DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on November 1, 2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-3, 5-12, 18, and 19 were previously pending and subject to a final rejection dated August 1, 2025. In RCE, submitted November 1, 2025, claims 1-3, 5-10, 12, 18, and 19 were amended. Therefore, claims 1-3, 5-12, 18, and 19 are currently pending and subject to the following non-final rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks on Page 16 of the Response regarding the previous rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), have been fully considered and are found to be persuasive in view of the amended claims. This rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s remarks on Pages 16-17 of the Response, regarding the previous rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101, have been fully considered and are not found persuasive.
On Pages 6-7 of the Response, Applicant argues “Similar to DDR Holdings, amended independent claim 1 includes computations that are not abstract commercial interactions, but are instead applied in a structured and integrated way that results in an improvement to computer-related technology. In particular, according to independent claim 1, a processor of a communications server apparatus determines an estimated time of arrival (ETA) for a delivery trip based on transaction data and driver data. The processor further determines a level of confidence for the ETA, a delivery time threshold based on a delivery distance for the delivery trip, and a customer sensitivity factor based on historical transaction data for the user related to the delivery trip and patterns associated with the user's behavior for previous orders. The processor then determines a dynamic ETA buffer time based on the level of confidence, the delivery time threshold, and the customer sensitivity factor. The dynamic ETA buffer time is then used to update the ETA. The determined dynamic ETA buffer time is not a generic calculation but is determined based on transaction data, driver related data, the customer sensitivity factor to optimise the ETA estimation. Thus, an optimal dynamic ETA buffer time is determined utilizing the user's sensitivity to longer delivery times. The ETA is then updated based on the dynamic ETA buffer time. As a result, the updated ETA enhances the operational efficiency of delivery services. See Application page 1, paragraph 6 to page 2, paragraph 2; and page 20, paragraph 2 to page 21, paragraph 1. The human mind cannot perform operations with the efficiency, speed, or precision of the processor as recited in claim 1. For example, when a user places an order, the processor processes the data such as the driver's location, delivery distance, and how sensitive the user is to delays based on past orders. The processor then calculates a dynamic ETA buffer time based on the above-mentioned data and updates the ETA based on the dynamic ETA buffer time. The human mind cannot process the driver's location, delivery distance, and user behavior patterns all at once to then determine a dynamic ETA buffer time to ultimately update the ETA. This multi-step method, performed by the communications server apparatus, operates in a structured, algorithmic manner within a computerized environment, solving a concrete technical problem: optimising an estimated ETA in delivery service systems. Claim 1 recites a series of interdependent computational steps performed by the communications server apparatus such that the processor determines the ETA for the delivery trip based on the transaction data and driver data. The processor then determines the dynamic ETA buffer time based on the level of confidence for the ETA, the delivery time threshold, and the customer sensitivity factor. The ETA is then updated based on dynamic ETA buffer time. This method of optimizing ETAs enhances the coordination and execution of high-volume, simultaneous deliveries, thereby addressing a logistical challenge and improving delivery services, while also taking into consideration user sensitivity to longer delivery times. … Therefore, the steps described in amended independent claim 1 are a technological improvement in the domain of optimising an estimated ETA in delivery service systems and are not mere steps of organizing human activity or commercial interactions. Therefore, amended independent claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea under Prong One of Step 2A. Amended independent claim 10 recites some features that are analogous to the features of amended independent claim 1. Hence, the remarks presented above for amended independent claim 1 apply equally to amended independent claim 10. Therefore, independent claims 1 and 10 are not directed to an abstract idea under Prong One of Step 2A.”
Examiner notes, contrary to DDR Holdings which was necessarily rooted in computer technology, in that it consisted of “a modification of conventional Internet hyperlink protocol to dynamically produce a dual-source hybrid webpage”, uses additional elements (such as “a processor of a communications server apparatus”) to perform abstract ideas such as “determin[ing] an estimated time of arrival (ETA) for a delivery trip based on transaction data and driver data”, “determin[ing] a level of confidence for the ETA, a delivery time threshold based on a delivery distance for the delivery trip, and a customer sensitivity factor based on historical transaction data for the user related to the delivery trip and patterns associated with the user's behavior for previous orders”, “determin[ing] a dynamic ETA buffer time based on the level of confidence, the delivery time threshold, and the customer sensitivity factor”, [using t]he dynamic ETA buffer time … to update the ETA”, “determin[ing] dynamic ETA buffer time … based on transaction data, driver related data, the customer sensitivity factor to optimise the ETA estimation” “optimizing ETAs [for] enhance[ing] the coordination and execution of high-volume, simultaneous deliveries” The mere presence of the additional elements alongside these abstract ideas does not preclude the claims from reciting an abstract idea, nor do they inherently mean that the claims are “rooted in computer technology”. While these abstract ideas may “enhance the operational efficiency of delivery services” and “address[ ] a logistical challenge and improv[e] delivery services, while also taking into consideration user sensitivity to longer delivery times”, analysis must proceed in the Alice framework to determine whether these alleged improvements are technical or reside in the abstract idea, and do not prevent the claims from reciting an abstract idea at Step 2A Prong One.
Examiner further notes, “The human mind cannot perform operations with the efficiency, speed, or precision of the processor as recited in claim 1” is not a standard for determining whether or not an abstract idea can be accurately categorized as “certain methods of organizing human activity”, MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) provides further support for this determination at Step 2A, Prong One when (in discussing Step 2A, Prong Two) this rationale is explicitly discussed as being insufficient for integrating the recited abstract idea found in Step 2A Prong One into a practical application.
On Pages 7-8 of the Response, Applicant argues “it is submitted that amended independent claims 1 and 10 recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. It is submitted that some steps of amended independent claim 1 are similar to at least claim 1 of Example 42 provided in ‘2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (PEG),’ issued on January 7, 2019. … Independent claim 1 reflects "an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field." The features ‘determine, an ETA for the delivery trip based on the transaction data and the driver data; ... determine a customer sensitivity factor based on historical transaction data for the user related to the delivery trip, and on any patterns in relation to that user's behavior in respect of previous orders and published ETAs for those corresponding previous orders; determine a dynamic ETA buffer time based on at least one of (i) the level of confidence, (ii) the delivery time threshold and (iii) the customer sensitivity factor; and update the ETA based on the dynamic ETA buffer time,’ of amended independent claim 1 indicate that the claimed system is not merely using a computer as a passive tool for managing personal behavior or interactions between people. Instead, the claim elements, when considered as a whole, reflect a specific and structured computer-implemented technique that efficiently optimises ETA estimation for delivery trips by incorporating a dynamic ETA buffer time which improves the consumer's experience from the perspective of ETA promise.”
Examiner notes, as discussed further in the detailed analysis below, “determin[ing], an ETA for the delivery trip based on the transaction data and the driver data; ... determin[ing] a customer sensitivity factor based on historical transaction data for the user related to the delivery trip, and on any patterns in relation to that user's behavior in respect of previous orders and published ETAs for those corresponding previous orders; determin[ing] a dynamic ETA buffer time based on at least one of (i) the level of confidence, (ii) the delivery time threshold and (iii) the customer sensitivity factor; and upda[ing]e the ETA based on the dynamic ETA buffer time” is a recitation of the abstract idea and unhelpful in bringing the claims to eligibility. These abstract ideas appear to have no obvious connection to the eligible subject matter of Example 42 claim 1, which sets out a specific technical problem in the inability for certain systems to effectively communicate with each other due to technical issues arising from non-standardized formatting, which is resolved through a technical solution detailed in the example claim. Rather than putting forward any technical problems or solutions the instant application, and this argument, appear to demonstrate an alleged improvements to the abstract ideas concerning potential problems with “efficiently optimis[ing] ETA estimation for delivery trips by incorporating a dynamic ETA buffer time which improve[ ] the consumer's experience from the perspective of ETA promise.” As noted in MPEP 2106.05(a)(II), an improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology.
Examiner further notes, no part of the detailed analysis below nor any previous analysis of these claims have relied upon the subgrouping of “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people” therefore, these aspects of the above argument are moot.
On Pages 8-9 of the Response, Applicant argues “Amended independent claim 1 is not limited to mere steps of organizing human activity or commercial interactions nor does it merely apply generic computer components as abstract concepts. Instead, independent claim 1 recites a detailed workflow that determines a dynamic ETA buffer time to update the final ETA for a delivery service. The dynamic ETA buffer time takes the consumer sensitivity factor into consideration which results in dynamic adjustment of the ETA specific to a consumer's expectation. This reduces ETA lateness, maximizes the consumer satisfaction without dampening consumer demands. … Thus, amended independent claim 1 integrates the purported judicial exception into a practical application under Prong Two of Step 2A. Amended independent claim 10 recites some features that are analogous to the features of amended independent claim 1. Hence, the remarks presented above for amended independent claim 1 apply equally to amended independent claim 10. Therefore, independent claims 1 and 10 recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Prong Two of Step 2A. Claims 2, 3, 5-9, 11, 12, 18, and 19 are also allowable through their respective dependency on independent claims 1 and 10.
Examiner notes, whether or not a claim recites certain methods of organizing human activity is established in Step 2A, Prong One, and is not part of the analysis of Step 2A, Prong Two which focuses on analyzing the additional elements.
Examiner further notes, “a detailed workflow that determines a dynamic ETA buffer time to update the final ETA for a delivery service. The dynamic ETA buffer time takes the consumer sensitivity factor into consideration which results in dynamic adjustment of the ETA specific to a consumer's expectation. This reduces ETA lateness, maximizes the consumer satisfaction without dampening consumer demands” merely describes the abstract idea as claimed in representative independent claim 1, and as such are unhelpful in bringing the claims to eligibility. As noted in the detailed rejection below, generic computer components such as a “processor, to execute instructions stored in the memory” are used merely as tools to perform these abstract ideas (i.e., “apply it”). This analysis is supported by the Applicant’s specification, where the processor is generically described throughout as “one or more microprocessors” or “the microprocessor”, and the memory is similarly generically described as “a volatile memory such as a RAM, and/or longer term storage such as SSD (Solid State or Hard disk drives (HDD)”. Such high levels of generality support the Examiner’s findings that these elements amount to merely “apply it” and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
On Pages 9-11 of the Response, Applicant argues “Reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection of independent claims 1 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 are requested in view of the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit regarding subject matter eligibility as acknowledged by the USPTO in its Memorandum issued on November 2, 2016, addressing ‘Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Decisions (BASCOM Global Internet Services v. AT&T Mobility LLC).’ … Amended independent claim 1 amounts to ‘significantly more’ at least because the ‘additional elements’ add ‘a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application.’ The elements claimed in amended independent claim 1 are not well-understood, routine or conventional in the field because nobody has, before this application, suggested the following elements: ‘determine an ETA for the delivery trip based on the transaction data and the driver data; determine a level of confidence for the ETA; determine a delivery time threshold ... determine a customer sensitivity factor based on historical transaction data ... and on any patterns in relation to that user's behavior in respect of previous orders ... ; determine a dynamic ETA buffer time based on at least one of (i) the level of confidence, (ii) the delivery time threshold and (iii) the customer sensitivity factor; and update the ETA based on the dynamic ETA buffer time.’ The claimed additional elements qualify as ‘significantly more’ not only because they are not generic computer functions, but also because they add specific limitations that are unconventional. As the Federal Circuit elaborated in BASCOM, ‘[t]he inventive concept inquiry requires more than recognizing that each claim element, by itself, was known in the art... [A]n inventive concept can be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces.’ Conventional approaches of estimating ETA focus on several components such as allocation time, cooking time, pick-up time, drop-off time which only aims to maximize the accuracy of the prediction (i.e. ETA accuracy). However, traditional methods do not take into consideration consumer experience metric or consumer's experience from the perspective of ETA promise. … In contrast, amended independent claim 1 describes non-conventional computational steps executed by the processor, such that the processor determines the ETA for a delivery trip based on transaction data and driver data. The processor then determines the level of confidence for the ETA, the delivery time threshold, and the customer sensitivity factor. The dynamic ETA buffer time is determined based on the level of confidence, the delivery time threshold, and the customer sensitivity factor. The ETA is then updated based on the dynamic ETA buffer time. The customer sensitivity factor is based on historical data of the user related to the delivery trip, and on any patterns in relation to that user's behavior associated with previous orders and published ETAs for the corresponding previous orders. Thus, the dynamic ETA buffer time estimation improves optimization of the ETA estimation by taking the user behavior regarding delivery delays into account. This unconventional arrangement of operations, as emphasized in BASCOM, amounts to significantly more than an abstract idea of organizing human activity. It provides a specific, technical solution to the problem of ETA optimization by incorporating the user's sensitivity to longer delivery times during the estimation process, which improves the efficiency of delivery services. In view of the foregoing remarks, amended independent claim 1, when taken as a whole, qualifies as significantly more than an abstract idea. Amended independent claim 10 recites some features that are analogous to the features recited by amended independent claim 1. Hence, the remarks presented above for amended independent claim 1 apply equally to amended independent claim 10. Therefore, independent claims 1 and 10 amount to ‘significantly more’ than an abstract idea under Step 2B. Claims 2, 3, 5-9, 11, 12, 18, and 19 are also allowable through their respective dependency on amended independent claims 1 and 10. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1-3, 5-12, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 should be withdrawn.
Examiner notes, as discussed further in the detailed rejection below and previously in regards to arguments above, “determin[ing] an ETA for the delivery trip based on the transaction data and the driver data; determin[ing] a level of confidence for the ETA; determine a delivery time threshold ... determin[ing] a customer sensitivity factor based on historical transaction data ... and on any patterns in relation to that user's behavior in respect of previous orders ... ; determin[ing] a dynamic ETA buffer time based on at least one of (i) the level of confidence, (ii) the delivery time threshold and (iii) the customer sensitivity factor; and update[ing] the ETA based on the dynamic ETA buffer time” are not additional elements, but rather recitations of the abstract idea, and as such are unhelpful in bringing the claims to eligibility.
Examiner further notes, neither the detailed rejection below nor any previous rejections of these claims have relied on “well-understood, routine, and conventional” as a grounds for rejecting these claims over 101. “Well-understood, routine, and conventional” is only one of the tests available for determining if a claim reaches eligibility at Step 2B. As discussed further in the detailed rejection below, in the instant case the additional elements, when analyzed both individually and as a whole/ordered combination, amount to either “apply it” or generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use, but fail to amount to “significantly more” at Step 2B. As “well-understood, routine, and conventional” is not relied upon in this case, this argument is moot.
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, 5-12, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-3, 5-9, and 18 are directed to an apparatus (i.e., a machine); claims 10-12 and 19 are directed to a method (i.e., a process). Therefore, claims 1-3, 5-12, 18, and 19 all fall within the one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One
Independent claims 1 and 10 substantially recite receiving, from a user, transaction data concerning a proposed transaction;
receiving, from a driver, driver data indicating at least driver availability data and driver location data;
determining an ETA for the delivery trip based on the transaction data and the driver data;
determining a level of confidence for the ETA;
determining a delivery time threshold based on a delivery distance for the delivery trip;
determining a customer sensitivity factor based on historical transaction data for the user related to the delivery trip, and on any patterns in relation to that user's behavior in respect of previous orders and published ETAs for those corresponding previous orders;
determining a dynamic ETA buffer time based on at least one of (i) the level of confidence, (ii) the delivery time threshold and (iii) the customer sensitivity factor; and
updating the ETA based on the dynamic ETA buffer time.
The limitations stated above are processes/functions that under broadest reasonable interpretation covers “certain methods of organizing human activity” (commercial interactions) of determining estimated time of arrival (ETA) estimation for a delivery trip (See Preamble of Claim 1 in the instant claims). Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1 and 10 as a whole amount to: (i) merely invoking generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (or an equivalent), and (ii) generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The claim recites the additional elements of: (i) a communications server apparatus (claims 1, 10), (ii) a processor (claims 1, 10), (iii) a memory (claim 1), (iv) an input/output module (claims 1, 10), (v) a user interface (claims 1, 10), (vi) a user communications device (claims 1, 10), (vii) a user app (claims 1, 10), (viii) a driver communication device (claims 1, 10), and (ix) a driver app (claims 1, 10).
The additional elements of (i) a communications server apparatus, (ii) a processor, (iii) a memory, (iv) an input/output module, (v) a user interface, (vi) a user communications device, and (viii) a driver communication device are recited at a high level of generality (see [0026] of the Applicants PG Publication discussing the communications server apparatus, the processor, the memory, the input/output module, a user interface, [0027] discussing the user communications device, [0028] discussing the driver communication device) such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional elements of (vii) a user app and (ix) a driver app are recited at a high level of generality (See [0024] of the Applicant' s PG Publication discussing the user app and the driver app) such that when viewed as whole/ordered combination, do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e. mobile applications) (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination [See Figure 2 showing all the (i) a communications server apparatus, (ii) a processor, (iii) a memory, (iv) an input/output module, (v) a user interface, (vi) a user communications device, (vii) a user app, (viii) a driver communication device, and (ix) a driver app in combination], do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements amount to no more than: (i) “apply it” (or an equivalent), and (ii) generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and are not a practical application of the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., (i) merely invoking the generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)); and (ii) generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in the claims adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1 and 10 are ineligible.
Dependent Claims 2, 3, 5-9, 18, and 19 merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations. For reasons described above with respect to claim 1 these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, claims 2, 3, 5-9, 18, and 19 are also ineligible.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Dependent Claim 11 further narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations. Claim 11 also recites the additional elements of a computer program or computer program product comprising instructions, which is recited at a high-level of generality (See [0013] of the Applicants PG Publication disclosing the computer program or computer program product comprising instructions) such that when viewed as whole/ordered combination, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e. computer software) (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, the additional elements, when viewed individually and as a whole/ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element amounts to no more than: generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., (i) generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional element of a computer program or computer program product comprising instructions does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, claim 11 is ineligible.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Dependent Claim 12 further narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations. Claim 12 also recites the additional elements of a non-transitory storage medium, storing instructions, which is recited at a high-level of generality (See [0013] of the Applicants PG Publication disclosing the non-transitory storage medium, storing instructions) such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, the additional elements, when viewed individually and as a whole/ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element amounts to no more than: “apply it” (or an equivalent), and is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., (i) merely invoking the generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional element of a non-transitory storage medium, storing instructions does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, claim 12 is ineligible.
Novel and Non-Obvious Over the Prior Art
Claims 1-3, 5-12, 18, and 19 are novel and non-obvious over the prior art; however, these claims are subject to the above rejections.
The closest prior art is U.S. Patent No. 10,467,579 to Reiss et al (hereafter Reiss). Reiss discloses a system for receiving transaction data for proposed transactions from a user/consumer device, and determining delivery ETAs that factors in confidence levels using historical trip data.
The next closest prior art is U.S. Patent Application No. 2022/0129849 to Mimassi et al (hereafter Mimassi). Mimassi discloses a system for receiving driver location and availability data from a driver device, determining trip ETA based on driver information, and determining delivery information based on customer sensitivity using historical data.
The next closest prior art is German Patent Application No. DE 102018129072 to Hansen et al (hereafter Hansen). Hansen discloses a system for determining dynamic delivery buffer information based on a variety of factors.
The next closest prior art is U.S. Patent No. 9,172,738 to daCosta et al (hereafter daCosta). daCosta discloses patterns in relation to user’s behavior in respect to previous orders and corresponding ETAs.
While the closest prior art above teaches the various aspects of the claimed invention individually, the combination of these references are not obvious in such a way that they would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention. Specifically, Reiss in view of Mimassi further in view of Hansen and even further in view of DaCosta does not disclose determining a dynamic ETA buffer time based on at least one of the level of confidence, delivery time threshold, or the customer sensitivity factor. Therefore, the claims are rendered novel and non-obvious over the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID G GODBOLD whose telephone number is (571)272-5036. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shannon S Campbell can be reached at 571-272-5587. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DAVID G. GODBOLD/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/SHANNON S CAMPBELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628