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 Claim(s)
Claim(s) 1-8 were previously pending and were rejected in the previous office action. Claim(s) 1 and 4-6 were amended. Claim(s) 2 and 8 were left as previously and/or originally presented. Claim(s) 3 and 7 were cancelled. Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, and 8 are currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority filed in Japan on
August 16, 2023, which, a certified copy of the instant application has been filed.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 11, 2025, has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s arguments, see page(s) 11-14 Applicant’s Response, filed December 11, 2025, with respect to 35 USC § 101 rejection of Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, and 8 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, Applicant argues, on page(s) 11-14, that the invention provides that the application is now integrated into a practical application thus sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Examiner, respectfully, disagrees with applicant’s arguments.
As an initial matter, it is important to note that first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. The claim itself does not need to explicitly recite the improvement described in the specification (e.g., "thereby increasing the bandwidth of the channel"), see MPEP 2106.04(d)(1). An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d at 1102-03; DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1259, 113 USPQ2d at 1107. In this respect, the improvement consideration overlaps with other considerations, specifically the particular machine consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)), and the mere instructions to apply an exception consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Thus, evaluation of those other considerations may assist examiners in making a determination of whether a claim satisfies the improvement consideration.
Here, in this case the specification discloses a solution to present a delivery status to a user intelligibly while protecting privacy, see applicant’s specification paragraph(s) 0008-0009 and 0122-0123. This is at best an improvement to the business process (e.g., abstract idea) itself rather than a technological improvement. First, the step(s) of accomplishing such desired improvement in the specification is made in blanket conclusory manner by protecting the privacy of the user, see paragraph(s) 0008-0009 and 0122-0123, thus when the specification states the improvement in a
conclusory manner the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology.
Applicant also argues, on page 13 of applicant’s arguments and applicant’s specification paragraph(s) 0088 and 0120, that the server load (e.g., communication load or processing load) is prevented from increasing based on the timing of acquiring a current location from the deliver terminal and timing of calculating an estimated time of delivery to each delivery destination are controlled on the server device side, see applicant’s specification paragraph 0088. And that that the server load (e.g., communication load or processing load) is prevented from increasing based on the timing of acquiring a current location from the deliver terminal and timing of calculating an estimated time of delivery to each delivery destination are controlled on the user terminal side to automatic update the terminal at appropriate intervals, see applicants specification paragraph 0120. However, these efficiencies are merely the result of the computer processing less data and does not reflect an improvement in the processor or system itself. The Federal Circuit has repeatedly held that increase in speed or efficiency from generic computers is not enough to make a claim patent eligible. See Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Servs., 859 F.3d 1044, 1056–57 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (using computers to perform routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to make a claim patent eligible) (citations omitted); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (using a computer to create electronic records, track multiple transactions, and automatically issue instructions is a form of “electronic recordkeeping” and using a computer to obtain data, adjust account balances, and automatically issue instructions does not improve the functioning of the computer itself).
Also, another important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d at 1102-03; DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1259, 113 USPQ2d at 1107. In this respect, the improvement consideration overlaps with other considerations, specifically the particular machine consideration (see MPEP §2106.05(b)), and the mere instructions to apply an exception consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Thus, evaluation of those other considerations may assist examiners in making a determination of whether a claim satisfies the improvement consideration.
Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv., the court has held that the use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Here, in this case applicant’s limitations merely storing, operating, causing, acquiring, calculating, receiving, determining, generating, transmitting, storing, updating, and notifying, respectively, delivery information using computer components that operate in their ordinary capacity (e.g., a memory, processor, a deliverer terminal, a user terminal, a server processor, a server device, and a non-transitory computer-readable medium, and a computer), which are no more than “applying,” the judicial exception.
Furthermore, similar to, TLI Communications, where the court found that there was no improvement upon computers or technology when mere gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result(s). Here, in this case current location is acquired and inquiry information can be received from a user (e.g., gathering), which the system will calculate the current location and delivery route information, and an estimated time of delivery (e.g., analyzing). The system can then generate response information, which can include an estimated time and/or the current location when the delivery destination is between the current location and a delivery to the user (e.g., displaying).thus merely gathering delivery information, analyzing that delivery information, and then displaying the delivery information are not sufficient to show an improvement in computers or technology of determining and presenting delivery information.
Also, see the recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Here, the limitations in this case only provide result- oriented solution(s) and lack the detail(s) as to how the computer is accomplishing the results. Therefore, merely “applying,” the judicial exception. Therefore, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Second, Applicant argues on page 13 of applicants’ arguments, that the Claims are significantly more similar to Bascom when the computer arrangement(s) are not merely a conventional implementation of an abstract idea but a specific technical solution that balances the competing interests of providing useful delivery information while protecting privacy. Examiner, respectfully, disagrees with applicants argument.
As an initial matter, the court in Bascom 827 F.3d at 1343, found that “filtering content is an abstract idea because it is a longstanding, well-known method of organizing human behavior.” Id. at 1348. However, the court opined that the claims “‘are more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea].’” Id. at 1350 (citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357). Specifically, the court found that the claims do not preempt all ways of filtering content on the Internet; rather, they recite a specific, discrete implementation of the abstract idea of filtering content.” Id. The court found that “[t]he inventive concept described and claimed in the ’606 patent is the installation of a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from the end-users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end user.” Id. “BASCOM explains that the inventive concept rests on taking advantage of the ability of at least some ISPs to identify individual accounts that communicate with the ISP server, and to associate a request for Internet content with a specific individual account.” Id. Also, see MPEP 2106.05(f).
However, applicant’s claims are not as narrowly claimed as Bascom. In fact, applicant doesn’t recite any filtering step(s)/function(s) in the Independent Claim(s) nor does applicant disclose any protection filters and how that is used to accomplish the result of solving privacy concerns. Furthermore, the claims recite the functional results to be achieved rather than implementation details. Thus “these claims in substance [are] directed to nothing more than the performance of an abstract business practice ... using a conventional computer. Such claims are not patent-eligible." See, the above analysis; also, see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Furthermore, applicant recites the abstract ideas of storing, operating, causing, acquiring, calculating, receiving, determining, generating, transmitting, storing, updating, and notifying, respectively, while using a general-purpose computer (e.g., a memory, processor, a deliverer terminal, a user terminal, and a server device), see the above sections for that analysis. But, it should be noted that Bascom recognized that filtering itself is an abstract idea, such that claims like these that “merely recite the abstract idea…along with the requirement to perform it on…a set of generic computer components,” do not contain an inventive concept, see Bascom 827 F.3d at 1350. Also, see Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 121 USPQ2d 1940 (Fed. Cir. 2017), of "collecting, displaying, and manipulating data..,” (MPEP 2106.05(f)); and a commonplace business method being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1976; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
In contrast to the claim in Bascom, the step(s)/function(s) of “generation code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to generate, in response to the inquiry information, received, first response information including the calculated estimated time of delivery and the current location when the delivery destination for the user is determined to be the next destination, and second response information including the calculated estimated time of delivery without the current location when the delivery destination for the user is determined not to be the next destination,” recites the bare abstract idea. The claim does not disclose how a protection filter is being implemented. It only claims the result.
Specifically, the claim in Bascom required (1) the filtering to be executed at the ISP server and then (2) “associating each said network account to at least one filtering scheme and at least one set of filtering elements,” personalizing the filtering to the specific user making the request. BASCOM, 827 F.3d at 1345. The court identified this implementation as a “technology-based solution” to the content filtering problem when the filter is placed at the user’s computer where a computer literature user can modify or thwart the filter and get access to restricted content. Bascom at 1344, 1351. In this case, the step(s)/function(s) of the claim recites “generating,” delivery destinations without the current location being within the second response information, but does not recite how the generation of this extracted information is specifically being implemented. Here, the location data concerning privacy protection can be determined by a human using “observation” and “evaluation.” The “generating,” step(s)/function(s) as currently recited merely states the result of the generating step(s)/function(s) without claiming how the abstract principle is implemented.
Also, it’s important to note that while a transformation recited in a claim is relevant if the degree to which the recited article is particular. However, a transformation applied to a generically recited article or to any and all articles would likely not provide significantly more than the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(c)(2). Here, in this case applicant’s limitations of merely storing, operating, causing, acquiring, calculating, receiving, determining, generating, transmitting, storing, updating, and notifying, respectively, delivery information using generic computer components that operate in their ordinary capacity (e.g., a memory, processor, a deliverer terminal, a user terminal, a server processor, a server device, and a non-transitory computer-readable medium, and a computer), are no more than “applying,” the judicial exception thus not enough to provide significantly more than the judicial exception.
Third, Applicant argues on page 14 of applicants’ arguments, that the Claims are significantly more similar to Ex Parte Desjardins. Examiner, respectfully, disagrees with applicants argument.
As an initial matter, In Ex Parte Desjardins, Appeal No. 2024-000567 (PTAB September 26, 2025, Appeals Review Panel Decision) (precedential), the claimed invention was a method of training a machine learning model on a series of tasks. The Appeals Review Panel (ARP) overall credited benefits including reduced storage, reduced system complexity and streamlining, and preservation of performance attributes associated with earlier tasks during subsequent computational tasks as technological improvements that were disclosed in the patent application specification. Specifically, the ARP upheld the Step 2A Prong One finding that the claims recited an abstract idea (i.e., mathematical concept). In Step 2A Prong Two, the ARP then determined that the specification identified improvements as to how the machine learning model itself operates, including training a machine learning model to learn new tasks while protecting knowledge about previous tasks to overcome the problem of “catastrophic forgetting” encountered in continual learning systems. Importantly, the ARP evaluated the claims as a whole in discerning at least the limitation “adjust the first values of the plurality of parameters to optimize performance of the machine learning model on the second machine learning task while protecting performance of the machine learning model on the first machine learning task” reflected the improvement disclosed in the specification. Accordingly, the claims as a whole integrated what would otherwise be a judicial exception instead into a practical application at Step 2A Prong Two, and therefore the claims were deemed to be outside any specific, enumerated judicial exception (Step 2A: NO). The ARP also found the specification identified the improvement to machine learning technology by explaining how the machine learning model is trained to learn new tasks while protecting knowledge about previous tasks to overcome the problem of “catastrophic forgetting,” and that the claims reflected the improvement identified in the specification. Indeed, enumerated improvements identified in the Desjardins specification included disclosures of the effective learning of new tasks in succession in connection with specifically protecting knowledge concerning previously accomplished tasks; allowing the system to reduce use of storage capacity; and the enablement of reduced complexity in the system. Such improvements were tantamount to how the machine learning model itself would function in operation and therefore not subsumed in the identified mathematical calculation.
However, applicant’s claims are not as narrowly claimed as Ex Parte Desjardins. In fact, applicant doesn’t recite any machine learning algorithm in the step(s)/function(s) in the Independent Claim(s) nor does applicant disclose how the machine learning technology is trained to learn new tasks while providing protection filters, nor is it disclosed in applicants claims/specification how a machine learning algorithm is used to accomplish the result of solving privacy concerns. Furthermore, the claims recite the functional results to be achieved rather than implementation details. Thus “these claims in substance [are] directed to nothing more than the performance of an abstract business practice ... using a conventional computer. Such claims are not patent-eligible." See, the above analysis; also, see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, see page(s) 14-15, filed December 11, 2025, with respect to Claim(s) 1-2, 4, and 6 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 have been withdrawn.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A Prong 1: Independent Claim(s) 1 and 4-6 recites an entity that is able to determine a deliverer location, which includes determining an estimated time of delivery. The entity can then provide delivery information to a requesting user. Independent Claim(s) 1 and 4-6 as a whole recite limitation(s) that are directed to an abstract idea(s) of certain methods of organizing human activity: managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., social activities and/or following rules or instructions) and/or fundamental economic principles/practices (e.g., hedging) and/or commercial or legal interactions (e.g., business relations) and/or mental processes (e.g., observation, evaluation, and/or judgment) and/or mathematical concepts (e.g., mathematical calculations, mathematical formulas or equations, and/or mathematical relationships).
Independent Claim(s) 1 and 6 limitations of “storing,” “operating,” “acquire a current location being used by a deliverer who delivers an item to a user,” “calculate, based on the current location and delivery route information including a delivery destination where the deliverer stops for a delivery, an estimated time of delivery at which the deliverer is expected to be able to make a delivery to the user,” “receive inquiry information,” “determine, based on the delivery route information, whether a delivery destination for the user is a next destination after the current location,” “generate, in response to the inquiry information received, first response information including the calculated estimated time of delivery and the current location when the delivery destination for the user is determined to be the next destination, and second response information including the calculated estimated time of delivery without the current location when the delivery destination for the user is determined not to be the next destination,” “transmit the response information,” “store travel history information associated with a time of acquisition and calculate the estimated time of deliver by considering a decaying average with less weight given to a previously acquired value of current locations in the travel history information,” “update the current location and the estimated time of delivery at each predetermined time interval, wherein the predetermined time interval changes according to length of time remaining until the estimated time of delivery based on update rule information including a remaining time and an update interval associated therewith,” and “notify advance notice information that a delivery is about to be made soon when the time remaining until the estimated time of delivery goes below a predetermined threshold value,” function(s) are merely certain methods of organizing human activity: managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., social activities and/or following rules or instructions) and/or fundamental economic principles/practices (e.g., hedging) and/or commercial or legal interactions (e.g., business relations) and/or mental processes (e.g., observation, evaluation, and/or judgment) and/or mathematical concepts (e.g., mathematical calculations, mathematical formulas or equations, and/or mathematical relationships).
Independent Claim 4 limitations of “storing,” “operating,” “transmit inquiry information,” “receive response information,” “display the response information received,” “storing,” “operating,” “acquire a current location,” “calculate, based on the current location and delivery route information including a delivery destination where the deliverer stops for a delivery, an estimated time of delivery at which the deliverer is expected to be able to make a delivery to the user,” “receive inquiry information,” “determine, based on the delivery route information, whether a delivery destination for the user is a next destination after the current location,” “generate, in response to the inquiry information received, first response information including the calculated estimated time of delivery and the current location when the delivery destination for the user is determined to be the next destination, and second response information including the calculated estimated time of delivery without the current location when the deliver destination for the user is determined not to be the next destination,” “transmit, the response information generated,” “store travel history information associated with a time of acquisition and calculate the estimated time of delivery by considering a decaying average with less weight given to a previously acquired value of current locations in the travel history information,” “update the current location and the estimated time of delivery at each predetermined time interval, wherein the predetermined time interval changes according to length of time remaining until the estimated time of delivery based on update rule information including a remaining time and an update interval associated therewith,” and “notify of advance notice information that a delivery is about to be made soon when time remaining until the estimated time of delivery goes below a predetermined threshold value,“ function(s) are merely certain methods of organizing human activity: managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., social activities and/or following rules or instructions) and/or fundamental economic principles/practices (e.g., hedging) and/or commercial or legal interactions (e.g., business relations) and/or mental processes (e.g., observation, evaluation, and/or judgment) and/or mathematical concepts (e.g., mathematical calculations, mathematical formulas or equations, and/or mathematical relationships).
Independent Claim 5 limitations of “acquiring a current location being used by a deliverer who delivers an item to a user,” “calculating, based on the acquired current location and delivery route information including a delivery destination where the deliverer stops for a delivery, an estimated time of delivery at which the deliverer is expected to be able to make a delivery to the user,” “receiving inquiry information transmitted,” “determining, based on the delivery route information, whether a delivery destination for the user is a next destination after the current location,” “generating in response to the received inquiry information, first response information including the calculated estimated time of delivery and the current location when the delivery destination for the user is determined to the next destination,” “generating, in response to the received inquiry information, second response information including the calculated estimated time of delivery without the current location when the delivery destination for the user is determined not to be the next destination,” “transmitting the generated response information,” “storing travel history information associated with a time of acquisition and calculate the estimated time of delivery by considering a decaying average with less weight given to a previously acquired value of current locations in the travel history information,” “updating the current location and the estimated time of delivery at each predetermined time interval, wherein the predetermined time interval changes according to length of time remaining until the estimated time of delivery based on update rule information including a remaining time and an update interval associated therewith,” “notifying of advance notice information that a delivery is about to be made soon when time remaining until the estimated time of delivery goes below a predetermined threshold value,” step(s) are merely certain methods of organizing human activity: managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., social activities and/or following rules or instructions) and/or fundamental economic principles/practices (e.g., hedging) and/or commercial or legal interactions (e.g., business relations) and/or mental processes (e.g., observation, evaluation, and/or judgment) and/or mathematical concepts (e.g., mathematical calculations, mathematical formulas or equations, and/or mathematical relationships).
Furthermore, as explained in the MPEP and the October 2019 update, where a series of step(s) recite judicial exceptions, examiners should combine all recited judicial exceptions and treat the claim as containing a single judicial exception for purposes of further eligibility analysis. (See, MPEP 2106.04, 2016.05(II) and October 2019 Update at Section I. B.). For instance, in this case, Independent Claim(s) 1 and 4-6, are similar to an entity determining delivery information based on a deliverer location, which the entity can then provide delivery information to a user. The mere recitation of generic computer components (Claim 1: a server device, a memory, a processor, a deliverer terminal, and a user terminal; Claim 4: a delivery status display system, a server device, a memory, a processor, a terminal receiver, a server memory, a server processor, a deliverer terminal, and a user terminal; Claim 5: a server device, a deliverer terminal, and a user terminal; and Claim 6: a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium, a computer, a deliverer terminal, and a user terminal) do not take the claims out of the enumerated group of certain methods of organizing human activity, mental processes, and/or mathematical concepts. Therefore, Independent Claim(s) 1 and 4-6, recites the above abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims as a whole describes how to generally “apply,” the concept(s) of “storing,” “operating,” “acquiring,” “calculating,” “receiving,” “determining,” “generating,” “calculating,” “transmitting,” “storing,” “updating,” “displaying,” and “notifying,” “respectively, information in a computer environment. The limitations that amount to “apply it,” are as follows (Claim 1: a server device, a memory, a processor, a deliverer terminal, and a user terminal; Claim 4: a delivery status display system, a server device, a memory, a processor, a terminal receiver, a server memory, a server processor, a deliverer terminal, and a user terminal; Claim 5: a server device, a deliverer terminal, and a user terminal; and Claim 6: a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium, a computer, a deliverer terminal, and a user terminal). Examiner, notes that the server device, memory, processor, deliverer terminal, user terminal, delivery status display system, terminal receiver, server memory, server processor, non-transitory computer-readable recording medium, and computer, respectively, are recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer.
Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv, the court has held that task to receive, store,
or transmit data are additional elements that amount to no more than “applying,” the
judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Here, the additional elements are merely
storing, operating, acquiring, calculating, receiving, transmitting, generating, transmitting, generating, displaying, and notifying, delivery information which is no more than “applying,” the judicial exception. Also, see a commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983 (2014); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 64, 175 USPQ 673, 674 (1972); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Also, similar to, TLI Communications, where the court found that there was no improvement upon computers or technology when mere gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result. Here, in this case the system will acquire location information and inquiry information (e.g., gathering), which the system will then compute an estimated time of delivery and response information (e.g., analyzing). The system will then transmit the response information to the user (e.g., displaying) thus merely gather deliverer and inquiry information, then estimate a delivery time for displaying the delivery information to a user are not sufficient to show an improvement in computers or technology of providing delivery status information to a user.
Also, see the recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Each of the above limitations simply implement an abstract idea that is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, which, is not practical application(s) of the abstract idea. Therefore, when viewed in combination these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claims are directed to the above abstract idea(s).
Step 2B: The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as noted previously, the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply,” the abstract idea in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are ineligible.
Claim 2: The various metrics of Dependent Claim 2 merely narrows the previously recited abstract idea limitations. For the reasons described above with respect to Independent Claim 1 these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 8: The additional limitation of describing “causing,” “generating,” and “varying,” are further directed to a method of organizing human activity and/or mental processes, as described above for Independent Claim 1. The limitations that amount to “apply it,” are the server device and processor. Examiner, notes that the server device and processor are generically claimed that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer.
Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv, the court has held that task to receive, store, or transmit data are additional elements that amount to no more than “applying,” the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Here, the additional elements is merely controlling, updating, and notifying information which is no more than “applying,” the judicial exception.
The recitation(s) of “causing,” “generate a map image on which a marker indicating the current location and an icon indicating a location of the user’s home are superimposed based on time remaining until the estimated time of delivery,” and “vary a form of the marker between a light-colored marker larger than standard size and a dark-colored marker of standard size base on the time remaining until the estimated time of delivery,” “ falls within certain methods of organizing human activity and/or mental processes. For the reasons described above with respect to Claim 8, the judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
The dependent claim(s) 2 and 8, above do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) in the dependent claim(s) above are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component(s), which, do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, and 8 are not patent eligible.
Novelty/Non-Obviousness
For the reasons outlined below, Independent Claim(s) 1 and 4-6, are distinguished from the art.
Smith et al. (US 2020/0279216 A1). Smith et al. teaches receiving a drivers location, which the system will use the drivers location, the delivery route, and the customers location to determine an estimated time of arrival for the delivery. Smith et al., also, teaches generating response delivery information for the user inquiry which will be displayed to the user’s mobile device. The delivery information will be generate when the driver is driving from the pick-up to only one customer location, which uniform tracking information can be generated and then displayed to the user’s mobile device. However, Smith et al., doesn’t explicitly teach determining based on the delivery route whether a delivery destination for the user is a next destination after the current location. When the current location is determined to be the next location the system will generate a second response information. The second response information includes a calculated estimated time of delivery without the current location when the delivery destination for the user is determined not to be the next destination.
Tao et al. (US 2016/0069694 A1). Tao et al. teaches tracking a delivery drivers device location, which will then be able to provide tracking information to a user mobile device. The system can then provide route information to a user, whose destination is before second user’s destination. However, Tao et al., doesn’t explicitly teach determining based on the delivery route whether a delivery destination for the user is a next destination after the current location. When the current location is determined to be the next location the system will generate a second response information. The second response information includes a calculated estimated time of delivery without the current location when the delivery destination for the user is determined not to be the next destination.
Urata et al. (US 2024/0273459 A1)(foreign priority June 10, 2021). Urata et al. teaches a shipper can have a package delivered to a recipient at base B. The system can determine if the delivery vehicle is in the vicinity of the delivery destination of the related package and if it is then a delivery tracking map will be provided to the user’s device. Urata et al., further, teaches the route information and position information will be generated for display. The display will include a delivery route related to the package and an icon indicating the position of the delivery vehicle. The icon will be superimposed on the map. However, Urata et al., doesn’t explicitly teach determining based on the delivery route whether a delivery destination for the user is a next destination after the current location. When the current location is determined to be the next location the system will generate a second response information. The second response information includes a calculated estimated time of delivery without the current location when the delivery destination for the user is determined not to be the next destination.
Shroff et al. (US 2017/0337511 A1). Shroff et al. teaches location information of the shipment/item loaded onto a particular vehicle can be estimated based on the known location of the drivers mobile computing device. Shroff et al., further, teaches the driver’s mobile computing device includes a location module that allows the device to determine location information/data. Shroff et al., also, teaches that the estimated delivery window can be based on the current location of the delivery vehicle. The estimated delivery window can be based on the delivery route as the delivery vehicle progress towards the user destination. Shroff et al., further, teaches a delivery map can be provided to a user based on the number of stops remaining before a delivery stop. The system can determine that if shipment/item is less than the first and second threshold number of deliveries the user will be provided with a closer view of the delivery. Shroff et al., further, teaches that the color and/or symbols contained within the displayed location-region may change as delivery becomes more imminent. However, Shroff et al., doesn’t explicitly teach determining based on the delivery route whether a delivery destination for the user is a next destination after the current location. When the current location is determined to be the next location the system will generate a second response information. The second response information includes a calculated estimated time of delivery without the current location when the delivery destination for the user is determined not to be the next destination.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN A HEFLIN whose telephone number is (571)272-3524. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 - 5:00 M-F.
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, Jeff Zimmerman can be reached at (571) 272-4602. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/B.A.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/MICHAEL P HARRINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628