DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-3, 5-12, 18, and 19 were previously pending and subject to a non-final rejection dated January 23, 2026. In Response, submitted March 26, 2026, claims 1 and 10 were amended. Therefore, claims 1-3, 5-12, 18, and 19 are currently pending and subject to the following final rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks on Pages 5-12 of the Response, regarding the previous rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101, have been fully considered and are not found persuasive.
On Pages 5-6 of the Response, Applicant argues “Similar to DDR Holdings, amended independent claim 1 recites computations that are not abstract commercial interactions, but are instead applied in a structured and integrated way that result in an improvement to computer-related technology by lowering network load. 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, where the transaction data includes the information necessary for the communications server to initiate ETA estimation for a proposed order or delivery request that is sent from the user's communications device via the user application to the communications server. 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 user sensitivity factor derived 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 in real time, and the updated ETA is transmitted via secure communications channels to both user and driver devices to complete a proposed transaction. The determined dynamic ETA buffer time is not a generic calculation but is derived from structured data processing of transaction data, driver data, and customer sensitivity factors to optimize ETA estimation. The amended independent claim 1 thereby reduces data traffic transmitted between multiple platforms/vendors and user devices, or between applications or modules within a server addresses the technical problem of redundant ETA queries across multiple platforms. … Similarly, amended independent claim 1 when read in its entirety along with the specification describes features are rooted in specific computer-implemented data processing techniques that improve ETA estimation technologies and enhance the functioning of communications servers and transport applications.”
Examiner notes, the presence of additional elements and potential technological improvements do not preclude the claims from appropriately being determined to recite an abstract idea at Step 2A, Prong One. These are instead evaluated at Step 2A, Prong Two to determine if they integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. In order to most appropriately address these arguments Examiner will focus on the Prong Two aspects of Step 2A as discussed further in the detailed rejection below, the additional elements amount to merely apply it or generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use. Specifically, the “processor of a communication server apparatus” is used as a tool to perform the abstract ideas of “determin[ing] an estimated time of arrival (ETA) for a delivery trip based on transaction data and driver data, where the transaction data includes the information necessary … to initiate ETA estimation for a proposed order or delivery request that is sent from the user … determin[ing] a level of confidence for the ETA, a delivery time threshold based on a delivery distance for the delivery trip, and a user sensitivity factor derived based on historical transaction data for the user related to the delivery trip and patterns associated with the user's behavior for previous orders … then determin[ing] a dynamic ETA buffer time based on the level of confidence, the delivery time threshold, and the customer sensitivity factor” “updat[ing] the ETA in real time” and transmitting “the updated ETA … via secure communications channels to both user and driver … to complete a proposed transaction”; the additional element; of “the user’s communication device” is used merely as a tool to perform the abstract idea of sending “a proposed order or delivery request”; the additional element of “the user’s application” is used only to generally link the abstract idea of sending “a proposed order or delivery request” to the field of mobile application technology; and the additional elements of the “user and driver devices” are used as mere tools to perform the abstract idea of receiving “the updated ETA”. While the dynamic ETA buffer time uses structural elements within the claimed invention, the “data processing of transaction data, driver data, and customer sensitivity factors to optimize ETA estimation” is an abstract idea, and the additional elements used within the context of claimed invention fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Examiner also notes, “redundant ETA queries across multiple platforms” is not a technical issue, but rather an abstract problem regarding the possible complications that can arise in the abstract idea of optimizing ETA estimations. Lowering the network load or “enhance[ing] the functioning of communications servers and transport applications” by “reduc[ing] data traffic transmitted between multiple platforms/vendors and user devices, or between applications or modules within a server” by eliminating “redundant ETA queries across multiple platforms” is not an improvement to the technical aspects of the platforms, applications, servers, or the network used in communication. On the contrary, the claimed invention provides an alleged improvement to the abstract idea of “data processing techniques” such that the data traffic is simply just not sent between the systems, that is the improvement lies within the abstract idea, and not the technologies. As discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a)(II), an improvement to the abstract idea is not an improvement to technology.
On Pages 6-7 of the Response, Applicant argues, “Furthermore, the claimed features are not directed to ‘commercial interactions,’ which under MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B) defines as agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing, or sales activities. The claimed features are also not directed to 'managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people,' which under MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) involves 'social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions.' Instead, amended independent claim 1 introduces a computational framework that reduces data traffic transmitted between multiple platforms/vendors and user devices and reduces user queries to the server by transmitting the updated ETA to the user device thereby improving reliability and scalability of ETA estimation servers. Accordingly, amended independent claim 1 describes a process that goes beyond mere organizing human activity or mental processes, as the claimed steps are rooted in specific computer-implemented data processing techniques that provide a technological improvement in ETA estimation technologies and enhance the functioning of communications servers and transport applications.”
Examiner notes, as discussed further in the detailed rejection below, that the “certain method of organizing human activity” sub-category of “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people” is not relied upon as a basis for the rejection, nor is the abstract idea categorized within the category of “mental processes”, therefore these aspects of the argument are moot.
Examiner further notes, Applicant’s specification discloses the problem solved by the invention as “[p]rior approaches generally do not determine or factor in the specific user's sensitivity to inaccurate ETA estimation” (PG Publication, Para. 4) and provides for the “optimised matching of customers to drivers (using optimised wait time buffer) … determining a confidence score of an estimated ETA” (PG Publication, Para. 6) and providing updated ETAs to the customer. These clearly support the determination that the claimed invention is directed a “commercial interaction” of determining “estimated time of arrival (ETA) estimation for a delivery trip” (claim 1). As discussed above, the presence of “computational framework” does not inherently preclude the claims from accurately being determined to recite an abstract idea. And as also previously discussed, merely changing the abstract data processing aspects of the claims such that data is not sent across the network as often is not an improvement to the network or any of the associated technologies, as is determined in the Step 2A, Prong Two analysis.
On Page 7-8 of the Response, Applicant argues “Additionally, the claimed Application does not recite processor as a mere tool under MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), … the claimed processor not only processes the transaction data and the driver data to transmit updated ETA to the user communications device and the driver communications device but also reduces server's network traffic load by reducing server side queries from the user, thereby reciting a technological solution to a technological problem rather than being an additional element that is a mere ‘apply it’ or is ‘mere instructions’. Therefore, the amended independent claim 1 is in accordance with MPEP 2106.05(f)(1) … Similarly, the amended independent claim 1 optimizes ETA predictions while reducing server-side queries, thereby minimizing network traffic load and improving the efficiency of communications servers. 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 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 again notes, additional elements such as the processor are not directly analyzed in Step 2A, Prong One, but rather are the focus of Step 2A, Prong Two. As discussed above, the processor (which is generically disclosed in the specification as “one or more microprocessors”. PG Publication, Para. 26) is used merely as a tool to perform the recited abstract ideas such as “process[ing] the transaction data and the driver data to transmit[ting] updated ETA to the user … and the driver”, however the processor itself is neither unique or improved in the context of the claimed invention. Further still, as discussed above, the server’s network traffic load is reduced not by any improvement to the processor or the server, but rather due to alleged improvements in the abstract processes the processor is used as a tool to carry out. Therefore, unlike DDR Holdings, which fundamentally changed and improved the technological aspects of Internet hyperlink protocol, the instant claims use the recited additional elements only as tools to perform the recited abstract ideas or to generally link those abstract ideas to a field of use. Therefore, no technical improvement is found at Step 2A, Prong Two, and the claims are accurately determined to recite an abstract idea categorized as “certain methods of organizing human activity”, specifically “commercial interactions” which can be summarized as they were in the argument above as “optimizing an estimated ETA in delivery service” at Step 2A, Prong One.
On Pages 8-9 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 is similar to at least claim 1 of Example 37 provided in ‘Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG),’ effective as of January 7, 2019. … Similarly, amended independent claim 1 not only optimizes ETA but also reduces network load by effective data transmission between multiple platform/vendors and users. Therefore, amended 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; update the ETA based on the dynamic ETA buffer time in real-time; and transmit the updated ETA to the user communications device and the driver communications device via secure communications channels established by the input/output module to complete the proposed transaction,’ 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 and reduces network traffic load by transmitting the ETA to the user device to avoid further query from the user which increases server load. 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 in real-time and transmit the updated ETA to the user and driver device via secure communication channels to reduce network traffic load. 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 provides accurate ETA predictions to take strategic decisions which in turn results in server load optimization. … 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, the subcategory of “managing personal behavior or interactions between people” is not relied on in the rejection of these claims. Therefore, this aspect of the argument is moot.
Examiner also notes, as discussed further in the detailed rejection 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; update[ing] the ETA based on the dynamic ETA buffer time in real-time; and transmit[ing] the updated ETA to the user … and the driver … via secure communications channels established … to complete the proposed transaction” are recitations of the abstract idea, and unhelpful in bringing the claims to eligibility over 101. The additional elements of the user communication device, and the driver communication device and their inability to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application have been discussed above. Additionally, the additional element of “input/output module” is described generically as “allowing the server to communicate over the communications network” (PG Publication, Para. 26) and is used merely as a tool to perform the abstract idea of establishing “a secure communications channel”, and therefore fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Examiner further notes, as discussed above, the alleged improvement of “reducing network traffic load by transmitting the ETA to the user device to avoid further query from the user which increases server load” and “server load optimization” is found not in any improvement to the network, server, devices or technology, but rather through an alleged improvement to the abstract idea of “efficiently optimis[ing] ETA estimation for delivery trips by incorporating a dynamic ETA buffer time”, providing “dynamic adjustment of the ETA specific to a consumer's expectation”, and “provid[ing] accurate ETA predictions to take strategic decisions”. Due to this allegedly improved abstract idea, the reduced network traffic load is found because the customer then simply does not utilize the network for queries, which is not an improvement to the technology.
On Pages 10-12 of the Response, Applicant argues “it is submitted that amended independent claims 1 and 10 amount to "significantly more" than an abstract idea. … 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 … Conventionally, ETA estimation systems in delivery services rely on simplistic distance- based calculations or static models that fail to account for dynamic factors such as driver availability, customer sensitivity to delays, or confidence in predictions, resulting in inaccurate ETAs, inefficient driver-customer matching, redundant data traffic across platforms, and higher energy consumption in data centers. … In contrast, amended independent claim 1 describes non-conventional computational steps executed by the processor that determines an updated ETA for a delivery trip. The updated ETA is updated based on a dynamic ETA buffer time in real-time. The dynamic ETA buffer time estimation improves optimization of the ETA estimation by taking the user behavior regarding delivery delays into account and transmits the updated ETA to the user and driver device reducing continuous query from user, thereby reducing network traffic load. 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 and server optimization which reduces data traffic transmitted between multiple platforms/vendors and user devices, or between applications or modules within a server and addresses the technical problem of redundant ETA queries across multiple platforms. 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, “well-understood, routine, and conventional” is only one of the tests available to examiners in determining the eligibility of claims at Step 2B, and does not form the basis of either the detailed rejection below, or any previous rejection of the claims over 101. Therefore, the arguments regarding this are moot.
Examiner further notes, the specifics of the passage sited in this argument have been discussed above and are again discussed further in the detailed rejection below. It is important to note that the recited abstract idea is unhelpful in bringing the claims to eligibility. As discussed further in the detailed rejection below, each additional element is fully evaluated as both an individual element and as a whole/ordered combination and is determined to amount to either “apply it” or generally linking the abstract idea. For the sake of compact prosecution, additional detail as to the analysis of the elements in combination is provided in response to this argument. The recited additional elements of a processor (described merely as a microprocessor in a server, PG Publication, Para. 26), a user device and a driver device (both generically described as “a smart phone or tablet device”, PG Publication, Para. 27-28) and an input/output module (merely described as “ allowing the server to communicate over the communications network”, PG Publication Para. 26) when viewed in combination amount to a microprocessor processing and transmitting data to smartphones using a network, which fails to amount to “significantly more” because all the elements, even in combination, are still being used only as “apply it” or to generally link the abstract idea to a field of use.
Examiner finally notes, the lack of technical improvement regarding the server optimization and reducing data traffic have been discussed at length above. Therefore, the findings that the claims fail to amount to “significantly more” at Step 2B is maintained.
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 in real-time; and
transmitting the updated ETA to the user and the driver via secure communications channels to complete the proposed transaction.
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.
The next closest prior art is U.S. Patent Application No. 2019/0316926 to Wang (hereafter Wang). Wang discloses transmitting updated ETA to the user and driver communications devices to complete the proposed transaction.
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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID G GODBOLD whose telephone number is (571)272-5036. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shannon S Campbell can be reached at 571-272-5587. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DAVID G. GODBOLD/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/RUPANGINI SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights