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 application 18/886,140 filed 9/16/2024. Claims 1, 11, and 14-15 were amended in the reply filed 9/29/2025. Claims 1, 9, 11, and 19 were amended in the reply filed 3/2/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending. This action is non-final.
Response to Arguments
Regarding Applicant’s argument starting on page 10 regarding claims 1-20: Applicant’s arguments filed with respect to the rejections made under 35 USC § 101 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Applicant first argues that the claims are directed to an improvement in the functioning of a computer, technology, or technical field. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The alleged improvements that Applicant’s invention provides are business improvements to a business related process, and not improvements to a computer system technology itself (See MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for examples and description of what is considered an improvement to a computer-functionality or an improvement to a technology). "Identifying, analyzing, and presenting certain data to a user is not an improvement specific to computing." International Business Machines Corp. v. Zillow Group, Inc., (Fed. Cir. No. 2021-2350, Oct. 17, 2022, pg. 8). The claimed computer components are generic and broadly recited, and the alleged improvements are not to the generic computer components themselves, but to the abstract process being performed by the computer components. Examiner respectfully argues that the claimed limitations not analogous to the MPEP descriptions and examples of improvements to computer-functionality or improvements to a technology, and that the claims are directed to an abstract idea. Specifically, improving the accuracy of address location data by acquiring more address location data by a plurality of means is not an improvement to the function of a computer, technology, or technical field. As Applicant describes in their remarks, the claims are directed to solving problems in the field of global positioning, address accuracy, and mapping as they relate to delivery logistics. This describes an abstract idea and not a technical field as described in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a).
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1 and 11 recite a method and a system for storing, in an address management system, an initial geolocation for each of a plurality of delivery addresses of a delivery route; and receiving, in one or more processors, stop data generated as a plurality of delivery resources traverse a plurality of delivery routes, the stop data comprising stop geolocations and stop times; associating, by the one or more processors, one or more of the stop geolocations of the stop data with one or more of the initial geolocations of the plurality of delivery addresses; identifying, by the one or more processors, delivery addresses of the plurality of delivery addresses with which no stop data is associated; determining, by the one or more processors, delivery addresses with which no stop data is associated as gaps; identifying, by the one or more processors, stop geolocations in the stop data that have not been associated with any of the plurality of delivery addresses; determining, by the one or more processors, whether the stop time for stop geolocations that have not been associated with any of the plurality of delivery addresses fall at a time between stop times associated with stop geolocations associated with delivery addresses located before and after the gap along the delivery route; assigning, by the one or more processors, the stop geolocations that fall at a time between stop times associated with stop geolocations associated with delivery addresses located before and after the gap along the delivery route to one of the delivery addresses in the gap with which no stop data was associated; determining, by the one or more processors, a final geolocation for each of the plurality of delivery addresses based on the associated stop geolocations; storing, in the address management system, the final geolocation for each of the plurality of delivery addresses associated with the stop geolocations; and updating, by the one or more processors, delivery routes using the stored final geolocations for each of the plurality of delivery addresses associated with the stop geolocations. Therefore, claims 1 and 11 are each directed tone of the four statutory categories of invention: a method and a machine, respectively.
Step 2A – Prong One: The limitations storing ... an initial geolocation for each of a plurality of delivery addresses of a delivery route; and receiving ... stop data generated as a plurality of delivery resources traverse a plurality of delivery routes, the stop data comprising stop geolocations and stop times; associating ... one or more of the stop geolocations of the stop data with one or more of the initial geolocations of the plurality of delivery addresses; identifying ... delivery addresses of the plurality of delivery addresses with which no stop data is associated; determining ... delivery addresses with which no stop data is associated as gaps; identifying ... stop geolocations in the stop data that have not been associated with any of the plurality of delivery addresses; determining ... whether the stop time for stop geolocations that have not been associated with any of the plurality of delivery addresses fall at a time between stop times associated with stop geolocations associated with delivery addresses located before and after the gap along the delivery route; assigning ... the stop geolocations that fall at a time between stop times associated with stop geolocations associated with delivery addresses located before and after the gap along the delivery route to one of the delivery addresses in the gap with which no stop data was associated; determining ... a final geolocation for each of the plurality of delivery addresses based on the associated stop geolocations; storing ... the final geolocation for each of the plurality of delivery addresses associated with the stop geolocations; and updating ... delivery routes using the stored final geolocations for each of the plurality of delivery addresses associated with the stop geolocation, as drafted, is a method that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, only covers concepts of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” (e.g., commercial interactions – business relations; fundamental economic practices – shipping/logistics). That is, nothing in the claim elements disclose anything outside the groupings of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” (e.g., commercial interactions – business relations; fundamental economic practices – shipping/logistics). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1 and 11 merely describe how to generally “apply” the concept of the aforementioned abstract idea using generic computer components including generic machine learning. The additional elements of claims 1 and 11, an address management system (claims 1 and 11), one or more processors (claims 1 and 11), a system (claim 11), and a memory (claim 11), are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as generic computer tools to perform the aforementioned abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computerized system is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, alone and in combination, the additional elements of claims 1 and 11 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claims as a whole merely describe the abstract idea generally “applied” to a generic computer environment including generic machine learning. The additional elements of claims 1 and 11, an address management system (described in spec. para. [0046]), one or more processors (described in spec. para. [0038]), a system (described in spec. para. [0038]), and a memory (described in spec. para. [0039]), are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as generic computer components upon which the abstract idea is “applied.” The high level of generality in which this additional element is described indicates that the additional element is sufficiently known such that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of the additional element to satisfy the statutory disclosure requirements. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims add significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 2-10 and 12-20 have been given the full two-part analysis including analyzing the limitations both individually and in combination. Claims 2-10 and 12-20 when analyzed individually, and in combination, are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the recited limitations of the dependent claims merely further narrow the abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two: The limitations of the dependent claims fail to integrate an abstract idea into a practical application because the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” a method of the aforementioned abstract idea. Claims 2-10 and 12-20 do not recite additional elements not recited in claims 1 and 11. The claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the aforementioned abstract idea in a generic computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims add significantly more to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Performing the further narrowed abstract ideas of the dependent claims on the additional elements of the independent claim, individually or in combination, does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas and amount to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Similarly, the recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept. Claims 2-10 and 12-20 do not recite additional elements not recited in claims 1 and 11. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims add significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Reasons for Novelty
Claims -1-20 are considered novel over the prior art. Examiner has determined that the combination of claim elements is unanticipated by prior art and that it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to have arrived at the claimed invention. In the previous office action Examiner rejected the independent claims as being obvious over Mishra (U.S. Pat. No. 9,743,239) in view of Galon (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0100057). Other relevant prior art includes: Siris (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0052868); Irwin (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0371187); Anders (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0347612); and Tiwari (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0134014). Examiner considers these references the closest prior art to the claimed invention. However, given the amendments to the independent claims and reconsideration of the claim language and the particular problem and claimed inventive solution, Examiner has determined that the previously cited combinations of references do not teach the independent claims as a whole. Furthermore, Examiner has determined that it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine these previously cited references with further prior art in order to arrive at the claimed invention. Therefore, the independent and dependent claims are all considered novel over the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRIS GOMEZ whose telephone number is (571) 272-0926. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7-4 CDT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shannon Campbell can be reached at 571-272-5587. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHRISTOPHER GOMEZ/
Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights