DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is responsive to Applicant’s claims filed 07/10/2026.
Claims 1-6 and 8-20 are currently pending and have been examined here.
Claim 7 has been canceled.
Claims 1, 18, and 20 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 13-16 of Applicant’s response filed 07/10/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, on page 13, that the claims are similar to those in the MPEP regarding the receipt of location data, and therefore, the claims cannot be said to recite mental processes. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner respectfully notes the difference between the recited subject matter and the claims in the MPEP. Specifically, the claims merely recite a “location sensor” at a high level of generality, and do not indicate how the location is recorded. At such a level of breadth, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites the mere requirement to perform the abstract idea of gathering location data using a generic computer component, or the mere requirement to “apply” this abstract idea using a location sensor. Furthermore, Examiner respectfully notes that multiple other limitations are characterized as reciting an abstract idea in the claims. Applicant’s arguments that this limitation precludes characterizing the claim as reciting one ore more abstract ideas are therefore unpersuasive.
Applicant argues, on page 14, that a human using their mind cannot run a trained machine learning model over inputs, therefore, the claims cannot be said to recite one or more abstract ideas. Examiner respectfully disagrees, and notes, as outlined below, that the use of the machine learning model amounts to the mere requirement to “apply” the abstract idea of predicting user occupancy using a machine learning model. Since the claims merely recite such an abstract idea, along with the requirement to “apply” the abstract idea using a machine learning model, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive.
Applicant argues, on pages 14-16, that both the subject matter eligibility declaration and the present specification support an assertion that the claims at hand bring forth a technical benefit, and therefore the claims are directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner respectfully notes that the alleged improvement is to the abstract idea itself, rather than to any technical component or technology itself. Merely reducing the number of times that a model makes a prediction based on previous success rates represents an improvement to the abstract idea itself, since, if practiced outside the realm of the machine learning model recited, the same benefit of reduced resource usage would be brought about. For instance, if practiced by hand, a human reducing, based on previous success rates, a number of predictions they make using a pen and paper would still be inured of the benefit of reduced computations in the same manner. Thus, the alleged improvement is not to any machine learning model or model itself, but to the abstract idea of determining how many predictions to make based on previous data. An improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. MPEP 2106.05(a)(II). Such is the case here. Applicant’s arguments are therefore unpersuasive.
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 1-6 and 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The claims are drawn to ineligible patent subject matter, because the claims are directed to a recited judicial exception to patentability (an abstract idea), without claiming something significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Claims are ineligible for patent protection if they are drawn to subject matter which is not within one of the four statutory categories, or, if the subject matter claimed does fall into one of the four statutory categories, the claims are ineligible if they recite a judicial exception, are directed to that judicial exception, and do not recite additional elements which amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 375 U.S. ___ (2014). Accordingly, claims are first analyzed to determine whether they fall into one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter. Then, if the claims fall within one of the four statutory categories, it must be determined whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). In determining whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception, the claim is first analyzed to determine whether the claim recites a judicial exception. If the claim does not recite one of these exceptions, the claim is directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. If the claim recites one of these exceptions, the claim is then analyzed to determine whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. Claims which integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception are directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. If the claim fails to integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Finally, if the claims are directed to a judicial exception to patentability, the claims are then analyzed determine whether the claims are directed to patent eligible subject matter by reciting meaningful limitations which transform the judicial exception into something significantly more than the judicial exception itself. If they do not, the claims are not directed towards eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding independent claims 1, 18, and 20 the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (a machine, a process, and an article of manufacture, respectively.) The claimed invention of independent claims 1, 18, and 20 is directed to a judicial exception to patentability, an abstract idea. The claims include limitations which recite elements which can be properly characterized under at least one of the following groupings of subject matter recognized as abstract ideas by MPEP 2106.04(a):
Mathematical Concepts: mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity: fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes: concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)
Claims 1, 18, and 20, as a whole, recite the following limitations:
receiving an order. . . the order including a list of items, a delivery location, a delivery time of the order at the delivery location, and a request by the user for an attended delivery of the order where the user will be at the delivery location at the delivery time to receive the order from a delivery agent; (claims 1, 18, and 20; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes, since a human using their mind, pen and appear, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could receive an order comprising this information; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations or sales activities since this step would be performed by a commercial shipment company in performing shipment services for their customers)
identify a success rate of historical attended delivery orders requested by the user; (claims 1, 18, and 20; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes, since a human using their mind, pen and appear, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could identify a success rate of historical attended delivery orders requested by the user; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations or sales activities since this step would be performed by a commercial shipment company in performing shipment services for their customers)
a plurality of times between the time when the order is received and the time when the order is delivered: (claims 1, 18, and 20; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation merely requires the repetition of the abstract idea steps set forth below during a given time period, and therefore further recites one or more abstract ideas for the reasons set forth below)
collecting user data. . . the user data indicating a current location of the client device of the user; (claims 1, 18, and 20; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes, since a human using their mind, pen and appear, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could collect user data which includes a current location of a user; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations or sales activities since this step would be performed by a commercial shipment company in performing shipment services for their customers)
predicting, using a machine learning model, a likelihood that is indicative of whether the user will be at the delivery location at the delivery time based on the collected user data, user attributes of the user and order attributes of the order that are input into the machine learning model; (claims 1, 18, and 20; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes, since a human using their mind, pen and appear, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could use a machine learning model (linear regression, for example) to make this prediction based on this information; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations or sales activities since this step would be performed by a commercial shipment company in performing shipment services for their customers; alternatively still, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the use of a machine learning model recites mathematical concepts since it is so broad as to encompass linear regression and other simple mathematical models used to make this prediction)
wherein a number of times that the machine-learning model collects user data and predicts whether the user will be at the delivery location at the delivery time is dynamically selected based on the identified success rate, wherein a greater number of times is selected responsive to the success rate being lower; (claims 1, 18, and 20; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes, since a human using their mind, pen and appear, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could select a number of times that a model collects user data and makes a prediction based on a success rate of historical attended delivery orders requested by a user; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations or sales activities since this step would be performed by a commercial shipment company in performing shipment services for their customers)
comparing the likelihood predicted by the machine-learning model to a threshold value; (claims 1, 18, and 20; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes, since a human using their mind, pen and appear, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could make this comparison; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations or sales activities since this step would be performed by a commercial shipment company in performing shipment services for their customers)
and performing a remedial action including. . . a notification . . . to provide additional instructions for the attended delivery responsive to the likelihood being below the threshold value based on the comparison. (claims 1, 18, and 20; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes, since a human using their mind, pen and appear, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could perform a remedial action including notifying to provide additional instructions in response to a probability being below a threshold; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations or sales activities since this step would be performed by a commercial shipment company in performing shipment services for their customers)
The above elements, as a whole, recite certain method of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations or sales activities since the limitations outline a process which would be performed by a commercial shipment company would perform these steps in performing shipment services for their customers. Namely, a process for predicting whether a user will be home to receive a delivery and performing remedial actions responsive thereto.
Moving forward, the above recited abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
The added limitations do not represent an integration of the abstract idea into a practical application because:
the claims represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, and merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
the claims merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (activity which can be characterized as incidental to the primary purpose or product that is merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim). See MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or
the claims represent mere general linking of the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2016.05(h)
Beyond those limitations which recite the abstract idea, the following limitations are added:
A method, performed at a computer system, comprising a processor and a computer-readable medium, the method comprising: (claim 1; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
A non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising stored program code instructions, the instructions when executed causes a processing system to: (claim 18; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
A computer system comprising: (claim 20; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
a processor; (claim 20; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: (claim 20; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
. . . transmitting to/receiving from a client device of a user. . . (claims 1, 18, and 20; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
. . . from a location sensor on the client device of the user. . . (claims 1, 18, and 20; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
. . . by a machine learning model. . . (claims 1, 18, and 20; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation amounts to the mere requirement to “apply” the abstract idea of predicting a likelihood that a user will be home using a machine learning model since the limitation merely recites the machine learning model at a high level of generality, since the outcome or solution of using the model is recited without indicating how the outcome or solution is brought about, and since the model is used as a tool in its ordinary capacity to perform the existing process of making a prediction)
. . . input into the machine-learning model. . . (claims 1, 18, and 20; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation amounts to the mere requirement to “apply” the abstract idea of predicting a likelihood that a user will be home using a machine learning model since the limitation merely recites the machine learning model at a high level of generality, since the outcome or solution of using the model is recited without indicating how the outcome or solution is brought about, and since the model is used as a tool in its ordinary capacity to perform the existing process of making a prediction)
The claims, as a whole, are directed to the abstract idea(s) which they recite. The claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)). Therefore, because the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea) and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claims, as a whole, are directed to the judicial exception.
Turning to the final prong of the test (Step 2B), independent claims 1, 18, and 20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because there are no meaningful limitations which transform the exception into a patent eligible application.
As outlined above, the claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)).
Furthermore, no specific limitations are added which represent something other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Besides performing the abstract idea itself, the generic computer components only serve to perform the court-recognized well-understood computer functions of receiving or transmitting data over a network, performing repetitive calculations, electronic record keeping, and storing and retrieving information in memory. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. The specification details any combination of a generic computer system program to perform the method. Generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be routine in any computer implementation and because the Alice decision noted that generic structures that merely apply the abstract ideas are not significantly more than the abstract ideas. Therefore, independent claims 1, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to ineligible subject matter.
Claims 2-6, 9-17, and 19, recite the same abstract idea as their respective independent claims.
The following additional features are added in the dependent claims:
Claim 2:
wherein performing the remedial action comprises: transmitting the notification to the client device of the user that includes a request for contact information of the user;
receiving the requested contact information of the user from the client device of the user;
and providing the contact information to a client device of the delivery agent.
Regarding the use of the delivery agent device, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use. The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes, since a human using their mind, pen and appear, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could request contact information from a user, receive it, and then provide it to a delivery agent; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations or sales activities since this step would be performed by a commercial shipment company in performing shipment services for their customers.
Claim 3:
wherein performing the remedial action comprises: transmitting the notification to the client device of the user that includes a request for contact information of another user that will be present at the delivery location to receive the order from the delivery agent at the delivery time;
receiving the requested contact information of the other user from the client device of the user;
and providing the contact information of the other user to a client device of the delivery agent.
Regarding the use of the delivery agent device, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use. The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes, since a human using their mind, pen and appear, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could request contract information of an alternative recipient from a user, receive it, and then provide it to a delivery agent; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations or sales activities since this step would be performed by a commercial shipment company in performing shipment services for their customers.
Claim 4:
wherein performing the remedial action comprises: transmitting the notification to the client device of the user requesting approval to change the attended delivery of the order to an unattended delivery of the order where the delivery agent leaves the order at the delivery location at the delivery time without the user being at the delivery location at the delivery time to receive the order from the delivery agent.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes, since a human using their mind, pen and appear, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could request approval to change an attended delivery to an unattended delivery; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations or sales activities since this step would be performed by a commercial shipment company in performing shipment services for their customers.
Claim 5:
wherein transmitting the notification comprises: receiving a decline of the request to change the attended delivery of the order from the client device of the user, the decline of the request confirming that the user will be at the delivery location at the delivery time to receive the order from the delivery agent.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes, since a human using their mind, pen and appear, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could receive the decline of this request and a confirmation that the user will be at the delivery location; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations or sales activities since this step would be performed by a commercial shipment company in performing shipment services for their customers.
Claim 6:
wherein transmitting the notification comprises: receiving an approval of the request to change the attended delivery of the order to the unattended delivery of the order from the client device of the user;
and transmitting a notification to a client device of the delivery agent that indicates a change from the attended delivery of the order to the unattended delivery of the order.
Regarding the use of the delivery agent device, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use. The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes, since a human using their mind, pen and appear, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could receive this approval and indicate this change to a delivery agent; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations or sales activities since this step would be performed by a commercial shipment company in performing shipment services for their customers.
Claim 8:
wherein the plurality of times between the time when the order is received and the time when the order is delivered include at least times: during one of the user completing an entry of the list of items on the client device of the user, after payment for the list of items on the client device, or responsive to the delivery agent approaching the delivery location.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes, since a human using their mind, pen and appear, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could make the predictions at these times; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations or sales activities since this step would be performed by a commercial shipment company in performing shipment services for their customers.
Claim 9:
further comprising: identifying that the delivery agent is approaching the delivery location, wherein the machine-learning model predicts whether the user will be the delivery location at the delivery time responsive to determining that the delivery agent is approaching the delivery location.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes, since a human using their mind, pen and appear, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could make a prediction responsive to a determination that the delivery agent is approaching a delivery location; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations or sales activities since this step would be performed by a commercial shipment company in performing shipment services for their customers.
Claim 10:
wherein predicting whether the user will be at the delivery location at the delivery time responsive to that the delivery agent is approaching the delivery location comprises: identifying a location of the client device of the user is different from the delivery location as the delivery agent is approaching the delivery location;
inputting the location of the client device of the user to the machine-learning model in addition to the user attributes of the user and the order attributes, the machine-learning model predicting that the user is not likely to be at the delivery location at the delivery time based on the location of the client device, the user attributes, and the order attributes;
automatically changing the attended delivery of the order to an unattended delivery of the order where the delivery agent leaves the order at the delivery location without the user being at the delivery location;
and transmitting a notification to a client device of the delivery agent that indicates the change from the attended delivery of the order to the unattended delivery of the order.
Regarding the use of the delivery agent device, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use. The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes, since a human using their mind, pen and appear, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could make this prediction at this time, input this information into a machine learning model, change the delivery type, and send it to the delivery agent; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations or sales activities since this step would be performed by a commercial shipment company in performing shipment services for their customers.
Claim 11:
wherein predicting whether the user will be at the delivery location at the delivery time responsive to determining that the delivery agent is approaching the delivery location comprises: identifying that the delivery location of the order is within an area that is safe to leave the order unattended responsive to machine-learning model predicting that the user is not likely to be at the delivery location at the delivery time;
automatically changing the attended delivery of the order to an unattended delivery of the order where the delivery agent leaves the order at the delivery location without the user being at the delivery location;
and transmitting a notification to a client device of the delivery agent that indicates the change from the attended delivery of the order to the unattended delivery of the order.
Regarding the use of the delivery agent device, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use. The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes, since a human using their mind, pen and appear, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could perform each of the identify, change, and sending steps above; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations or sales activities since this step would be performed by a commercial shipment company in performing shipment services for their customers.
Claim 12:
wherein predicting whether the user will be at the delivery location at the delivery time responsive to determining that the delivery agent is approaching the delivery location comprises: identifying the delivery time at which the attended delivery of the order is to be completed responsive to the likelihood being below the threshold value;
identifying that it is unsafe for the delivery agent to complete the attended delivery of the order based on the delivery time;
automatically changing the attended delivery of the order to an unattended delivery of the order where the delivery agent leaves the order at the delivery location without the user being present;
and transmitting a notification to a client device of the delivery agent that indicates the change from the attended delivery of the order to the unattended delivery of the order.
Regarding the use of the delivery agent device, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use. The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes, since a human using their mind, pen and appear, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could perform each of the identify, change, and sending steps above; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations or sales activities since this step would be performed by a commercial shipment company in performing shipment services for their customers.
Claim 13:
wherein predicting the likelihood comprises: inputting the user attributes into the machine-learning model, the user attributes including historical data of the user’s historical orders that were requested by the user to be delivered using attended delivery, wherein the historical data is indicative of a behavior of the user during the attended delivery of the user’s historical orders.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes, since a human using their mind, pen and appear, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could input this information into a model; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations or sales activities since this step would be performed by a commercial shipment company in performing shipment services for their customers.
Claim 14:
wherein the historical data includes at least one of a success rate of the user’s historical orders being delivered using the attended delivery, an amount of time taken by a historical delivery agent to deliver each of the user’s historical orders after arrival by the historical delivery agent to a historical delivery location specified by the user, or an average amount of time taken by historical delivery agents to deliver the user’s historical orders after arrival of the historical delivery agents to historical delivery locations specified by the user for the user’s historical orders.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes, since a human using their mind, pen and appear, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could use this historical information in the model; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations or sales activities since this step would be performed by a commercial shipment company in performing shipment services for their customers.
Claim 15:
wherein predicting the likelihood comprises: inputting the order attributes into the machine-learning model, the order attributes including the delivery time for the delivery and attributes of each item in the list, wherein the attributes for each item include a name of the time, a price of the item, an indicator that the price of the item is greater than a threshold, a retailer that supplies the item, and an indication of whether the item is perishable.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes, since a human using their mind, pen and appear, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could input this information into a model; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations or sales activities since this step would be performed by a commercial shipment company in performing shipment services for their customers.
Claim 16:
further comprising: storing a set of training examples associated with a plurality of different users, each training example is an historical order that was requested to be delivered as an attended delivery by a corresponding one of the plurality of different users and a label indicating whether one of the corresponding user that requested the historical order was at a historical delivery location during the attended delivery of the historical order and the one of the corresponding user was not at the historical delivery location during the attended delivery;
and training the machine-learning model by adjusting parameters of the machine-learning model using the set of training examples.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes, since a human using their mind, pen and appear, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could store training examples and train a model based on such; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations or sales activities since this step would be performed by a commercial shipment company in performing shipment services for their customers; further still, the broadest reasonable interpretation of training a model recites mathematical concepts since it is so broad as to encompass the use of formulas, repeated calculations, and tuning model parameters by making comparisons to true values.
Claim 17:
retraining the machine-learning model by adjusting the parameters of the machine-learning model responsive to the user being at the delivery location at the delivery time or the user not being at the delivery location at the delivery time.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes, since a human using their mind, pen and appear, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could retrain a model in this fashion; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations or sales activities since this step would be performed by a commercial shipment company in performing shipment services for their customers; further still, the broadest reasonable interpretation of training a model recites mathematical concepts since it is so broad as to encompass the use of formulas, repeated calculations, and tuning model parameters by making comparisons to true values.
Claim 19:
wherein performing the remedial action comprises: transmitting the notification to the client device of the user that includes at least one of a request for contact information of the user, a request for contact information of another user that will be present at the delivery location to receive the order from the delivery agent at the delivery time, or approval to change the attended delivery of the order to an unattended delivery of the order where the delivery agent leaves the order at the delivery location at the delivery time without the user being at the delivery location at the delivery time to receive the order from the delivery agent;
and receiving at least one of the requested contact information of the user, the requested contact information of the other user, or a decline of the approval to change the attended delivery of the order to the unattended delivery of the order from the client device of the user.
Please see above analysis of claims 2-6.
The above limitations do not represent a practical application of the recited abstract idea. The claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)). Therefore, because the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea) and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claims are also directed to the judicial exception.
Furthermore, the added limitations do not direct the claim to significantly more than the abstract idea. No specific limitations are added which represent something other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, none of the dependent claims 2-6, 9-17, and 19, individually, or as an ordered combination, are directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Please see MPEP §2106.05(d)(II) for a discussion of elements that the Courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional, activity in particular fields.
Please see MPEP §2106 for examination guidelines regarding patent subject matter eligibility.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMETT K WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2624. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 6 a.m. - 4:45 p.m..
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at 571-270-3445. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EMMETT K. WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights