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 in reply to the amendment filed on 4/17/2026.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-11, 13-14, and 17-20 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 22-25 have been added.
Claims 2, 15, and 21 have been canceled.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-14, 17-20, and 22-25 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Preliminary Matters
While not constituting substantive arguments requiring response, Examiner notes that the assertions of support for the present amendments (beginning on pg. 24 of the present remarks) contain multiple misstatements and assumptions regarding Examiner’s previous analyses which are untrue, have no basis in the content of the previous Office Actions, and misapprehend how 101 standards apply to the present claim language (e.g., “[t]he examiner has characterized the navigation instructions because they are claimed at a high level without specifying how the computer system technically generates or applies them”). Examiner must clarify the record regarding these erroneous statements, as they do not correctly describe Examiner’s analyses and findings in previous 101 rejections.
The one partial exception to this is Applicant’s statement that “[t]he examiner has maintained that the fully-autonomous robot, as currently claimed, is described with ‘extreme generality’ and lacks the structural specificity required to constitute a ‘particular machine.’” Examiner calls this a “partial” exception as the language referenced by Applicant (see pgs. 3-4 of the Final Rejection of 10/09/2025) was not limited to the description of this robot merely as claimed, but also as described in the original disclosure. Indeed, this “extreme generality” of the original disclosure’s description of said robot results in some of the issues noted in the 112(a) new matter rejections below. That said, even if Applicant had proper support for these argued amendments, merely specifying that this robot has a structural makeup including a “control system” would still fall well short of embodying a particular machine, even if this were a stand-alone test for eligibility (which, to be clear, it is not – see pgs. 4-5 of the Final Rejection of 10/09/2025).
Further, particularly regarding the assertions of support for new Claims 22-25 in this section of the Remarks, Examiner disputes Appellant’s statements in relation thereto. See the 112(a) new matter rejections below for more information.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 101 analysis have been considered and are unpersuasive.
Applicant first asserts the rolled-up sub-models of presently cancelled Claims 2, 15 and 21. The arguments related thereto are essentially a reiteration of the same arguments presented in the Interview of 4/08/2026 and Examiner continues to dispute these arguments for the same reasons explained in said Interview and noted in the Summary of said Interview.
That information on the effectuation of delivery operations may only exist up to a present time, wherein information on not-yet-executed delivery operations does not yet exist at this present time, is a basic tenet of reality, not a “technical constraint” as articulated in said Interview, or a “technical reality” or “concrete, specific technical implementation” as articulated in the present Remarks. Analyzing such information at different points in time (e.g., at different “fulfillment stages” of the delivery process), using what information exists at such disparate points in time, is not an inherently technological solution, nor does it address an inherently technological problem. Put another way, the limit of delivery information up to a present time is not a “technical problem[] of how to predict FDOs” as argued, as this limiting of information is present regardless of whether this process is performed manually or via computers as claimed, and no amount of framing of this abstract concept (predicting likelihood of failed deliveries, and determining and taking corrective “friction” actions to avoid such delivery failures) as part of a “computer process” makes this otherwise.
The use of up-to-date information, in the analysis of delivery operations or any other commercial field, is not inventive; it is common sense and ubiquitous. The use of such information in one of a plurality of machine learning sub-models, particularly where such sub-models are discussed and claimed at an extremely high level as performing an entirely abstract step (predicting a likelihood of delivery failure based on the delivery information that exists at the time of execution), does not somehow transform this into a technical problem or a technical solution. The re-running of such analyses based on updated information is likewise common sense and ubiquitous, existing in nearly every field of human endeavor. What is presently claimed in relation to this argument is an abstract series of mentally performable data analyses (e.g., pattern recognition, progress comparisons, extrapolation), which happen to be claimed as being effectuated by way of various computer elements (e.g., machine-learning models and sub-models stored on memory and executed by a processor), not “a concrete, specific technical implementation.” As has been explained to Applicant in multiple previous Office Actions and Interviews, mere high-level claiming of abstract steps as being performed by computer elements does not prevent recitation of abstract ideas. See said previous Office Actions, including citations to and discussions of e.g., MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) therein, for more information.
Further, as such sub-models are described and claimed in black box-type fashion absent any technical details on the machine learning processes (e.g., these sub-models are solely discussed in Paragraphs 0064 and 0072 of the original disclosure), the original disclosure fails to meet the evidentiary requirements for embodying an improvement to a technology set forth in MPEP 2106.04(d)(1). The original disclosure does not describe this sub-model feature in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Returning back to a Prong One argument made in the present Remarks, this lack of description of the technical functioning of these sub-models supports the categorization of their purpose in the claim as a whole as mere instructions to apply a judicial exception (e.g., use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). Despite Applicant’s argued “specific structural relationship,” what is actually claimed is the high-level use of machine-learning models and sub-models (in black box manner as noted above, absent any technical details as to their functionings) as tools to perform essentially the same abstract calculation of a likelihood of failed delivery at stages of the fulfillment process, using what delivery data exists at the points in time of said each respective stage. Merely specifying that each stage of the fulfillment process has its own assigned sub-model for this abstract purpose does nothing to evidence an improvement to a technology.
Applicant’s invocation of the overcoming of 102 novelty and 103 obviousness rejections as “further reinforc[ing] that the claim is integrated into a practical application” fundamentally misapprehends the standards of 101, 102, and 103. Subject matter eligibility under 101 is an entirely different standard than novelty under 102 and obviousness under 103, and novel and non-obvious subject matter in no way evidence subject matter eligibility.
Applicant’s argument that “one basis for the examiner’s § 101 rejection is that the friction actions, even when applied to a fully-autonomous robot, remain abstract because they are characterized as instructions to the delivery agent rather than as technical operations that cause a physical change in the system” is incorrect, and appears to be no more than a strawman assumption of Examiner’s analysis (similar to those addressed in the Preliminary Matters section above) rather than based on anything stated in any previous Office Action. As the claims, both as previously and presently drafted, claimed “a delivery agent that is a fully-autonomous robot,” the scope of the limitation in question is identical regardless of whether the language thereof uses the term “delivery agent” or “autonomous robot.” Rather, Examiner puts the claimed autonomous robot in its proper context in view of the claims as a whole, both in terms of this limitation and all others in which it is invoked: it is a high-level replacement of a human delivery agent, as described in Paragraph 0025 (while the remainder of the original disclosure discusses the present invention in terms of such a human delivery agent).
The underlying function here, the taking of a corrective “friction” action (either in an instruction for a delivery agent to take pictures of a delivered order as previously claimed, or in rescheduling an order drop off when the delivery location has a rate of failed deliveries above a threshold amount as presently amended) by a delivery agent represents an abstract, commercial step (and as presently amended, said rescheduling is also mentally performable, with the threshold comparison additionally being mathematical). Merely specifying that the delivery agent take the form of a robot does not make these underlying steps any less abstract. Similarly and relatedly, Applicant’s assertion that “[t]he amendment in claim 1 addresses this directly” by particularly claiming the friction action be carried out by the autonomous robot is unpersuasive for essentially the same reasons: choosing to use the language “fully-autonomous robot” rather than “delivery agent” makes no difference to the scope of the limitation given the preceding recitation of “a delivery agent that is a fully-autonomous robot,” and this does not avoid the abstract nature of the underlying step itself. Merely replacing a standard human delivery agent with an autonomous robot does not integrate this nearly entirely abstract sequence of steps into a practical application. As is clear from the original disclosure, the entire present invention may be practiced absent this robot using a human delivery agent; as such, the substitution of a human delivery agent with this robot in the claims as presently drafted merely constitutes “apply it” (e.g., as stated in MPEP 2106.05(f), “[u]se of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks”), while the delivery operations themselves constitute abstract ideas for which the robot is used as a tool to effectuate.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 14, and 20 are objected to because of the following informality: In Claims 1, 14, and 20, “…an order placed by a user the computer system…” should read “…an order placed by a user of the computer system…” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 22 and 24 contain the following language: “wherein processor generates the navigation instructions based on real-time location data received from the fully-autonomous robot via the network, and wherein the processor dynamically updates the navigation route in response to changes in the real-time location data of the fully-autonomous robot.” The original disclosure fails to provide proper 112(a) support for this claim language, and thus the claims recite new matter. Paragraph 0025 contains the only brief mention of the delivery agent being an autonomous robot in the entire specification, and does not disclose the functioning of said robot at the level of granularity claimed here. Additionally, navigation instructions are discussed in 0022-0023, 0044, and 0046-0047. None of these paragraphs (nor any passage of the original disclosure) discuss such navigation instructions particularly being in the form of a “route” as claimed. Rather, such navigation instructions may instead take the form of turn-by-turn instructions, for example. The original disclosure’s discussion of these navigation instructions lacks the specificity to claim them particularly in the form of a route. Further still, the only mention of “real time” in the entire original disclosure is found in Paragraph 0020, which relates to an entirely different context (notification of order pick-up). As such, these claims recite new matter.
Claims 23 and 25 contain the following language: “wherein the collection instructions comprise machine-executable navigation commands that are stored at the computer-readable medium, executed by the processor, and transmitted via the network to a control system of the fully-autonomous robot to autonomously navigate aisles of the retailer location and physically manipulate items for collection.” The original disclosure fails to provide proper 112(a) support for this claim language, and thus the claims recite new matter. What the claims call “collection instructions” are discussed in Paragraphs 0015-0016, 0020, 0046, and 0078, wherein such instructions are never described as “machine-executable navigation commands that are stored at the computer-readable medium, executed by the processor, and transmitted via the network to a control system of the fully-autonomous robot” as claimed. Indeed, Paragraph 0025, containing the only mention of the autonomous robot embodiment in the entire original disclosure, contains no description of the structural makeup of such robots at all (e.g., the “control system” thereof). While the commands displayed to a human delivery agent throughout the original disclosure may, arguably at best, imply the notion of the presently claimed “machine-executable navigation commands,” nothing in the original disclosure discusses or implies the granularity of such commands and operations as presently claimed. In relevant part, Paragraph 0025 states that in an embodiment where the delivery agent takes the form of an autonomous robot, such a robot “may collect items in a retailer location for an order and an autonomous vehicle may deliver an order to a user from a retailer location.” This extremely high-level disclosure, even supplemented by all other discussion of such order pick-ups, does not support the detail present in the claim. For example, a robot collecting items in a retailer location may be done at the front of the store or some designated area thereof, thereby avoiding any traversal of aisles. Additionally, the items themselves may be provided to the robot (e.g., in a bin or compartment thereof) by a retailer location employee rather than by robot-based physical manipulation of such items. Rather, these claims further develop the vaguely recited order collection operations of the original disclosure far beyond what is described therein. Additionally, these claims additionally further develop the recited autonomous robot beyond what is described in the original disclosure, which contains no description of the structural makeup of such robots whatsoever (e.g., the claimed “control system” thereof, and any physical makeup and capabilities might be necessary for the robot to “physically manipulate items for collection.” As such, these claims recite new matter.
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 7, 10, 14, 17-19, and 23-25 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.
Claims 7, 10, and 17-18 each contain the term “a delivery stage of the fulfillment process.” It is unclear as drafted whether any of these are intended to relate back to “a delivery stage of the fulfillment process” of Claims 1 and 14, respectively. For the purposes of this examination, in each of these claims, this term is interpreted as “the delivery stage of the fulfillment process.”
Claim 14, a product claim taking the form of a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium executable by a processor, contains many steps performed by said processor which reference “a/the computer system.” As drafted, the relationship between the processor and this computer system is unclear, which is particularly problematic as certain structure is explicitly claimed as being part of the computer system (e.g., the delivery prediction model) as well as steps explicitly performed by said computer system (e.g., applying the corresponding friction action) while simultaneously claimed as being performed by the processor of the preamble. For the purposes of this examination, the claimed computer system will be interpreted as comprising the processor of the preamble. Claim 17 is additionally rejected on its own merits for the same reasons, due to its further instances of “the computer system.” Claims 17-19 and 24-25 are rejected due to their dependency upon Claim 14.
Claims 23 and 25 contain the following limitation: “wherein the collection instructions comprise machine-executable navigation commands that are stored at the computer-readable medium, executed by the processor, and transmitted via the network to a control system of the fully-autonomous robot to autonomously navigate aisles of the retailer location and physically manipulate items for collection.” As drafted, it is unclear how such machine-executable navigation commands are “executed by the processor” (part of the separate and remote computer system), while the “control system of the fully-autonomous robot” seemingly also executes these instructions thereby causing the claimed navigation of aisles at the retailer location and physically manipulating items for collection. The original disclosure does not clarify this indefiniteness (see separate 112(a) rejection of Claims 23 and 25). Further, given that these collection instructions are also explicitly “executed by the processor” in parent Claims 1 and 14, removing this offending language solely here in Claims 23 and 25 will not cure this issue. As such, for the purposes of this examination, this limitation will be interpreted as “wherein the collection instructions comprise machine-executable navigation commands that are stored at the computer-readable medium, executed by the processor, and transmitted via the network to a control system of the fully-autonomous robot to autonomously navigate aisles of the retailer location and physically manipulate items for collection,” and further, for Claims 1 and 14 will be interpreted (solely in relation to Claims 23 and 25), the collection instructions therein will be interpreted as if they were not “executed by the processor.” Examiner notes that this interpretation violates 112(d) standards, but can think of no other way to correct this issue.
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, 3-8, 10-14, 17-20, and 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Claims 1, 14, and 20, the limitations of receiving order data with information about an order placed by a user; collecting user data with information about the user; receiving the user data communicated from the user; responsive to receiving the order data, assigning a fulfillment of the order to a delivery agent; upon assigning the fulfillment of the order, instructing the delivery agent to complete a fulfillment process for the order by collecting items of the order in a retailer location; physically collecting, by the delivery agent using the collection instructions, the items in the retailer location; upon collecting the items in the retailer location, controlling a movement of the delivery agent from the retailer location to a delivery location associated with the user; moving, along a navigation route identified using the navigation instructions, the delivery agent from the retailer location to the delivery location for delivering the items to the user at the delivery location; obtaining, during the fulfillment process for the order, fulfillment data associated with a corresponding stage of a plurality of stages of the fulfillment process for the order; accessing, during the corresponding stage of the fulfillment process, a delivery prediction model, wherein the delivery prediction model is trained to predict a likelihood of a delivery for the order ending up as a failed delivery in which the system receives confirmation of delivery from the delivery agent but also receives a message from the user that delivery did not occur; applying, during the corresponding stage of the fulfillment process, a corresponding prediction sub-model of the delivery prediction model that is associated with the corresponding stage of the fulfillment process to the order data, the user data, and the fulfillment data to generate the likelihood of the failed delivery for the order predicted during the corresponding stage of the fulfillment process; comparing the likelihood of the failed delivery to a threshold value; responsive to the likelihood of the failed delivery being greater than the threshold value, identifying a corresponding friction action associated with the corresponding stage of the fulfillment process to prevent an occurrence of the failed delivery for the order; applying, during the corresponding stage of the fulfillment process, the corresponding friction action at the computer system that causes the display of content to the delivery agent intended to prevent the occurrence of the failed delivery for the order, wherein, at one instance of the corresponding stage of the fulfillment process prior to a delivery stage of the fulfillment process, the corresponding friction action comprises transmitting an instruction to the delivery agent that causes the delivery agent to reschedule a movement of the delivery agent to the delivery location having a rate of failed deliveries above a threshold rate; sending, to the user, a message with information about an identification number, wherein the sending provides the user with a first message and the identification number, the first message prompting the user to communicate the identification number when the delivery agent delivers the order to the delivery location; receiving, from the user, the identification number; responsive to receiving the identification number from the user, sending a message to the delivery agent, wherein the sending provides the delivery agent with a second message and the identification number, the second message prompting the delivery agent to enter the identification number using the second user interface element; receiving, from the delivery agent, a message including the identification number and an indication of a successful completion of the fulfillment process; responsive to receiving the message from the delivery agent, generating a delivery result including the indication about the successful completion of the fulfillment process; and re-training the delivery prediction model by updating, using the delivery result, a set of parameters of the delivery prediction model, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover certain methods of organizing human activity. For example, these limitations fall at least within the enumerated categories of commercial or legal interactions and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)).
Additionally, the limitations of receiving order data with information about an order placed by a user; collecting user data with information about the user; receiving the user data communicated from the user; responsive to receiving the order data, assigning a fulfillment of the order to a delivery agent; upon assigning the fulfillment of the order, instructing the delivery agent to complete a fulfillment process for the order by collecting items of the order in a retailer location; upon collecting the items in the retailer location, controlling a movement of the delivery agent from the retailer location to a delivery location associated with the user; obtaining, during the fulfillment process for the order, fulfillment data associated with a corresponding stage of a plurality of stages of the fulfillment process for the order; accessing, during the corresponding stage of the fulfillment process, a delivery prediction model, wherein the delivery prediction model is trained to predict a likelihood of a delivery for the order ending up as a failed delivery in which the system receives confirmation of delivery from the delivery agent but also receives a message from the user that delivery did not occur; applying, during the corresponding stage of the fulfillment process, a corresponding prediction sub-model of the delivery prediction model that is associated with the corresponding stage of the fulfillment process to the order data, the user data, and the fulfillment data to generate the likelihood of the failed delivery for the order predicted during the corresponding stage of the fulfillment process; comparing the likelihood of the failed delivery to a threshold value; responsive to the likelihood of the failed delivery being greater than the threshold value, identifying a corresponding friction action associated with the corresponding stage of the fulfillment process to prevent an occurrence of the failed delivery for the order; applying, during the corresponding stage of the fulfillment process, the corresponding friction action at the computer system that causes the display of content to the delivery agent intended to prevent the occurrence of the failed delivery for the order, wherein, at one instance of the corresponding stage of the fulfillment process prior to a delivery stage of the fulfillment process, the corresponding friction action comprises transmitting an instruction to the delivery agent that causes the delivery agent to reschedule a movement of the delivery agent to the delivery location having a rate of failed deliveries above a threshold rate; sending, to the user, a message with information about an identification number, wherein the sending provides the user with a first message and the identification number, the first message prompting the user to communicate the identification number when the delivery agent delivers the order to the delivery location; receiving, from the user, the identification number; responsive to receiving the identification number from the user, sending a message to the delivery agent, wherein the sending provides the delivery agent with a second message and the identification number, the second message prompting the delivery agent to enter the identification number using the second user interface element; receiving, from the delivery agent, a message including the identification number and an indication of a successful completion of the fulfillment process; responsive to receiving the message from the delivery agent, generating a delivery result including the indication about the successful completion of the fulfillment process; and re-training the delivery prediction model by updating, using the delivery result, a set of parameters of the delivery prediction model, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes. For example, these limitations recite activity comprising observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Additionally, the limitations of accessing, during the corresponding stage of the fulfillment process, a delivery prediction model, wherein the delivery prediction model is trained to predict a likelihood of a delivery for the order ending up as a failed delivery in which the system receives confirmation of delivery from the delivery agent but also receives a message from the user that delivery did not occur; applying, during the corresponding stage of the fulfillment process, a corresponding prediction sub-model of the delivery prediction model that is associated with the corresponding stage of the fulfillment process to the order data, the user data, and the fulfillment data to generate the likelihood of the failed delivery for the order predicted during the corresponding stage of the fulfillment process; comparing the likelihood of the failed delivery to a threshold value; the corresponding friction action comprises transmitting an instruction to the delivery agent that causes the delivery agent to reschedule a movement of the delivery agent to the delivery location having a rate of failed deliveries above a threshold rate; and re-training the delivery prediction model by updating, using the delivery result, a set of parameters of the delivery prediction model, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mathematical concepts. For example, these limitations recite mathematical relationships and/or calculations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships, or managing interactions between people, it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper but for recitation of generic computer components, it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical relationships, mathematical formulae or equations, or mathematical calculations, it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a computer system comprising a processor; a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions executable by the processor; a device associated with the user, comprising a user interface and sensors; network-based communications, including various signals, between computer elements; a fully-autonomous robot; collection instructions stored at the computer-readable medium and executed by the processor; navigation instructions stored at the computer-readable medium and executed by the processor; a delivery prediction model of the computer system, which is a machine learning model; a plurality of prediction sub-models of the delivery prediction model; and a device associated with the delivery agent, comprising a displayed user interface further comprising first and second user interface elements. These, in the context of the claims as a whole, amount to no more than mere instructions to apply a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because they do not, individually or in combination, impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas. The claims are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply a judicial exception for the same reasons as discussed above in relation to integration into a practical application. These cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, when considering the additional elements alone and in combination, there is no inventive concept in the claims, and thus the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 3-8, 10-13, 17-19, and 22-25, describing various additional limitations to the method of Claim 1 or the product of Claim 14, amount to substantially the same unintegrated abstract idea as Claims 1 and 14 (upon which these claims depend, directly or indirectly) and are rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Claim 3 discloses receiving, from the device associated with the user and via the network, at least one of information about a number of items in the order, information about a time period between a placement of the order and a scheduled delivery for the order, information about a retailer associated with the computer system, an initial monetary amount associated with the order, a maximum item unit price in the order, a maximum item price in the order, or a number of items in the order each having a monetary value between a first amount and a second amount (further defining the abstract idea already set forth in Claim 1), which does not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 4 discloses receiving, from the device associated with the user and via the network, at least one of information about a day of week when the order was placed, a time of day when the order was placed, or a time of day when the order is scheduled for delivery (further defining the abstract idea already set forth in Claim 1), which does not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 5 discloses retrieving, from a database (mere instructions to apply a judicial exception) of the computer system, at least one of information about a type of the delivery location, a failed delivery rate for the delivery location, or information about one or more past orders having a delivery address at the delivery location (further defining the abstract idea already set forth in Claim 1); and including the retrieved data to the order data (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process), which do not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 6 discloses retrieving, from a database (mere instructions to apply a judicial exception) of the computer system, data including at least one of information about a tenure of the user with the computer system, information about one or more past orders placed by the user, or a rate of failed deliveries for the user (further defining the abstract idea already set forth in Claim 1); and including the retrieved data to the user data (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process), which do not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 7 discloses receiving, from the device associated with the delivery agent and via the network during a delivery stage of the fulfillment process, information about a time of the delivery of the order at the delivery location, information about a time of handoff of items in the order at the delivery location, and information on whether the delivery of the order is unattended (further defining the abstract idea already set forth in Claim 1), which does not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 8 discloses retrieving, from a database (mere instructions to apply a judicial exception) of the computer system, information about the delivery agent assigned to the order (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process); and wherein applying the delivery prediction model comprises applying the delivery prediction model further to the information about the delivery agent to generate the likelihood of the failed delivery for the order (further defining the abstract idea already set forth in Claim 1), which do not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claims 10 and 18 disclose sending, via the network and to the device associated with the delivery agent, a third user interface signal (mere instructions to apply a judicial exception), wherein sending the third user interface signal causes the device associated with the delivery agent to display a third user interface with one or more notification messages during a delivery stage of the fulfillment process prompting the delivery agent to accurately deliver the order to the delivery location (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process), which does not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 11 discloses assigning the delivery agent having a tenure with the computer system longer than a threshold period to fulfill the order and deliver the order at the delivery location having a rate of failed deliveries higher than a threshold rate (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity, a mental process, and a mathematical concept), which does not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 12 discloses assigning the delivery agent having a failed delivery rate lower than a first threshold rate to fulfill the order and deliver the order at the delivery location having a rate of failed deliveries higher than a second threshold rate (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity, a mental process, and a mathematical concept), which does not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claims 13 and 19 disclose generating training data by gathering a random subset of historical data associated with successful deliveries of a first collection of orders and failed deliveries of a second collection of orders (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process); training the delivery prediction model using the training data to generate the set of parameters of the delivery prediction model (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity, a mental process, and a mathematical concept); collecting feedback data with information on whether the order was successfully delivered to the user upon applying the corresponding friction action (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process); and re-training the delivery prediction model by updating, using the collected feedback data, the set of parameters of the delivery prediction model (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity, a mental process, and a mathematical concept), which do not integrate the claims into a practical application.
Claim 17 does not demonstrate integration into a practical application for the same reasons as for Claims 5-7.
Claims 22 and 24 disclose wherein processor generates the navigation instructions based on real-time location data received from the fully-autonomous robot via the network (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process); and wherein the processor dynamically updates the navigation route in response to changes in the real-time location data of the fully-autonomous robot (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process), which do not integrate the claims into a practical application.
Claims 23 and 25 disclose wherein the collection instructions comprise machine-executable navigation commands that are stored at the computer-readable medium, executed by the processor, and transmitted via the network to a control system of the fully-autonomous robot to autonomously navigate aisles of the retailer location and physically manipulate items for collection (generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use), which does not integrate the claims into a practical application.
Discussion of Prior Art Cited but Not Applied
For additional information on the state of the art regarding the claims of the present application, please see the following documents not applied in this Office Action (all of which are prior art to the present application):
PGPub 20230267401 – “Methods and Systems for Mitigating Transportation Errors,” McKay, disclosing a system for detecting and mitigating errors in transportation operations
PGPub 20150081343 – “System and Methods for Enabling Efficient Shipping and Delivery,” Streebin, disclosing a system for improving shipment efficiency by determining a risk of how likely it is for a package to be stolen, damaged, or lost, and taking steps to reduce this likelihood
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 MARK C CLARE whose telephone number is (571)272-8748. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30am-2:30pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey Zimmerman can be reached at (571) 272-4602. 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.
/MARK C CLARE/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/MICHAEL P HARRINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights