DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communications filed on 03/18/2026.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 10-12, 14-15, and 18 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 4 and 13 has been cancelled.
Claims 1-3, 5-12, 14-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made Final.
Priority
Application 18/815,114 (instant application) was filed on August 26th, 2024, which is a continuation of parent Application 14/215,690 (abandoned) filed on March 17th, 2014.
Related Application(s) - Prior Art of Record
The instant application is a continuation application (CON) of parent Application
14/215,690. In accordance with MPEP§609.02 A.2 and §2001.06(b) (last paragraph), the prior art cited in the above parent application has been considered, and all documents cited or considered 'of record' in that application are now considered cited or 'of record' in this application. The prosecution history of the above parent application is relevant in the examination of the instant application. 15th, 2024 which is a continuation of
Examiner’s Note
If abandoned application, 14/215,690 is revived, an obviousness double patenting rejection would be applicable.
Examiner Request
The Applicant is requested to indicate where in the specification there is support for future claim amendments to avoid U.S.C 112(a) issues that can arise. The Examiner thanks the Applicant in advance.
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, 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of processing a delivery request of an order, without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed to a method, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Claim 1 is directed to a method comprising: receiving a delivery request for an order from a merchant for an orderer, the delivery request received at a delivery server from a first computing device over a network; determining a delivery location for the order using the delivery server; determining a merchant location of the merchant using the delivery server; detecting one or more potential delivery agents within a vicinity of the merchant location; determining an insurance status for each of the one or more potential delivery agents, the insurance status for each of the one or more potential delivery agents stored in one or more databases accessible by the delivery server over the network; analyzing historical information including historical accident information to determine a prioritized list of routes from the merchant location to the delivery location using the delivery server, the prioritized list of routes ranked based on route safety, the historical information stored in the one or more databases accessible by the delivery server over the network; selecting a route of the prioritized list of routes; generating a list of delivery agents of the one or more potential delivery agents to complete the delivery request based on the determined insurance status and the selected route; selecting a delivery agent from the list of delivery agents based on an acceptance of the delivery request received by the delivery server from a second computing device associated with the delivery agent; transmitting the selected route from the delivery server to the second computing device, the second computing device displays the selected route on a graphical user interface of the second computing device; and tracking a completion of the delivery request based on a delivery of the order to the delivery location. These series of steps describe the abstract idea of processing a delivery request of an order (with the exception of the italicized and bolded terms above), which is mitigating risk by analyzing historical delivery information, identifying delivery requirements, and predetermined parameters associated with an order to augment and/or supplement the requested delivery of an order; therefore, corresponding to a fundamental economic principle or practice (including mitigating risk). Hence, a fundamental economic principle or practice (mitigating risk) is a Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The abstract idea is also the processing and completing of a requested delivery for an order from a merchant to an orderer, which is commercial interaction. Therefore, a commercial interaction is also a Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The system limitations, e.g., a delivery server, first computing device, network, one or more databases, second computing device, and graphical user interface do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. Thus, claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of a delivery server, first computing device, network, one or more databases, second computing device, and graphical user interface, are no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements listed above are all recited at a high level of generality and under their broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic computing arrangement. The presence of a generic computer arrangement is nothing more than to implement the claimed invention (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The computer network limitations are a field of use limitations (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Therefore, the recitations of additional elements do not meaningfully apply the abstract idea and hence do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, claim 1 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO).
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of a delivery server, first computing device, network, one or more databases, second computing device, and graphical user interface, are recited at a high level of generality in that it results in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements when considered separately and as an ordered combination do not amount to add significantly more as these limitations provide nothing more than to simply apply the exception in a generic computer environment (Step 2B: NO). Thus, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-11 are directed to a method that recite steps that describe the abstract idea of processing a delivery request of an order. Furthermore, dependent claims 2-3 are directed to a method, which recite the steps: “wherein at least one of the first computing device or the second computing device is a mobile device; and wherein the first computing device is a server associated with the merchant.” These series of steps describe the abstract idea of processing a delivery request of an order (with the exception of the italicized and bolded terms above), which is mitigating risk by analyzing historical delivery information, identifying delivery requirements, and predetermined parameters associated with an order to augment and/or supplement the requested delivery of an order; therefore, corresponding to a fundamental economic principle or practice (including mitigating risk). Hence, a fundamental economic principle or practice (mitigating risk) is a Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The abstract idea is also the processing and completing of a requested delivery for an order from a merchant to an orderer, which is commercial interaction. Therefore, a commercial interaction is also a Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Thus, claims 2-11 are directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements of a delivery server, first computing device, network, one or more databases, second computing device, mobile device, and server associated with the merchant, are no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The presence of a generic computer arrangement is nothing more than to implement the claimed invention (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The computer network limitations are a field of use limitations (MPEP 2106.05(h)).Therefore, the recitations of additional elements do not meaningfully apply the abstract idea and hence do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Furthermore, the additional elements: a delivery server, first computing device, network, one or more databases, second computing device, mobile device, and server associated with the merchant, do not amount to add significantly more as these limitations provide nothing more than to simply apply the exception in a generic computer environment.
Claim 12 is directed to one or more tangible non-transitory computer-readable storage media, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Claim 12 is directed to one or more tangible non-transitory computer-readable storage media storing computer-executable instructions for performing a computer process on a computing system, the computer process comprising: receiving a delivery request for an order from a merchant for an orderer, the delivery request received at a delivery server from a first computing device over a network; determining a delivery location for the order using the delivery server; determining a merchant location of the merchant using the delivery server; detecting one or more potential delivery agents within a vicinity of the merchant location; determining an insurance status for each of the one or more potential delivery agents; analyzing historical information including historical accident information to determine a prioritized list of routes from the merchant location to the delivery location using the delivery server, the prioritized list of routes ranked based on route safety; selecting a route of the prioritized list of routes; generating a list of delivery agents of the one or more potential delivery agents to complete the delivery request based on the determined insurance status and the selected route; selecting a delivery agent from the list of delivery agents based on an acceptance of the delivery request received by the delivery server from a second computing device associated with the delivery agent; transmitting the selected route from the delivery server to the second computing device, the second computing device displays the selected route on a graphical user interface of the second computing device; and deploying the selected delivery agent to complete the delivery request. These series of steps describe the abstract idea of processing a delivery request of an order (with the exception of the italicized and bolded terms above), which is mitigating risk by analyzing historical delivery information, identifying delivery requirements, and predetermined parameters associated with an order to augment and/or supplement the requested delivery of an order; therefore, corresponding to a fundamental economic principle or practice (including mitigating risk). Hence, a fundamental economic principle or practice (mitigating risk) is a Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The abstract idea is also the processing and completing of a requested delivery for an order from a merchant to an orderer, which is commercial interaction. Therefore, a commercial interaction is also a Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The system limitation, e.g., a computing system, delivery server, first computing device, network, second computing device, and graphical user interface do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. Thus, claim 12 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional element of a computing system, delivery server, first computing device, network, second computing device, and graphical user interface, are no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional element listed above is recited at a high level of generality and under their broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic computing arrangement. The presence of a generic computer arrangement is nothing more than to implement the claimed invention (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The computer network limitations are a field of use limitations (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Therefore, the recitations of additional elements do not meaningfully apply the abstract idea and hence do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, claim 12 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO).
Claim 12 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element of a computing system, delivery server, first computing device, network, second computing device, and graphical user interface, is recited at a high level of generality in that it results in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The computer network limitations are a field of use limitations (MPEP 2106.05(h)).The additional element when considered separately and as an ordered combination do not amount to add significantly more as these limitations provide nothing more than to simply apply the exception in a generic computer environment (Step 2B: NO). Thus, claim 12 is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 14-17 are directed to one or more tangible non-transitory computer-readable storage media that recite steps that describe the abstract idea of processing a delivery request of an order. These series of steps describe the abstract idea of processing a delivery request of an order, which is mitigating risk by analyzing historical delivery information, identifying delivery requirements, and predetermined parameters associated with an order to augment and/or supplement the requested delivery of an order; therefore, corresponding to a fundamental economic principle or practice (including mitigating risk). Hence, a fundamental economic principle or practice (mitigating risk) is a Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The abstract idea is also the processing and completing of a requested delivery for an order from a merchant to an orderer, which is commercial interaction. Therefore, a commercial interaction is also a Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Thus, claims 14-17 are directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements of a computing system, delivery server, first computing device, network, second computing device, and graphical user interface, are no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The presence of a generic computer arrangement is nothing more than to implement the claimed invention (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The computer network limitations are a field of use limitations (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Therefore, the recitations of additional elements do not meaningfully apply the abstract idea and hence do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Furthermore, the additional elements: a computing system, delivery server, first computing device, network, second computing device, and graphical user interface, do not amount to add significantly more as these limitations provide nothing more than to simply apply the exception in a generic computer environment.
Claim 18 is directed to a system, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Claim 18 is directed to a delivery system comprising: a delivery server including at least one processor, the delivery server in communication with a first computing device associated with an order from a merchant for an orderer; an order application interface hosted by the delivery server and configured to be executed by the first computing device, the order application interface capturing a delivery request for the order, the merchant associated with a merchant location and the orderer associated with a delivery location, wherein the delivery server detects one or more potential delivery agents within a vicinity of the merchant location, wherein the delivery server determines an insurance status for each of the one or more potential delivery agents; one or more databases storing historical information including historical accident information, wherein the delivery server analyzes the historical information to determine a prioritized list of routes from the merchant location to the delivery location, wherein the prioritized list of routes are ranked based on route safety, wherein the delivery server selects a route of the prioritized list of routes, wherein the delivery server generates a list of one or more delivery agents based on the determined insurance status and the selected route; and a delivery application interface hosted by the delivery server, wherein the delivery application interface displays the delivery request, wherein the delivery server selects a delivery agent from the list of delivery agents based on an acceptance of the delivery request received by the delivery server from a second computing device associated with the delivery agent, wherein the delivery server transmits the selected route to the second computing device, wherein the delivery application interface displays the selected route on the second computing device, and wherein the delivery application interface tracks a completion of the delivery request using the second computing device based on a delivery of the order to the delivery location. These series of steps describe the abstract idea of processing a delivery request of an order (with the exception of the italicized and bolded terms above), which is mitigating risk by analyzing historical delivery information, identifying delivery requirements, and predetermined parameters associated with an order to augment and/or supplement the requested delivery of an order; therefore, corresponding to a fundamental economic principle or practice (including mitigating risk). Hence, a fundamental economic principle or practice (mitigating risk) is a Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The abstract idea is also the processing and completing of a requested delivery for an order from a merchant to an orderer, which is commercial interaction. Therefore, a commercial interaction is also a Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The system limitations, e.g., a delivery server, at least one processor, first computing device, second computing device, order application interface, one or more databases, and delivery application interface, do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. Thus, claim 18 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of a delivery server, at least one processor, first computing device, second computing device, order application interface, one or more databases, and delivery application interface, are no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements listed above are all recited at a high level of generality and under their broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic computing arrangement. The presence of a generic computer arrangement is nothing more than to implement the claimed invention (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, the recitations of additional elements do not meaningfully apply the abstract idea and hence do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, claim 18 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO).
Claim 18 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of a delivery server, at least one processor, first computing device, second computing device, order application interface, one or more databases, and delivery application interface, are recited at a high level of generality in that it results in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements when considered separately and as an ordered combination do not amount to add significantly more as these limitations provide nothing more than to simply apply the exception in a generic computer environment (Step 2B: NO). Thus, claim 18 is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 19-20 are directed to a system that performs steps that describe the abstract idea of processing a delivery request of an order. Furthermore, dependent claims 19-20 are directed to a system, which perform the steps: “wherein the delivery server is further in communication with a merchant server associated with the merchant, the delivery server configured to receive at least one of a menu or tracking information reflecting a status of the merchant preparing the order; and wherein the first computing device is a merchant device associated with the merchant or a user device associated with the orderer.” These series of steps describe the abstract idea of processing a delivery request of an order (with the exception of the italicized and bolded terms above), which is mitigating risk by analyzing historical delivery information, identifying delivery requirements, and predetermined parameters associated with an order to augment and/or supplement the requested delivery of an order; therefore, corresponding to a fundamental economic principle or practice (including mitigating risk). Hence, a fundamental economic principle or practice (mitigating risk) is a Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The abstract idea is also the processing and completing of a requested delivery for an order from a merchant to an orderer, which is commercial interaction. Therefore, a commercial interaction is also a Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Thus, claims 19-20 are directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements of a delivery server, at least one processor, first computing device, second computing device, order application interface, one or more databases, delivery application interface, merchant server, merchant device, and user device are no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The presence of a generic computer arrangement is nothing more than to implement the claimed invention (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, the recitations of additional elements do not meaningfully apply the abstract idea and hence do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Furthermore, the additional elements: a delivery server, at least one processor, first computing device, second computing device, order application interface, one or more databases, delivery application interface, merchant server, merchant device, and user device, do not amount to add significantly more as these limitations provide nothing more than to simply apply the exception in a generic computer environment.
Dependent claims 2-3, 11, 14-17, and 19-20 have further defined the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims: Claims 1, 12, and 18, and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, and hence are abstract in nature for the reason presented above. The dependent claims 2-3, 11, 14-17, and 19-20 do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, dependent claims 2-3, 11, 14-17, and 19-20 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Thus, claims 1-3, 5-12, and 14-20 are not patent-eligible.
Prior Art Rejection
Examiner respectfully notes that with respect to the 35 US.C. 103 rejection of claims 1-20, the rejection is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s arguments/remarks made in an amendment filed on 03/18/2026. Specifically, the closest prior art the examiner has been able to locate are B Carr (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2014/0095350 A1; hereinafter “Carr”), in view of Lutnick (U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2012/0191551 A1; hereinafter “Lutnick ‘551”), and further in view of Lutnick (U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2015/0142594 A1; hereinafter “Lutnick ‘594”). While Carr, Lutnick ‘551, and Lutnick ‘594 are similar to the instant application in many respects, there are clear patentable distinctions. Unlike the prior art, the present invention teaches a method comprising: receiving a delivery request for an order from a merchant for an orderer, the delivery request received at a delivery server from a first computing device over a network; determining a delivery location for the order using the delivery server; determining a merchant location of the merchant using the delivery server; detecting one or more potential delivery agents within a vicinity of the merchant location; determining an insurance status for each of the one or more potential delivery agents, the insurance status for each of the one or more potential delivery agents stored in one or more databases accessible by the delivery server over the network; analyzing historical information including historical accident information to determine a prioritized list of routes from the merchant location to the delivery location using the delivery server, the prioritized list of routes ranked based on route safety, the historical information stored in the one or more databases accessible by the delivery server over the network; selecting a route of the prioritized list of routes; generating a list of delivery agents of the one or more potential delivery agents to complete the delivery request based on the determined insurance status and the selected route; selecting a delivery agent from the list of delivery agents based on an acceptance of the delivery request received by the delivery server from a second computing device associated with the delivery agent; transmitting the selected route from the delivery server to the second computing device, the second computing device displays the selected route on a graphical user interface of the second computing device; and tracking a completion of the delivery request based on a delivery of the order to the delivery location. Furthermore, unlike the prior art, the present invention teaches a one or more tangible non-transitory computer-readable storage media storing computer-executable instructions for performing a computer process on a computing system, the computer process comprising: receiving a delivery request for an order from a merchant for an orderer, the delivery request received at a delivery server from a first computing device over a network; determining a delivery location for the order using the delivery server; determining a merchant location of the merchant using the delivery server; detecting one or more potential delivery agents within a vicinity of the merchant location; determining an insurance status for each of the one or more potential delivery agents; analyzing historical information including historical accident information to determine a prioritized list of routes from the merchant location to the delivery location using the delivery server, the prioritized list of routes ranked based on route safety; selecting a route of the prioritized list of routes; generating a list of delivery agents of the one or more potential delivery agents to complete the delivery request based on the determined insurance status and the selected route; selecting a delivery agent from the list of delivery agents based on an acceptance of the delivery request received by the delivery server from a second computing device associated with the delivery agent; transmitting the selected route from the delivery server to the second computing device, the second computing device displays the selected route on a graphical user interface of the second computing device; and deploying the selected delivery agent to complete the delivery request.
Additionally, unlike the prior art, the present invention teaches a delivery system comprising: a delivery server including at least one processor, the delivery server in communication with a first computing device associated with an order from a merchant for an orderer; an order application interface hosted by the delivery server and configured to be executed by the first computing device, the order application interface capturing a delivery request for the order, the merchant associated with a merchant location and the orderer associated with a delivery location, wherein the delivery server detects one or more potential delivery agents within a vicinity of the merchant location, wherein the delivery server determines an insurance status for each of the one or more potential delivery agents; one or more databases storing historical information including historical accident information, wherein the delivery server analyzes the historical information to determine a prioritized list of routes from the merchant location to the delivery location, wherein the prioritized list of routes are ranked based on route safety, wherein the delivery server selects a route of the prioritized list of routes, wherein the delivery server generates a list of one or more delivery agents based on the determined insurance status and the selected route; and a delivery application interface hosted by the delivery server, wherein the delivery application interface displays the delivery request, wherein the delivery server selects a delivery agent from the list of delivery agents based on an acceptance of the delivery request received by the delivery server from a second computing device associated with the delivery agent, wherein the delivery server transmits the selected route to the second computing device, wherein the delivery application interface displays the selected route on the second computing device, and wherein the delivery application interface tracks a completion of the delivery request using the second computing device based on a delivery of the order to the delivery location.
Independently the claims are obvious; however, the claims as a whole are not obvious because the examiner would have to improperly use the claims as a road map to combine the individual obvious claims together. The limitations of the present invention below teaches the following elements that eludes the prior art search. Specifically, the claim limitations that resulted in no combination of the prior arts to be found to render the claims obvious without applying improper hindsight are: “receiving a delivery request for an order from a merchant for an orderer, the delivery request received at a delivery server from a first computing device over a network; determining a delivery location for the order using the delivery server; determining a merchant location of the merchant using the delivery server; detecting one or more potential delivery agents within a vicinity of the merchant location; determining an insurance status for each of the one or more potential delivery agents, the insurance status for each of the one or more potential delivery agents stored in one or more databases accessible by the delivery server over the network; analyzing historical information including historical accident information to determine a prioritized list of routes from the merchant location to the delivery location using the delivery server, the prioritized list of routes ranked based on route safety, the historical information stored in the one or more databases accessible by the delivery server over the network; selecting a route of the prioritized list of routes; generating a list of delivery agents of the one or more potential delivery agents to complete the delivery request based on the determined insurance status and the selected route; selecting a delivery agent from the list of delivery agents based on an acceptance of the delivery request received by the delivery server from a second computing device associated with the delivery agent; transmitting the selected route from the delivery server to the second computing device, the second computing device displays the selected route on a graphical user interface of the second computing device; and tracking a completion of the delivery request based on a delivery of the order to the delivery location.”
Hence, no combination of the prior arts were found to render the claims obvious without applying improper hindsight; thus, the claims are novel and non-obvious.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the claim objection of claim 13, the objection is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s arguments/remarks made in the amendment filed on 03/18/2026.
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1-20, the rejection is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s arguments/remarks made in an amendment filed on 03/18/2026.
Applicant's arguments filed on 03/18/2026 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive due to the following reasons:
With respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant arguments are moot in view of the grounds of rejections presented above in this office action. The arguments are addressed to the extent they apply to the amended claims.
Applicant argues that “amended independent claim 1, as a whole, recites an integration into a practical application.¹ In particular, amended independent claim 1 recites an improvement to delivery coordination/orchestration technology through a specific technical solution that selects a delivery agent based on insurance status, and determines a prioritized list of routes based on historical accident information and route ranking based on route safety. In other words, the claimed elements of amended independent claim 1 recite a delivery coordination system that coordinates with distributed computing devices (e.g., first computing device, delivery server, second computing device) while utilizing multi-criteria filtering (e.g., delivery agent selection based on insurance status, ranking of routes based on route safety) to improve delivery coordination/orchestration technology for completion of delivery requests between a merchant and an orderer….. the claimed elements of amended independent claim 1 recite an integration into practical application by reciting specific steps for accomplishing a desired result (e.g., a delivery coordination system that orchestrates with distributed computing devices while utilizing multi criteria filtering for routes and delivery agents to improve the delivery process). The claimed elements of amended independent claim 1 interact with and impact each other, by performing specific steps to achieve a specific outcome, such that the purported abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits amended independent claim 1 recites an integration into a practical application under Prong Two of Step 2A.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Under Step 2A: Prong II, Examiner respectfully notes that there is no improved technology in simply receiving, determining, using, detecting, storing, analyzing, accessing, selecting, generating, transmitting, outputting, displaying, and tracking data (i.e., delivery request data, delivery location data, merchant location data, insurance status information, historical information, historical accident information, routes information, route ranking details, and etc.). The disclosed invention simply cannot be equated to improvement to technological practices or computers. There is no technical improvement at all. Instead, Applicant recites in claim 1: “receiving a delivery request for an order from a merchant for an orderer, the delivery request received at a delivery server from a first computing device over a network; determining a delivery location for the order using the delivery server; determining a merchant location of the merchant using the delivery server; detecting one or more potential delivery agents within a vicinity of the merchant location; determining an insurance status for each of the one or more potential delivery agents, the insurance status for each of the one or more potential delivery agents stored in one or more databases accessible by the delivery server over the network; analyzing historical information including historical accident information to determine a prioritized list of routes from the merchant location to the delivery location using the delivery server, the prioritized list of routes ranked based on route safety, the historical information stored in the one or more databases accessible by the delivery server over the network; selecting a route of the prioritized list of routes; generating a list of delivery agents of the one or more potential delivery agents to complete the delivery request based on the determined insurance status and the selected route; selecting a delivery agent from the list of delivery agents based on an acceptance of the delivery request received by the delivery server from a second computing device associated with the delivery agent; transmitting the selected route from the delivery server to the second computing device, the second computing device displays the selected route on a graphical user interface of the second computing device; and tracking a completion of the delivery request based on a delivery of the order to the delivery location.” The recited features in the limitations do not result in computer functionality or technical improvement. Examiner respectfully notes that Applicant is simply using a computer to input, process, and output data. The recited features in the limitations does not disclose a technical solution to technical problem, but simply a business solution. Specifically, the recited steps, as amended, are merely managing/processing data (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)) and does not result in computer functionality or technical improvement. Thus, Applicant has simply provided a business method practice of processing data (delivery request data, delivery location data, merchant location data, insurance status information, historical information, historical accident information, routes information, route ranking details, and etc.), and no technical solution or improvement has been disclosed.
Moreover, there is no technology/technical improvement as a result of implementing the abstract idea. The recited features of “receiving a delivery request for an order from a merchant for an orderer, the delivery request received at a delivery server from a first computing device over a network; determining a delivery location for the order using the delivery server; determining a merchant location of the merchant using the delivery server; detecting one or more potential delivery agents within a vicinity of the merchant location; determining an insurance status for each of the one or more potential delivery agents, the insurance status for each of the one or more potential delivery agents stored in one or more databases accessible by the delivery server over the network; analyzing historical information including historical accident information to determine a prioritized list of routes from the merchant location to the delivery location using the delivery server, the prioritized list of routes ranked based on route safety, the historical information stored in the one or more databases accessible by the delivery server over the network; selecting a route of the prioritized list of routes; generating a list of delivery agents of the one or more potential delivery agents to complete the delivery request based on the determined insurance status and the selected route; selecting a delivery agent from the list of delivery agents based on an acceptance of the delivery request received by the delivery server from a second computing device associated with the delivery agent; transmitting the selected route from the delivery server to the second computing device, the second computing device displays the selected route on a graphical user interface of the second computing device; and tracking a completion of the delivery request based on a delivery of the order to the delivery location” in amended claim 1 simply amount to the abstract idea of processing a delivery request of an order; and, there is no computer functionality improvement or technology improvement. The claim does not provide a technical solution to a technical problem. If there is an improvement, it is to the abstract idea and not to technology. Additionally, Examiner notes that it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the judicial exception itself (e.g., recited fundamental economic principle or practice and/or commercial interaction) is not an improvement in technology (See, MPEP 2106.05(a)(II)).
Additionally, Claim 1, as amended, recites steps at a high level of generality. In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and outputting, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering and output. See MPEP 2106.05. The claim simply makes use of a computer as a tool to apply the abstract idea without transforming the abstract idea into a patent eligible subject matter. Furthermore, these steps, as amended, are recited as being performed by a delivery server, first computing device, network, one or more databases, second computing device, and graphical user interface. The additional elements: a delivery server, first computing device, network, one or more databases, second computing device, and graphical user interface are recited at a high level of generality, and are used as a tool to perform the generic computer function of receiving, processing, and outputting data. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Amended claim 1 recites a delivery server, first computing device, network, one or more databases, second computing device, and graphical user interface, which are simply used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong I of the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Specifically, the recitation of “a delivery server, first computing device, network, one or more databases, second computing device, and graphical user interface” in the limitations merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. The claims, as amended, merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment; and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. Hence, claim 1, as amended, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, these arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “under Step 2B, the claimed elements of amended independent claim 1, when considered in combination, amount to significantly more than the alleged judicial exception of an abstract idea. For example, the ordered combination of recited claimed elements in amended independent claim 1 provide a delivery coordination system that coordinates with distributed computing devices (e.g., first computing device, delivery server, second computing device) while utilizing multi-criteria filtering (e.g., delivery agent selection based on insurance status, ranking of routes based on route safety) to improve delivery coordination/orchestration technology for completion of delivery requests between a merchant and an orderer as described above. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits amended independent claim 1 recites significantly more than an abstract idea under Step 2B. The arguments presented above with regards to amended independent claim 1 apply with equal weight to amended independent claims 12 and 18. For the sake of brevity, these arguments are not repeated. In view of the above, Applicant respectfully submits amended independent claims 1, 12, and 18, and the claims dependent therefrom overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101. Reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101 is respectfully requested.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Under Step 2B, Examiner respectfully notes that all of Applicant's arguments have been reviewed, and the inventive concept cannot be furnished by a judicial exception. The improvements argued are to the abstract idea and not to technology. The technical limitations are simply utilized as a tool to implement the abstract idea without adding significantly more. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea, and hence these arguments are not persuasive. The presence of a computer does not make the claimed solution necessarily rooted in computer technology. As noted above, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of a delivery server, first computing device, network, one or more databases, second computing device, and graphical user interface (Claim 1) are recited at a high level of generality in that it results in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements when considered separately and as an ordered combination do not amount to add significantly more as these limitations provide nothing more than to simply apply the exception in a generic computer environment. Furthermore, as explained above with respect to Step 2A, Prong II, the additional elements: a delivery server, first computing device, network, one or more databases, second computing device, and graphical user interface (Claim 1), are at best mere instructions to “apply” the abstract idea, which cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As discussed in Step 2A, Prong II above, the claims’ limitations are recited at a high level of generality. As discussed in Step 2A, Prong II above, the recitation of a computer/processor to perform recited limitations amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, which do not provide an inventive concept.
Hence, Examiner respectfully declines Applicant’s request to withdraw the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 1-3, 5-12, and 14-20.
Conclusion
27. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure are the following:
Smith (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2004/0225507-A1) “Delivery management system”
Bertram (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2012/0303524-A1) “Method for operating computer system for receiver staged money transfer transaction, involves receiving approval notifications from senders, and approval notifications are indicated with items provided in staged transaction request”
Sims (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2014/0025524-A1) “Examples of delivery and/or referral services that may use mobile enhancements and/or auction mechanisms”
Fulton (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2014/0278635-A1) “Delivery methods and systems utilizing a stand-by delivery driver”
Steves (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2019/0236522-A1) “System and method for generating a delivery plan for multi-tier delivery schemes”
Barron (U.S. Patent No. US 11,238,465-B2) “System and method for remote acquisition and delivery of goods”
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED H MUSTAFA whose telephone number is (571)270-7978. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 - 5:00.
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, Michael W Anderson can be reached on 571-270-0508. 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.
/MOHAMMED H MUSTAFA/Examiner, Art Unit 3693
/Mike Anderson/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights