abstract idea”. The typographical mistake of “the claim” is corrected in the detailed analysis below to clarify the record finds both independent claims as directed to an abstract idea.
On Pages 12-13 of the Response, Applicant argues “With respect to the asserted Step 2A, Prong Two analysis (Office Action, pages 19-20), Applicant respectfully traverses for the reasons of record and in light of the amendments herein. As discussed in the June 30, 2026 telephone interview, the amendments to the claims herein address the Examiner's concerns regarding the ‘additional elements’ consideration of the user device, the user interface, the retailer database, the API, the processing element, and the UAV. Although Applicant does not concede the assertion that these multiple structural components are ‘generic,’ the Examiner should find that the additional claim language features specific, technically-defined operations for the claim elements within an ordered combination. First, each of independent claims 1 and 16 now feature the bin packing algorithm with detailed inputs, geometric optimizations, and generated constraint evaluations, all of which together represent a specific computational mechanism that constitutes a practical application. More particularly, as amended herein, the claims now feature that the bin packing algorithm applies a specific method of computation (e.g., geometric optimization across orientations and configurations) to specific physical inputs (e.g., three-dimensional dimensional characteristics of real items constrained by a physical payload volume) to produce a specific named technical output (e.g., a viability determination). The Examiner should see that the claims do not merely recite that the processing element operates, but instead the claims describe how the processing element operates for the practice application.”
Examiner notes, “the bin packing algorithm with detailed inputs, geometric optimizations, and generated constraint evaluations” represent the abstract processes the processing element is used as a tool to carry out. Specifically, these features illustrate the abstract “computation (e.g., geometric optimization across orientations and configurations) to specific physical inputs (e.g., three-dimensional dimensional characteristics of real items constrained by a physical payload volume) to provide the abstract data output of viability determination. The “processing element” is used merely as a generic tool in order to perform these abstract processes, and the technical aspects of how the processing element carries out these abstract processes is absent.
On Page 13 of the Response, Applicant argues “The Examiner should further find that the claims conform to the patent eligibility considerations from Enfish… Applicant further submits that the requirement of the recited bin packing algorithm to apply geometric optimizations across orientations and configurations to produce a viability determination imposes the type of specific, technically-defined processing that the Federal Circuit also found to be patent eligible in McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1313-15 (Fed. Cir. 2016) … In the present case, the recited bin packing algorithm is configured to determine a three-dimensional spatial fit through a defined geometric computation, which is significantly more than merely identifying a product, and thus comparable to the eligible claims in McRO for Section 101 purposes.”)
Examiner notes, Applicants’ disclosure regarding the “bin packing algorithm” and the “geometric optimizations” is found almost exclusively in Specification, Para. 43, stating “[t]he bin packing algorithm may use one or more geometric optimizations to fit the combination or individual product dimensions within the payload dimensional constraints of the UAV, e.g., by assessing various orientations and configurations of the proposed products” (emphasis added). This high level of generality fails to provide support for these elements to be any more than abstract processes categorized as “mathematical concepts” or contextualized as processes within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” of the commercial interaction of determining viability in facilitating ordering for delivery of various products to consumers, and fails to indicate any technical aspects or improvement to a technical field.
On Page 13 of the Response, Applicant argues “the claim API retrieval functionality has been amended herein to require a technically specific input source, as opposed to the generic data store asserted in the rejection. The amended claims therefore affirmatively characterize the API/database combination as performing the technically-specific function of retrieving tolerance-adjusted dimensional data for direct input into a named computational algorithm. Thus, the API is not the passive repository considered in the rejection, but instead the input conduit for the specific bin packing algorithm. With respect to claim 16 specifically, this claim now further specifies that the data retrieved is algorithmically adjusted for real-world dimensional variance (e.g., the buffer value). This additional technically- defined data preparation functionality is significantly more than the mere ‘storing and providing data’ asserted in the rejection.”
Examiner notes, while support for these amended can be traced through the Specification with the product data being stored in a database (See Specification, Para. 36), the product data including product characteristics (See Specification, Para. 67), and the API being used to provide the product characteristics (See Specification, Para. 59, 62), the technical mechanisms through which this “storing and providing data” occurs is not provided. At this level of disclosure, simply indicating which database the API retrieves the data from does not cure the deficiencies in the disclosure of the API or the databases either individually or in combination. Thus, the API/database combination is determined to disclose how these elements are used as tools to perform the abstract ideas of “retrieving tolerance-adjusted dimensional data for direct input into a named computational algorithm” as “the input conduit for the specific bin packing algorithm”. Further, the inclusion of “a buffer value” does not appear to necessarily be “algorithmically adjusted for real-world dimensional variance”, but could also be a standard value/percentage fully separate from any “algorithm”-based adjustments (See Specification, Para. 40). Regardless of its ties to any alleged algorithm, the “buffer value” is merely abstract data that is fed into a mathematical model, and thus unhelpful in bringing the claims nearer to eligibility.
On Pages 13-14 of the Response, Applicant argues “Third, Applicant submits that the Examiner should find that the amended claim language now causally ties the visual indicator update to the output from the bin packing algorithm. In this regard, the Examiner should further see that comparison to the Trading Technologies example is no longer appropriate. Indeed, Trading Technologies is now distinguishable on the precise ground the invoked in the rejection: in Trading Technologies, the display improvement was in what information was shown, and not in any technical mechanism for generating the display. In contrast, the present claims, as amended herein, feature that the visual indicators are rendered from an output of a specific computational result (e.g., the viability determination) from the bin packing algorithm, and thus significantly more than ‘more information displayed to a user’ as asserted. The causal chain is explicit in the claim, namely, from the geometric computation to the viability determination, and then to the visual indicators rendered from the determination. The present claims are thus fundamentally different from Trading Technologies because the visual indicator functionality cannot be performed without first executing the bin packing algorithm and obtaining its viability determination output. The UI rendering is mechanically constrained by and derived from a specific technical computation, and thus conforms with claims found to be patent eligible.”
Examiner notes, as discussed above and further discussed in the detailed rejection below, the “bin packing algorithm” and “geometric computations” are aspects of the abstract idea and not technical elements. Further the technology of the UI is not affected or improved by the claimed invention. The argument appears to allege and improvement to the abstract ideas of obtaining viability determination outputs and providing visual indicators rendered from the determination outputs, but this improvement is derived from the abstract processes reflecting the summarization of “the geometric computation to the viability determination, and then to the visual indicators rendered from the determination”. These particular abstract processes performed in their allegedly improved order, only allegedly improves the abstract ideas performed by the system, but do not improve or affect the technical aspects of the UI at all. As also noted in Trading Tech, an improvement to the abstract idea is not an improvement to technology (See MPEP 2106.05(a)(II)).
On Page 14 of the Response, Applicant argues “Fourth, amended Claim 16 recites a two-stage execution of the bin packing algorithm. More particularly, at the first execution, the algorithm receives buffer-adjusted dimensional characteristics of the full plurality of products and the UAV delivery constraints to generate an initial constraint evaluation result establishing which products are initially viable or unviable. A the second execution, the algorithm is triggered by user input for a new product and receives the buffer-adjusted dimensional characteristics of the new product and the plurality of products against the same delivery constraints. The second execution of the algorithm then generates a second constraint evaluation result that the processing element uses to determine - mechanically, from the algorithm's second output and the buffer value - that unviable products will exceed the constraints, whereas viable products will not exceed the constraints. In this manner the buffer value is an active technical parameter throughout the pipeline, and thus represents a computational variable that adjusts the dimensional data flowing through the entire algorithm. The Examiner should thus find that the asserted ‘used to store data’ consideration does not account for the buffer value's active role in the featured computational pipeline. For any and all of the foregoing reasons, Applicant further traverses the outstanding Section 101 rejection. Reconsideration and withdrawal are respectfully requested.”
Examiner notes, the execution of the abstract bin packing algorithm multiple times with different inputs does not constitute a technical solution, an integration into a practical application, or make the algorithm any less abstract. “[T]he algorithm receives buffer-adjusted dimensional characteristics of the full plurality of products and the UAV delivery constraints to generate an initial constraint evaluation result establishing which products are initially viable or unviable” and “the algorithm is triggered by user input for a new product and receives the buffer-adjusted dimensional characteristics of the new product and the plurality of products against the same delivery constraints” in order to “generate[] a second constraint evaluation result that [is] use[d] to determine … that unviable products will exceed the constraints” are both abstract ideas insofar as they are claimed. As discussed above and discussed further in the detailed rejection below, the “processing element” is used as a tool to perform these abstract ideas, and does not inherently transform these abstract ideas into “mechanical” or technical processes.
Examiner further notes, as discussed above, the “buffer value” is an abstract “computational variable” but is not technical in nature. While it serves as a parameter used in the bin packing algorithm run by the processing element, the “buffer value” itself remains mere abstract data used in the abstract decision making of the invention.
On Page 15 of the Response, Applicant argues “With respect to the Step 2B analysis as a whole, Applicant further traverses the rejection because the ordered combination of elements of each claim, when viewed as a whole, constitutes a practical application.
For example, with respect to claim 1, the ordered combination includes, among other features, (i) the API retrieving buffer-adjusted dimensional data as input for the bin packing algorithm, (ii) the processing element executing the bin packing algorithm with geometric optimizations across orientations and configurations to generate a viability determination, and (iii) the UI dynamically rendering the visual indicators based on the viability determination without additional user input. This ordered combination was not analyzed in the outstanding rejection, which merely considered (i) generic database retrieval, (ii) generic "identifying" of products, and (iii) generic UI display update. In contrast, the amended combination defines a causally-linked technical pipeline in which the output from one element becomes the input to the next element, with the core computation constituting a specific geometric algorithm producing a named technical artifact. The recited pipeline, as a whole, thus constitutes a practical application according to BASCOM Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) … The amended claims therefore provide a patent-eligible inventive concept under Step 2B. The ordered combination described above is not a ‘well-understood, routine, conventional activity’ performed in a ‘conventional order.’ In this regard, Applicant specifically notes for the record that the Examiner has expressly found Claims 1-4, 6-8, and 10-24 to be both novel and non-obvious over the prior art of record. Accordingly, although the Examiner correctly notes that novelty and non-obviousness do not guarantee Section 101 eligibility, the Examiner's legal determination, namely, that the ‘closest prior art’ of the Malloy, Lesser, Ferguson, and Nandakumar references does not in combination render the claims obvious, further confirms that the specific computational pipeline recited in the amended claims - including the bin packing algorithm with geometric optimizations, the viability determination, and the buffer-adjusted inputs – is not a routine, conventional arrangement of known elements. For at least these additional reasons, the Section 101 rejection is further traversed.
Examiner notes, that “well-understood, routine, and conventional” is a single test available to examiners when analyzing the claims at Step 2B, however it is not the only test available, and is not utilized as a grounds for rejection in either the detailed rejection below or the previously cited Office Action, therefore arguments regarding the claims not being well-understood, routine, and conventional are moot. Though acknowledged by the Applicant, it is important to reiterate that “The search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating § 102 novelty” and “the search for an inventive concept is different from an obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. 103”. (See MPEP 2106.05)
Examiner also notes, that every element of the claims was properly analyzed both individually and as a whole/ordered combination (such as the combinations depicted in Figures 1-3, which mirror the claimed invention). Regarding the specific ordered combination discussed in the argument: (i) the API acts as a tool to perform the abstract “retrieving buffer-adjusted dimensional data as input for the bin packing algorithm”. This acts in combination with (ii) processing element which acts as a tool to perform the abstract processes of utilizing this received data in “executing the bin packing algorithm with geometric optimizations across orientations and configurations to generate a viability determination”. These viability determinations are then provided to (iii) the UI which is used as a tool to perform the abstract processes of “dynamically rendering the visual indicators based on the viability determination without additional user input”. Thus, even in the context of this ordered combination, the additional elements act merely as tools (i.e. “apply it”) to perform abstract processes. The order of performing these abstract processes where the abstract “output from one element becomes the [abstract] input to the next element, with the core computation constituting a specific geometric algorithm producing a named … artifact” does not make these processes any more technical or any less abstract. This stands in direct contrast to BASCOM which provided a unique technical architecture using generic components in a non-generic arrangement in order to improve technical aspects of the system that were not previously possible under previous systems, not the use of generic combinations of generic components acting as generic tools to perform unique abstract processes (such as the specifically claimed abstract “bin packing algorithm with geometric optimizations, the viability determination, and the buffer-adjusted inputs”) that we see in the instant case. Therefore, as discussed in the detailed rejection below, the rejection of claims over 101 is maintained.
On Page 16 of the Response, Applicant argues “With respect to new claim 25, Applicant further submits that the Examiner should find that the capacity limit is a computed technical value, and not a static data point. More particularly, claim 25 requires that the delivery constraints (e.g., UAV capacity limit input to the bin packing algorithm) are themselves determined from real-time route characteristics (e.g., battery charge required, altitude changes, weather/temperature conditions, etc.) and that the processing element dynamically adjusts the computed capacity limit based on such real-time route characteristics prior to executing the bin packing algorithm. In this manner, capacity limit input to the bin packing algorithm is a dynamically computed value derived from the operational route parameters, with each link in this functionality chain being technically-defined and causally linked to the next. Claim 25 therefore executes a specific computational process where the bin packing algorithm constraints are computed in real-time from physical operational parameters, in contrast to the MPEP 2106.05(h) assertion in the rejection that the UAV ‘generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.’ According to claim 25, the operational characteristics of the UAV (e.g., battery, altitude, weather) are active computational inputs that determine the constraint parameters of the bin packing algorithm, which represents significantly more than the mere ‘linking to a field of use.’”
Examiner notes, as currently claimed the “the capacity limit”, “the delivery constraints (e.g., UAV capacity limit input to the bin packing algorithm)”, and the “real-time route characteristics (e.g., battery charge required, altitude changes, weather/temperature conditions, etc.)”, while not static values, are still representative of mere abstract data inputs used in performing the abstract process of “dynamically adjust[ing] the computed capacity limit based on such real-time route characteristics prior to executing the bin packing algorithm”, while this process is defined and causally linked, this does not make the processes any less of an abstract process that is performed by merely using the processing element as a tool. The claimed invention is silent on technical aspects of how this data is collected, processed, and affects other technical aspects of the invention. Instead the data is simply present in claim 25, and is used as abstract data inputs into the abstract decision processes. Thus, as discussed further in the detailed rejection below, claim 25 fails to bring the claimed invention to eligibility.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10, 11, 13-15, 23, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “the processing element” in limitation 2. There is no antecedent basis for this recitation. Limitations 6 and 11 of claim 1 also recite “the processing element”, however it is unclear whether these recitations refer to the “processing element” introduced in limitation 2 or 3. For examination purposes, the recitation in limitation 2 will be interpreted as “a processing element”, and the recitation in limitation 3 will be interpreted as “the processing element”.
Claims 2-4, 6-8, 10, 11, 13-15, 23, and 25 are rejected by virtue of dependency.
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 1-4, 6-8, 10, 11, and 13-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10, 11, and 13-25 are directed to methods (i.e., processes). Therefore, claims 1-4, 6-8, 10, 11, and 13-25 all fall within the one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One
Independent claim 1 substantially recites receiving a request to view including a plurality of products at least initially available for delivery by an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) and a delivery location;
retrieving from dynamically updated product data defining dimensional characteristics of the plurality of products or packaging for the plurality of products, wherein the product data is retrieved as input for a bin packing algorithm to evaluate delivery feasibility of combinations of the plurality of products;
identifying the plurality of products at least initially available for delivery by the UAV based at least in part on the product data;
displaying including representations of the plurality of products at least initially available for delivery, wherein display of the plurality of products identifies the plurality of products are each initially available for delivery by the UAV;
receiving a request to add a first item of the plurality of products to an order for delivery by the UAV;
responsive to receiving the request to add a first item of the plurality of products to an order, identifying one or more additionally viable or unviable products for delivery with the first item from the plurality of products at least initially available for delivery, the one or more additionally viable or unviable products being identified based on:
the dimensional characteristics of the first item defined by the product data retrieved,
constraint data identifying one or more delivery constraints of the UAV, and
one or more characteristics of one or more additionally viable or unviable products, including the product data defining the dimensional characteristics,
wherein the delivery constraints of the UAV define one or more capacity limits of the UAV, and the delivery constraints are based in part on a delivery route to the delivery location, and
wherein the identifying includes executing the bin packing algorithm configured to (i) receive as inputs the dimensional characteristics of the first item as retrieved from the API, the dimensional characteristics of the one or more additionally viable or unviable products as retrieved, and the capacity limits of the UAV, (ii) apply one or more geometric optimizations to determine whether the first item and the one or more additionally viable or unviable products fit within a payload space of the UAV in one or more orientations and configurations, and (iii) generate a viability determination identifying each of the one or more additionally viable or unviable products as viable or unviable for simultaneous delivery with the first item;
dynamically updating, prior to a second input and based on the viability determination generated by the bin packing algorithm, the display of representations of the one or more additionally viable or unviable products with visual indicators, based on the generated from viability determination from the bin packing algorithm, that the one or more additionally viable or unviable products can or cannot be delivered with the first item by the UAV, wherein the visual indicators are automatically rendered on the display of representations without requiring additional user input;
finalizing the order responsive to a checkout input, a finalized order including products viable for delivery and satisfying the delivery constraints of the UAV; and
delivering the order to the delivery location.
Independent claim 16 substantially recites receiving a request to view a plurality of products at least initially available for delivery by an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) and a delivery location;
retrieving from a dynamically updated product data defining dimensional characteristics of the plurality of products or packaging for the plurality of products, together with a buffer value representing a predetermined tolerance level to account for variations in actual product dimensions that may differ from the product data, wherein the product data and buffer value are retrieved as inputs for a bin packing algorithm executed by the processing element to evaluate delivery feasibility of combinations of the plurality of products;
identifying the plurality of products at least initially available for delivery by the UAV based at least in part on the product data, wherein the identifying includes executing the bin packing algorithm configured to (i) receive as inputs the dimensional characteristics of the plurality of products as retrieved, adjusted by the buffer value, and one or more delivery constraints of the UAV, (ii) apply one or more first geometric optimizations to determine, in one or more first orientations and configurations, which of the plurality of products fits within a payload space of the UAV, and (iii) generate a first constraint evaluation result identifying each of the plurality of products as initially viable or initially unviable for delivery by the UAV;
displaying representations of the plurality of products at least initially available for delivery, wherein display of the plurality of products identifies the plurality of products are each at least initially available for delivery by the UAV;
receiving a user input to add a new product from the plurality of products to an order for delivery by the UAV;
responsive to receiving the user input, executing the bin packing algorithm configured to (i) receive as inputs the dimensional characteristics of the new product and the plurality of products as retrieved, adjusted by the buffer value, and the one or more delivery constraints of the UAV, (ii) apply one or more second geometric optimizations to determine, in one or more orientations and configurations, which of the plurality of products fit within a payload space of the UAV when combined with the new product, and (iii) generate a second constraint evaluation result identifying each of the plurality of products as a viable product or an unviable product for simultaneous delivery with the new product;
determining, second constraint evaluation result generated by the bin packing algorithm and the buffer value, that (i) an addition of an unviable product to the order with the new product will exceed the one or more delivery constraints of the UAV, and (ii) an addition of a viable product to the order with the new product will not exceed the one or more delivery constraints of the UAV;
dynamically generating a user notification, prior to a second user input, to indicate that the addition of the unviable product with the new product will exceed the one or more delivery constraints;
finalizing the order responsive to a checkout input, a finalized order including at least the new product and satisfying the delivery constraints of the UAV, and
delivering the order to the delivery location.
The limitations stated above are processes/functions that under broadest reasonable interpretation covers “certain methods of organizing human activity” (commercial or legal interactions) of determining viability in facilitating ordering for delivery of various products to consumers. Additionally, certain limitations such as “executing the bin packing algorithm configured to (i) receive … inputs …, (ii) apply one or more geometric optimizations …, and (iii) generate a viability determination” as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claim 16 may also be categorized as “mathematical concepts”. Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1 and 16 as a whole amount to: (i) merely invoking generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (or an equivalent), and (ii) generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The claim recites the additional elements of: (i) a user device (claims 1, 16), (ii) a user interface (claim 1, 16), (iii) a dynamically updated retailer database (claims 1, 16), (iv) an application program interface (API) (claim 1, 16), (v) a processing element (claim 1, 16), and (vi) an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) (claim 1, 16).
The additional elements of (i) a user device, (ii) a user interface, (iii) a dynamically updated retailer database, (iv) an application program interface (API), (v) a processing element are recited at a high level of generality (see [0029] of the Applicant’s Specification discussing the user device, [0073] discussing the user interface, [0049 & 0051] discussing the dynamically updated retailer database, [0033] discussing the application program interface (API), [0047] discussing the processing element) such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional element of (vi) an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) are recited at a high level of generality (See [0031] of the Applicant' s PG Publication discussing the unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV)) such that when viewed as whole/ordered combination, do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e. unmanned vehicles) (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination [See Figures 1 and 3 showing all the additional elements: (i) a user device, (ii) a user interface, (iii) a dynamically updated retailer database, (iv) an application program interface (API), (v) a processing element, and (vi) an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) in combination], do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements amount to no more than: (i) “apply it” (or an equivalent), and (ii) generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and are not a practical application of the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., (i) merely invoking the generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)); and (ii) generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in the claims adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1 and 16 are ineligible.
Dependent Claims 2-4, 6-8, 13, 17-19, and 21-25 merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations. For reasons described above with respect to claims 1 and 16 these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, claims 2-4, 6-8, 13, 17-19, and 21-25 are also ineligible.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Dependent Claim 10 further narrows the previously recited abstract idea limitations. Claim 10 also recites the additional elements of a sensor of the UAV, a LIDAR sensor, and a weight sensor of the UAV which is recited at a high-level of generality (See [0059] of the Applicants PG Specification disclosing the sensor of the UAV, the LIDAR sensor, and the weight sensor of the UAV) such that when viewed as whole/ordered combination, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e. data sensors) (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, the additional elements, when viewed individually and as a whole/ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element amounts to no more than: generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., (i) generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional element of a sensor of the UAV, a LIDAR sensor, and a weight sensor of the UAV does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, claim 10 is ineligible.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Dependent Claims 11 further narrows the previously recited abstract idea limitations. Claim 11 also recites the additional elements of a selectable element, which is recited at a high-level of generality (See [0053] of the Applicants PG Specification disclosing the selectable element) such that when viewed as whole/ordered combination, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e. interactive user interface elements) (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, the additional elements, when viewed individually and as a whole/ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element amounts to no more than: generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., (i) generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional element of a selectable element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, claim 11 is ineligible.
Dependent Claim 14 merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations. For reasons described above with respect to claim 11 these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, claim 14 is also ineligible.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Dependent Claim 15 further narrows the previously recited abstract idea limitations. Claim 15 also recites the additional elements of a display, which is recited at a high-level of generality (See [0030] of the Applicants PG Specification disclosing the display) such that when viewed as whole/ordered combination, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e. device displays) (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, the additional elements, when viewed individually and as a whole/ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element amounts to no more than: generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., (i) generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional element of a display does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, claim 15 is ineligible.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Dependent Claim 20 further narrows the previously recited abstract idea limitations. Claim 20 also recites the additional elements of a selectable option, which is recited at a high-level of generality (See [0053] of the Applicants PG Specification disclosing the selectable option) such that when viewed as whole/ordered combination, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e. interactive user interface elements) (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, the additional elements, when viewed individually and as a whole/ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element amounts to no more than: generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., (i) generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional element of a selectable option does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, claim 20 is ineligible.
Novel and Non-Obvious Over the Prior Art
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10, 11, and 13-25 are novel and non-obvious over the prior art; however, these claims are subject to the above rejections.
The closest prior art is U.S. Patent Application No. 2022/0383238 to Malloy et al (hereafter Malloy). Malloy discloses receiving requests from user devices for delivery of products to a delivery location via UAV, and providing user interfaces to indicate viable and unviable products for UAV delivery, and finalizing an order for delivery by UAV.
The next closest prior art is U.S. Patent Application No. 2017/0372259 to Lesser et al (hereafter Lesser). Lesser discloses receiving requests from user devices for delivery of products to a delivery location via UAV and delivering via a UAV, a finalized order.
The next closest prior art is U.S. Patent Application No. 2023/0020135 to Ferguson et al (hereafter Ferguson). Ferguson discloses using as a delivery constraint a delivery route to the delivery location.
The next closest prior art is U.S. Patent Application No. 2019/0259232 to Nandakumar et al (hereafter Nandakumar). Nandakumar discloses retrieving product data from a dynamic retailer database via an API.
The next closest prior art is U.S. Patent Application No. 2024/0211842 to Taylor et al (hereafter Taylor). Taylor discloses use bin packing algorithms in determining viability of drone delivery of products.
While the closest prior art above teaches the various aspects of the claimed invention individually, the combination of these references are not obvious in such a way that they would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention. More specifically, it would not be obvious at the time of invention to modify UAV delivery interface platform of Malloy by modifying Malloy’s ordering process to further include the delivery location specification, order finalization, and delivery via the UAV of Lesser; adding as constraints limiting UAV viable products, beyond the capacity limits taught by Malloy, the delivery constraints including the delivery route of Ferguson; and further still replacing the inventory database of Malloy with the dynamic retailer database which provides data to the platform via an API of Nandakumar while utilizing the algorithms of Taylor. Therefore, the claims are rendered novel and non-obvious over the prior art.
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 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 DAVID G GODBOLD whose telephone number is (571)272-5036. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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 S 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.
/DAVID G. GODBOLD/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
