Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/07/2025 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-3, 5-12, and 14-15 are pending. Claims 4 and 13 are cancelled. Claims 1-2, 9, 11-12, and 14-15 are amended.
Response to arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 11/07/2025, with respect to the 101 rejection have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, on page 11, that even assuming arguendo that a judicial exception is present in the claims, which Applicant does not acquiesce, the claims are nevertheless eligible under Prong Two of revised Step 2A because of the combined features of claim 1 are clearly technical features that are not performed in the human mind. Applicant argues that the combined features of claim 1 are incorporated into a practical application of autonomous deliveries by unmanned mobile units in which the intended recipient is not present.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim limitations as drafted, recite a concept, that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, is a certain method of organizing human activity. The limitations are analogous to managing personal behavior or interactions between people (interactions between people), or a commercial or legal interaction (sales activity) such as providing appropriate packaging for a delivery to prevent contents from getting wet due to rain during a delivery. These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, the additional elements, when viewed individually and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Furthermore, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology. Here, the alleged improvement is to the delivery process and not a technology or technical field.
Additionally, the causing the unmanned mobile unit to move towards the delivery address does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Examiner notes that the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) (e.g. unmanned mobile unit) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. It is noted that the number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping. Instead, the determination should be based on whether the activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Applicant argues on page 12, that the claims clearly recite "something more" beyond well-known features for the reasons discussed in traversal of the prior art rejection.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements, amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The same analysis applies here in 2B. The additional elements, when considered separately and in combination, do not add significantly more to the exception. They are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claims are ineligible.
Additionally, Examiner notes that specifically, lack of novelty under 35 U.S.C. 102 or obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 of a claimed invention does not necessarily indicate that additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional elements. Because they are separate and distinct requirements from eligibility, patentability of the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 with respect to the prior art is neither required for, nor a guarantee of, patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Novelty/ Non-Obviousness
The closest prior art of record has been included in the previous office action mailed on 08/07/2025. The claims would be considered allowable if re-written or amended to overcome the rejections in this office action.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11 recites devise instead of device in the amended claims. This is typographical error.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a system with multiple components, and therefore is a machine
Claim 11 is directed to a series of steps, and therefore is a process.
Claim 12 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable media and therefore are an article of manufacture.
Independent Claims
Step 2A Prong One
The limitation of Claim 1 recites:
…to obtain a delivery address for a package to be delivered …;
…obtain precipitation data for an area that includes the delivery address, the precipitation data including a precipitation probability in the area at the delivery date and time;
… send an instruction of suspending the packaging to … a worker packaging the package based on determining the precipitation probability is greater than or equal to a specified probability at a first date and time that is before the delivery start date and time;
… communicate … the intended recipient, …, to determine a distance between a location of the intended recipient and the delivery address based on global position data …;
… to determine a type of packaging for the package based on the precipitation data and the distance between the location of the intended recipient and the delivery address, wherein the determination of the type of packaging includes selecting one of multiple types of packaging including standard packaging and precipitation-resistant packaging; and
… communicate … to initiate delivery of the package by … to move autonomously towards the delivery address.
The limitation of Claim 11 recites:
A delivery management method, comprising:
obtaining, …, a delivery address for a package to be delivered …;
obtaining, …, precipitation data for an area that includes the delivery address, the precipitation data including a precipitation probability in the area at the delivery date and time;
sending an instruction of suspending the packaging to … a worker packaging the package based on determining the precipitation probability is greater than or equal to a specified probability at a first date and time that is before the delivery start date and time;
communicating with … the intended recipient, …, to determine a distance between a location of the intended recipient and the delivery address based on global position data …;
determining, by the one or more computers based on the precipitation data and the distance between the location of the intended recipient and the delivery address, a type of packaging for the package, wherein the determining includes selecting one of multiple types of packaging including standard packaging and precipitation-resistant packaging; and
communicating … … to initiate delivery of the package by causing the unmanned mobile unit to move autonomously towards the delivery address.
The limitation of Claim 12 recites:
obtaining a delivery address for a package to be delivered …;
obtaining precipitation data for an area that includes the delivery address, the precipitation data including a precipitation probability in the area at the delivery date and time;
sending an instruction of suspending the packaging to … a worker packaging the package based on determining the precipitation probability is greater than or equal to a specified probability at a first date and time that is before the delivery start date and time;
communicating with … the intended recipient, …, to determine a distance between a location of the intended recipient and the delivery address based on global position data …;
determining, based on the precipitation data and the distance between the location of the intended recipient and the delivery address, a type of packaging for the package, wherein the determining includes selecting one of multiple types of packaging including standard packaging and precipitation-resistant packaging; and
communicating with the … … to initiate delivery of the package by causing the …to move autonomously towards the delivery address.
The claim limitations as drafted, recite a concept, that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, is a certain method of organizing human activity. The limitations are analogous to managing personal behavior or interactions between people (interactions between people), or a commercial or legal interaction (sales activity) such as providing appropriate packaging for a delivery to prevent contents from getting wet due to rain during a delivery. The generic computer implementations (see below) do not change the character of the limitations. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements:
Claim 1:
A delivery management system, comprising:
Communication circuitry
a memory that stores program code; and
at least one processor configured to read the program code and operate as instructed by the program code, the program code including
first obtaining code configured to cause the at least one processor…
second obtaining code configured to cause the at least one processor…
notification code configured to cause the at least one processor…
first communicating code configured to cause the at least one processor to communicate with a user terminal device carried by the intended recipient, via the communication circuitry establishing a connection over a wireless network with communication circuitry of the user terminal device
first determining code configured to cause the at least one processor
second communicating code configured to cause the at least one processor…
Unmanned mobile unit
Work terminal device
establishing a connection over the wireless network with communication circuitry of the unmanned mobile unit
Claim 11:
One or more computers of a delivery management system
Unmanned mobile unit
Work terminal device
User terminal device
via communication circuitry of the delivery management system establishing a connection over a wireless network with communication circuitry of the user terminal device
via the communication circuitry of the delivery management system establishing a connection over the wireless network with communication circuitry of the unmanned mobile unit
Claim 12:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program for causing one or more computers of a delivery management system to execute:
Unmanned mobile unit
Work terminal device
User terminal device
via communication circuitry of the delivery management system establishing a connection over a wireless network with communication circuitry of the user terminal device
via the communication circuitry of the delivery management system establishing a connection over the wireless network with communication circuitry of the unmanned mobile unit
These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, the additional elements, when viewed individually and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h))
Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements, amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The same analysis applies here in 2B. The additional elements, when considered separately and in combination, do not add significantly more to the exception. They are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claims are ineligible.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 2-3, 5-10 and 14-15 further narrow the same abstract ideas recited in Claim 1. Therefore, claims 2-3, 5-10 and 14-15 are directed to an abstract idea for the reasons given above.
Step 2A Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the dependent claims recite the following additional elements:
Claim 2
Notification code
Claim 3
Obtaining code
Claim 5
Obtaining code
Claim 6
Obtaining code
Claim 7
Obtaining code
Claim 8
Obtaining code
Claim 9
Obtaining code
Notification code
Switching code
Claim 10
Granting code
These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, the additional elements, when viewed individually and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h))
Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements, amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The same analysis applies here in 2B. The additional elements, when considered separately and in combination, do not add significantly more to the exception. They are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claims are ineligible.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISMAIL A MANEJWALA whose telephone number is (571)272-8904. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Resha Desai can be reached on 571-270-7792. 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.
/ISMAIL A MANEJWALA/Examiner, Art Unit 3628