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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 23, 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-4, 6-8, and 10-24 were previously pending and subject to a final rejection dated October 23, 2025. In RCE, submitted February 23, 2026, claims 1, 8, 10, 16, and 22 were amended. Therefore, claims 1-4, 6-8, and 10-24 are currently pending and subject to the following non-final rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks on Page 8 of the Response regarding the previous rejection of the claims over 35 U.S.C. 112(b), have been fully considered and are found to be persuasive in view of the amended claims.
Applicant’s remarks on Pages 8-12 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 Pages 8-9 of the Response, Applicant argues “Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection. The Office does not identify which elements of the claims amount to the abstract idea and for at least that reason the § 101 rejections are deficient. … the Advisory Action states the "'abstract ideas (a), (b), (c)' are cited as being part of the 'response to arguments' section...and is not part of the analysis of the recited claims over § 101." Emphasis added. Because the Office has failed to identify which elements are allegedly directed to an abstract idea, the Office has failed to meet its burden in establishing the claims are directed to unpatentable subject matter under § 101.”
Examiner notes, the statements drawn from the Advisory Action are cited in such a way as to make it appear that the Examiner is stating that abstract ideas are not part of the analysis of the recited claims over 101. This is not the intent of the original statement provided by the Examiner. For clarification, the Examiner was attempting to clarify that the “response to arguments” section is not the 101 analysis of the of the recited claims, but rather direct responses to the specific arguments put forth by the Applicant, and therefore statements made in the response to arguments are not and should not be construed as part of, or replacement of, the detailed 101 analysis performed within the Office Action (See Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101 section comprising paras. 14-42 of the cited Final Office Action, mailed October 23, 2025). Further, the Advisory Action is not intended to provide detailed responses to arguments or detailed 101 analysis of the claims. The Advisory Action, in this case, is meant to provide high-level advisory guidance as to why “the proposed amendments filed after a final rejection, but prior to the date of filing a brief, will not be entered” and why the “request for reconsideration has been considered but does NOT place the application in condition for allowance”. The Advisory Action is not a full Office Action complete with full and detailed responses to arguments, or full and detailed written analysis of the claims. In the instant case, the arguments submitted within Response After Final Action, mailed December 23, 2025, cite nearly exclusively to the “Response to Arguments” Section of the previously cited Final Office Action, and rarely, if ever, cite to the detailed analysis of the claims performed in Paragraphs 14-42 of the previously cited Final Office Action. While all aspects of the claims are analyzed within the detailed analysis, including the limitations indicated by the Applicant within the previous arguments as (a)-(f), Examiner was merely pointing out that the “Response to Arguments” section is not the detailed analysis of the claims, therefore does not inherently represent all aspects of the claimed inventions, only those aspects brought forward within the Applicant’s arguments.
Examiner further notes, as indicated in the previously cited Final Office Action and again in the detailed rejection below under the heading “Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101”, Office clearly indicates “the specific limitation(s) in the claim under examination that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea” in Paras. 17-18 of the previously cited Final Office Action, and the determination of “whether the identified limitations(s) fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas” in Para. 19 of the same Final Office Action. (See MPEP 2106.04(a)) Therefore, the burden is met in establishing the claims directed to unpatentable subject matter as set forth in MPEP.
On Page 9 of the Response, Applicant argues “Further, the § 101 rejections are further deficient for failing to consider whether the additional limitations of the claims beyond any alleged abstract idea(s) transform the abstract idea(s) into a practical application. The Office only summarily analyzes features of the additional claim limitations, rather than analyzing the additional elements or combinations thereof, and states features such as the ‘the user interface’ ‘amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components’ or ‘merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitation.’”
Examiner notes, as indicated in the previously cited Final Office Action and again in the detailed rejection below under the heading “Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101”, Paras. 21, 22, 26, 30, 35, and 39 of the previously cited Final Office Action, cite to specific instances in the Applicant’s specification that support the findings of the analysis that the additional elements amount to merely “apply it” or generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use. Further, Para. 23 of the same Final cites to specific figures representative of the claimed additional elements which are evaluated as a whole/ordered combination and similarly result in the additional elements being found to amount to merely “apply it” or generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use. As a specific example, in Para. 21 of the same Final, the analysis cites to Specification Para. 73 which discloses the “user interface” at a high level, stating that it “may generally be displayed at the user device 104a or 104b and may be configured by user interface configuration 116 based on output from delivery constraint verification 114 and/or other data stored at or obtained by the retail application 102.” In other words, it displays data to a user. There is no further detail as to what the user interface actually is or how it specifically operates, other than being a tool for performing the abstract idea of providing data the user, i.e., “apply it”. Contextualized within the claim language, the “user interface” is used as a tool to perform the abstract ideas of “displaying … representations of the plurality of products at least initially available for delivery” and “dynamically updating, prior to a second input …, the display of representations” (claim 1); even in combination with other additional elements, such as the “user device” (disclosed broadly within Para. 29 of the Specification as “mobile devices or other computing devices used by a consumer or end customer to access the retail application”), these elements are used merely as tools to perform the abstract ideas, and are therefore found to amount to merely “apply it”.
On Page 10 of the Response, Applicant argues “The Office further alleges that the ‘computer resources’ (cited as ‘computer networks’ by the Office) identified as being improved in the specification, are allegedly not present in the claims … Applicant respectfully disagrees with each remark. … Applicant notes the claims recite each of a ‘retailer database,’ ‘processing element,’ and a ‘displaying, by the user interface on the user device’ which would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art as types of ‘computer resources.’ The claimed method improves the technologies related to user interfaces and computer resources.”
Examiner notes, the only known instance that the Office has referred a “computer network” in regards to this invention was in Para. 5 of the previously cited Final Office Action. This recitation was in direct response to the Applicant’s argument “the claimed method of the present application addresses unique problems resulting from ordering goods by computer networks without physically being able to view the goods” (Para. 4, same Final; emphasis added). This instance of “computer networks” was interpreted to mean the “protocols for communications between computing devices… using the Internet, a local area network (LAN), a wide area network (WAN), and/or other networks” or “near field communication (NFC), Bluetooth, cellular connections, and the like” as detailed in Para. 32 of the Applicant’s Specification. Examiner acknowledges the recitation of the additional elements of retailer database, processing element, user interface, and user device within the claims analyzed in both the detailed rejection under the heading of “Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101” below and in the previously cited Final rejection, and that these elements may be understood as part of the more broad grouping of “computer resources” rather than the more narrowly interpreted grouping of “computer networks”. Regarding these elements, as discussed further in the detailed rejection below under the heading “Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101”, the “retailer database” is generically disclosed as being “used to store data accessible by the computing system 200 by way of data interface 212” (See Specification Para. 51); the processing element is generically disclosed as “hardware for executing instructions, such as those making up a computer program” and “circuitry for performing various processing functions”; the generic disclosure of both the “user interface” and the “user device” have been discussed above. These generic disclosures in their context of the claimed invention as merely tools to perform the recited abstract ideas, provide support for the analytical findings that these additional elements amount to merely “apply it”. The specification provides no support for any improvement to these generically disclosed additional elements or the way in which the interact.
On Page 10-11 of the Response, Applicant argues “The assertion that no technological improvement is provided by the claims because the unviable orders are only prevented ignores the claims as a whole and the teachings of the specification. … With reference to the teachings of the present application, any user interface or shipping system that accepted orders that could not be completed would be unworkable and induce high demands on numerous computing resources to correct operations. … the demands on the computing resources can include requiring the dedication of physical computing resources to resolving the issues and pausing alternative processing operations, energy demand, increasing computer and processing run times, or the like. Accordingly, an improvement in a method utilizing computing resources that reduces demands on the computing resources would necessarily improve those technologies. An improvement in a user interface that clearly communicating viable or unviable products would further improve the utilization of any computing device on which the user interface is displayed. In view of the foregoing, the claims are subject matter eligible as ‘a computer implemented method’ which addresses and solves problems of user interfaces and computer systems that improves the operation of computer resources for remote ordering of goods for delivery by a UAV.”
Examiner notes, the claims fail to demonstrate any improvements to the technology, rather the claims demonstrate an alleged improvement to the abstract ideas related to potential issues of “accept[ing] orders that could not be completed”. This improvement is found notably in the abstract idea of “clearly communicating viable or unviable products”. By performing the abstract ideas of clearly communication unviable products, and even more specifically “prohibit[ting] the addition of the unviable product to the order” (claim 19), the unviable products are simply not added to the order, and therefore the “demands on the computing resources” to “requir[e] the dedication of physical computing resources to resolv[e] the issues and paus[e] alternative processing operations, energy demand, increasing computer and processing run times” are simply not needed. This does nothing to improve these computer resources themselves; they remain wholly unaffected by the invention at a technical level. The invention does not alter the technical aspects of how these computing resources handle the required extra demands, it simply doesn’t require the extra demands because of the alleged improvement to the abstract ideas related to potential issues of “accept[ing] orders that could not be completed”. As discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a)(II), an improvement to the abstract idea is not an improvement technology. Similarly, implementing an abstract idea of “clearly communicating viable or unviable products” on a user interface does not inherently improve the user interface itself or the computing device on which it is displayed. Therefore, even though additional elements are recited alongside the abstract ideas, they still fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
On Page 11 of the Response, Applicant argues “To the extent the claims include abstract ideas, the claimed methods as a whole are confined to and improve on computer implemented user interfaces and methods of ordering goods for delivery by a UAV, integrating any abstract idea into a practical application with technical benefits. USPTO promulgated example 23 - claim 4 and example 36 - claims 2 and 3 are illustrative on why the claims are patent eligible. With reference to the problem solved by the invention, UAV's have physical limits for delivering goods (e.g., a mass, volume, or category of product) that can limit the goods shippable by a UAV. To prevent confusion or frustration by a user, and unnecessary or inefficient utilization of resources (e.g., processing elements, the UAVs, time to undo orders), the present application identifies methods that address these issues prior to finalizing an order by improved operation of computer resources and further reduces demands on the computing resources attributable to unviable orders. Specifically, with reference to claim 1, the ‘computer implemented method’ improves on user interfaces and increases the efficiency of a UAV shipping network by, in part, retrieving and considering ‘dynamically updated...product data defining dimensional characteristics’ to automatically identify products ‘at least initially available for delivery’ and further identifying combinations of ‘one or more additionally viable or unviable products for delivery with the first item’ that can be shipped by the UAV. The identification is not merely done in the abstract, but part of an overall method that uses these identifications to dynamically update the ‘user interface’ to accurately display ‘with visual indicators that the one or more additionally viable or unviable products can or cannot be delivered with the first item’ (e.g., potential order permutations) prior to finalizing the order. That is, a tangible output at the ‘user interface’ is produced by the method which amounts to significantly more than an abstract idea and improves the utilization and demands of the computing resources.”
Examiner notes, as discussed above and further discussed in the detailed rejection below under the heading “Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101”, while additional elements such as “computer implemented user interfaces” are recited along the abstract idea, these technical aspects are not themselves improved, rather the abstract idea of “ordering goods for delivery by a UAV” is allegedly improved. While UAV’s themselves face technical problems such as “hav[ing] physical limits for delivering goods (e.g., a mass, volume, or category of product) that can limit the goods shippable by a UAV”, the claimed invention does not solve the issue of having physical limits, it merely uses the limit as an abstract data point to confine how the system performs the abstract idea of “retrieving and considering ‘dynamically updated...product data defining dimensional characteristics’ to automatically identify products ‘at least initially available for delivery’ and further identifying combinations of ‘one or more additionally viable or unviable products for delivery with the first item’ that can be shipped by the UAV”. Similar to the discussion above, this alleged improvement to the abstract idea is not an improvement to the technologies used to carry it out (i.e. the UAV, user interface, or other computing resources). This mirrors the findings in Trading Technologies Int’ v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), as detailed in MPEP 2106.05(a)(II), where the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader (in the instant case, the user) with more information to facilitate market trades (in the instant case, “us[ing] these identifications to dynamically update [and] … accurately display "with visual indicators that the one or more additionally viable or unviable products can or cannot be delivered with the first item" (e.g., potential order permutations) prior to finalizing the order” represents more information to facilitate the ordering of goods for delivery by a UAV), which improved the business process of market trading (in the instant case, the business process of ordering of goods for delivery by a UAV is improved) but did not improve computers or technology (in the instant case, the UAV, user interface, or computing resources are not improved).
On Pages 11-12 of the Response, Applicant argues “the claimed methods are patent eligible for similar reasons as at least Example 23 claim 4 of the USPTO § 101 Examples. As in the Example 23, the limitations of the independent claims are not merely attempting to limit a mathematical algorithm to a particular technological environment. … Similarly, the claimed method recites a specific application that improves the functioning of the user interface and computer resources by displaying which items are actually available for ordering and which cannot be (‘viable or unviable’) to the user prior to finalizing the order to improve utilization and demands on the compute resources.”
Examiner notes, Example 23 claim 4 provides technical background as to how “the invention continuously monitors the boundaries of the windows to ascertain an overlap condition indicating that the windows overlap such that the textual information of an underlying window is obscured from a user’s view by the overlapping window. … [and] re‐formats and moves the textual information in the underlying window to an unobscured portion of the underlying window so that the textual information is viewable by the user.” (Example 23, Background) Further, “The recitation of the computer screen for displaying and the processor for moving data is not enough by itself to transform the exception into a patentable invention, because these limitations are generic computer components performing generic computer functions at a high level of generality”. (Example 23, Analysis) However, it is explicitly these technical aspects, that receive significantly more explanation than the excerpt provided here, which provides that basis for the improvement to the functioning of the basic display function (i.e. user interface) of the computer itself that renders the claim eligible. On the contrary, the instant application fails to detail any similar technical issue caused by the way user interfaces or computing resources operate, rather the invention merely uses the user interface as a tool to perform the abstract idea of “displaying which items are actually available for ordering and which cannot be (‘viable or unviable’) to the user prior to finalizing the order”.
On Page 12 of the Response, Applicant argues “Additionally, the recited features render the claimed methods patent eligible for similar reasons as Example 36 claims 2 and 3 of the USPTO § 101 Examples. In Example 36 the combination and use of the computing resources amounted to significantly more than inventory tracking by combining steps to improve recognition and tracking of inventory without manual steps previously required to improve the technical problem of automatically tracking objects. Similarly, the claimed methods, at least, include a combination of methods to improve utilization of each of the user interface, a dynamically updated retailer database, and other elements to confine the method to a particular application amounting to significantly more than ‘facilitating ordering for delivery of various products to consumers.’ The claimed methods address the technical problem of ensuring viable and remote orders given the unique shipping constraints of UAVs. The claimed method leverages the information and computer resources to effectively and accurately identify products that can and can't be shipped, and further accurately conveys the statuses of products to a user of the user interface prior to finalization of an order. Further, as noted by the Office, the methods of the independent claims are novel and non-obvious over existing methods and teachings in the art. See Office Action at p. 18-19. Example 36 claim 2 identifies that operations incorporating steps that are not "well understood, routing, conventional activity" to improve a technical problem lead toward a finding that the claims amount to more than an abstract idea. The additional independent claims include features similar to claim 1 and are subject matter eligible for similar reasons. In view of the foregoing, Applicant respectfully requests the withdrawal of the rejections under 35 USC § 101 and the allowance of the claims.
Examiner notes, the invention of Example 36, claims 2 and 3 is directed to resolving specific issues and providing specific improvements to the technical field of computer vision that were previously impossible or technically problematic prior to the claimed invention. These specific issues and improvements are explicitly provided in the background/specification section of the Example and reflected in the claim language. Conversely, the instant specification fails to provide any analogous technical issue and solutions. Additionally the instant claims use additional elements as generic tools to perform abstract ideas such as displaying data (in the case of the user interface, discussed in more detail above) or storing/providing/updating data (in the case of the retailer database, discussed in more detail above). As discussed previously, the advantages of the instant claims are found not in improvements to the technologies, but rather in alleged improvements to abstract ideas such as “ensuring viable and remote orders given the unique shipping constraints of UAVs”, “effectively and accurately identify[ing] products that can and can't be shipped, and further accurately convey[ing] the statuses of products to a user of the user interface prior to finalization of an order”.
Examiner further notes, the assertion of improvement to the “utilization of each of the user interface” is presented only in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), thus the Examiner cannot determine the claims improve the technology (See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1)).
Examiner finally notes, “lack of novelty under 35 U.S.C. 102 or obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 of a claimed invention does not necessarily indicate that additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional elements. Because they are separate and distinct requirements from eligibility, patentability of the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 with respect to the prior art is neither required for, nor a guarantee of, patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101.” (MPEP 2106.05) Further still, “well understood, routine, and conventional” is a single test provided to Examiners when determining the eligibility of claims at Step 2B. Neither the detailed rejection below nor the previously discussed Final Office Action have relied on “well-understood, routine, and conventional” as grounds for rejection, therefore the arguments regarding the “well-understood, routine, and conventional” test are moot. As discussed further in the detailed rejection below, the claims remain ineligible over 101.
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, and 10-24 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, and 10-24 are directed to methods (i.e., processes). Therefore, claims 1-4, 6-8, and 10-24 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 a plurality of products at least initially available for delivery by an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) and a delivery location;
retrieving dynamically updated product data defining dimensional characteristics of the plurality of products or packaging for 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 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,
constraint data identifying one or more delivery constraints of the UAV, and
one or more characteristics of the 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;
dynamically updating, prior to a second input, the display of representations of the one or more additionally viable or unviable products with visual indicators that the one or more additionally viable or unviable products can or cannot be delivered with the first item by the UAV;
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 dynamically updated product data defining dimensional characteristics of the plurality of products or packaging for 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 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;
analyzing the product data of the plurality of products and the new product, and analyzing one or more delivery constraints of the UAV;
responsive to receiving the user input, determining based on the product data and the delivery constraints 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 an addition of a viable product to the order with the new product will not exceed the one or more delivery constraints;
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 facilitating ordering for delivery of various products to consumers. 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 (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, (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, [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, (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 claim is 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, 17-19, and 21-24 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, 17-19, and 21-24 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, which is recited at a high-level of generality (See [0059] of the Applicants PG Specification disclosing the sensor of the UAV) 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)).
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: “apply it” (or an equivalent), and is 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)), 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 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 Claims 12-14 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, claims 12-14 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, and 10-24 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.
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, the 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. Therefore, the claims are rendered novel and non-obvious over the prior art.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights