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 .
This action is in response to the application filed 21 March 2025. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
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. When considering claims 1-20 as a whole and all claim elements both individually and in combination, these claim(s) 1-20 are directed to the abstract idea of determining a route for the delivery of items based on timing without significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
STEP 1
Regarding Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes, claim 1 is directed to a computer system, which is a machine; claim 8 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium, which is a manufacture; and claims 15–20 are directed to a computer-implemented method, which is a process. All claims therefore fall within the statutory categories of invention
STEP 2A PRONG ONE
The independent claims 1, 8, and 15 each recite the following operative limitations beyond generic computer hardware:
"receiving, over a network from a user device of a user, a request for a delivery service that indicates a user selection of a first set of one or more items to be provided from at least a first entity" — receiving a customer's order;
"determining a dynamic value that is associated with the request, separate and apart from a value associated with the one or more items of the request" — determining a service-level fee or charge associated with the delivery transaction itself, distinct from the cost of the items ordered; and
"enabling the user to select an alternative service time, different than a service time that is based at least in part on a time when the request for the delivery service is received; and adjusting the dynamic value based on the alternative service time" — offering the customer a scheduling alternative and adjusting the service fee accordingly based on the customer's timing selection.
Abstract Idea Grouping Analysis - Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity / Fundamental Economic Principles or Practices a Mental Processes
These limitations fall within the "fundamental economic principles or practices" and "commercial or legal interactions" sub-groupings of certain methods of organizing human activity. Considered together, the three operative limitations of the independent claims describe nothing more than the longstanding commercial practice of time-differentiated or incentive-based pricing for service transactions specifically, offering a customer a different service fee based on whether the customer accepts an alternative (e.g., off-peak) delivery window. This type of demand-responsive, scheduling-based pricing has been used in industries ranging from utilities and transportation to restaurants and retail well before the advent of networked computing systems. The concept is directly analogous to the abstract ideas found insufficient in OIP Technologies, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., (offer-based price optimization) and Bilski v. Kappos, (hedging risk as a fundamental economic practice). The specification itself confirms this characterization: paragraph [0020] explicitly describes that "the network system can adjust one or more dynamically determined values in exchange for the user's selection of items ahead of the desired service time (e.g., pre-order) or in exchange for the user's acceptance of an alternate service time (e.g., off-peak service time)" language that describes the commercial incentive arrangement directly and without reference to any technical improvement. Furthermore, these limitations also fall within the mental processes grouping because a human dispatcher, coordinator, or pricing manager could perform each step without a computer: a person can receive a customer's delivery order, determine a service fee for the request, offer the customer an alternative delivery time, and adjust the fee based on which time the customer selects — all mentally, or with pen and paper. The mere nominal recitation of "one or more processors" and "memory resources" does not remove these limitations from the mental processes grouping. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III; August 4, 2025 Alice Memo, Section II(A).
STEP 2A PRONG TWO
Identification of Additional Elements
The claims recite the following additional elements beyond the identified abstract idea:
"one or more processors"
"one or more memory resources storing instructions"
"receiving, over a network from a user device" (the network and user device as hardware elements)
Analysis of Additional Elements
Improvement to Technology or Technical Field (MPEP 2106.05(a)): The claims do not recite an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. Critically, the present amended claims have deleted the route determination limitations that previously appeared in the independent claim specifically, the deleted steps of "determining a route of travel for a service provider to fulfill the request for the delivery service, wherein the route of travel reflects a sequence of entities for the service provider to travel to in fulfilling the request… based at least in part on the first set of preparation timing information" and "transmitting a set of data indicating the determined route of travel to a provider device." Those deleted limitations were the elements through which the specification described its improvement to mapping and routing technology and efficient resource utilization (see par. [0028]–[0030], par. [0050]–[0054]). With those steps removed, what remains in the amended independent claims is the commercial practice of dynamic value adjustment based on alternative service time selection. The specification at paragraphs [0019]–[0020] and [0029] characterizes the dynamic value and alternative service time features as improvements to "user experience" and as tools for managing demand — not as improvements to computer functionality. An improvement to user experience or to the efficiency of a commercial service does not constitute an improvement to computer technology or a technical field for purposes of 101. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp.; Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., (steps incidental to automating an abstract commercial idea were not sufficient to confer eligibility). The examiner has evaluated the specification for any disclosure that would reflect an improvement in computer functionality flowing from the remaining claim limitations and has found none the specification describes the processors, memory, and network components generically at paragraphs [0031]–[0035] and [0100]–[0101] without providing details of any technical improvement that would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art from those remaining limitations alone. See MPEP 2106.05(a); MPEP 2106.04(d)(1).
Particular Machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)): The recited "one or more processors," "memory resources," and "user device" communicating over "a network" are generic computing components that do not impose meaningful limits on the claim scope. The specification at paragraphs [0031] and [0034]-[0035] identifies these components as encompassing standard desktops, smartphones, tablets, laptops, PDAs, and servers i.e., any conventional computing device and confirms they are not configured in any particular manner beyond standard functionality. No particular machine is recited.
Mere Instructions to Apply the Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)): The additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. The claims do not specify how the dynamic value is computed, what technical mechanism enables the user to select an alternative service time, or how the adjustment is calculated they recite only the idea of the result (a dynamically adjusted service fee responsive to timing selection) without any particular technical implementation. This is precisely the type of result-oriented claiming that the Federal Circuit has consistently found to be equivalent to adding the words "apply it" to the judicial exception. See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A.; Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l.
Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)): The limitation of "receiving, over a network from a user device of a user, a request for a delivery service" constitutes mere data-gathering that is insignificant extra-solution activity incidental to the abstract commercial practice. It adds no meaningful technical limitation it simply states that the abstract commercial process begins when a customer submits an order, which is a necessary and unremarkable prerequisite to any order-based transaction.
Step 2A Prong Two Conclusion
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination, the claim as a whole does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The generic processors, memory, and network communication do not impose any meaningful limit on the commercial practice of adjusting a service fee based on a customer's alternative delivery time selection, and they do not reflect any improvement to computer technology or any other technical field, particularly after the deletion of the routing limitations. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
STEP 2B
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. The same analysis applies in Step 2B mere instructions to apply a commercial pricing practice using generic processors, memory, and network communication cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f); Alice Corp.
Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity Analysis
The additional elements, when considered individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the field. The specification itself establishes this: at paragraph [0034], the specification states that "some examples described herein can generally require the use of computing devices, including processing and memory resources" and identifies processors, memory, and network components as standard; at paragraphs [0100]–[0101], the specification describes the computer system (processor, main memory, ROM, storage device, communication interface) in entirely generic terms as a standard server or combination of servers implementing standard functions. Receiving requests over a network from a user device, storing instructions in memory, and executing those instructions on a processor are well-understood, routine, conventional activities recognized as such by the courts. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), citing Alice Corp. (creating electronic records, tracking transactions, and issuing instructions using generic computer components is conventional); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, (transmitting data over a network using a generic server is conventional); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., (using a computer to gather data, test results, and update a price is conventional). The combination of these conventional elements with the identified abstract commercial idea adds nothing inventive — it is precisely the situation the Supreme Court identified in Alice where generic computer implementation of an abstract idea is insufficient.
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination, the claims do not include additional elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the identified judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
DEPENDENT CLAIMS ANALYSIS
Claims 2, 9, and 16 specify that "the alternative service time is during an expected off-peak time." This limitation further defines the temporal scope of the abstract commercial pricing arrangement namely, offering lower service fees during periods of low demand but adds no technical element and merely narrows the commercial practice to a known variant (off-peak pricing), which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
Claims 3, 10, and 17 add "associating a priority with the request for the delivery service; accelerating the service time based on the associated priority; and wherein the dynamic value is based on the accelerated service time." These limitations further define the commercial incentive structure by specifying that higher-priority service commands a higher or different dynamic value which is an even more conventional economic concept (premium/expedited service pricing) that does not add any technical element and does not change the eligibility analysis.
Claims 4, 11, and 18 specify that "associating the priority with the request includes associating the priority with at least one of a handling or preparation of the first set of one or more items." This further narrows the commercial practice without adding any technical element characterizing what aspect of the delivery service the priority designation applies to is merely additional specification of the abstract commercial process.
Claims 5, 12, and 19 add "communicating information about the request to a computing device associated with the first entity, the information indicating the priority associated with the request." Transmitting data to a third party's computing device is a standard network data-transmission function that constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity and does not impose meaningful limits on the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claims 6 and 13 specify that "the first set of one or more items include one or more items for purchase at a store," and Claims 7, 14, and 20 specify that the items "include one or more items that are to be prepared." These limitations further define the commercial context of the transaction without adding any technical element that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
For the foregoing reasons, claims 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. The examiner notes that this is not a close call the amended independent claims present the core commercial concept of time-differentiated service pricing stripped of the route optimization limitations that had previously grounded the claims in a technical context, and the remaining limitations directed to dynamic value adjustment and alternative service time selection are squarely directed to a fundamental economic and commercial practice implemented on generic computing infrastructure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent may not be obtained through the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maloney (U.S. Patent 9,710,779 B1) in view of Radhakrishnan et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2013/0268406 A1) (hereafter Radhakrishnan).
Referring to Claim 1, Maloney teaches a system, said system comprising:
one or more processors (see; col. 4, lines (22-40) of Maloney teaches a processor).
one or more memory resources storing a set of instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computer system to perform operations that include (see: col. 4, lines (22-40) of Maloney teaches memory executed by a processor).
receiving, over a network from a user device of a user, a request for a delivery service that indicates a user selection of a first set of one or more items to be provided from at least a first entity (see; Figure 3 and col. 5, line (53) – col. 6, line (2) of Maloney teaches an example of a screen that provide a request for delivery service that a user selects an item and delivery options, col. 4, lines (22-40) utilizing a network and col. 4, lines (54-67) mobile devices).
enabling the user to select an alternative service time, different than a service time that is based at least in part on a time when the request for the delivery service is received (see; Figure 3 and col. 5, line (53) – col. 6, line (2) of Maloney teaches an screen that shows an example of providing a user alternate service times that are based on times of different delivery service taking into account when the order is taking place in the form of expediting the delivery service).
adjusting the dynamic value based on the alternative service time (see; Figure 3 and col. 5, line (53) – col. 6, line (2) of Maloney teaches an example of multiple times that are generated as a delivery time based on when the order was initiated to provide multiple service times).
Maloney does not explicitly disclose the following limitation, however,
Radhakrishnan teaches determining a dynamic value that is associated with the request, separate and apart from a value associated with the one or more items of the request (see; par. [0011] of Radhakrishnan teaches dynamically adjusting prices for real time conditions, Abstract where an incentive is generated based on time frames (i.e. dynamic value)).
The Examiner notes that Maloney teaches similar to the instant application teaches receiving bids from diners for expedited food delivery. Specifically, Maloney discloses a server connected to a restaurant service communication with a restaurant and a driver to provide an incentive for food preparation and delivery time frames it is therefore viewed as analogous art in the same field of endeavor. Additionally, Radhakrishnan teaches enabling a user to verify a price for on demand services and as it is comparable in certain respects to Maloney which receiving bids from diners for expedited food delivery as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. This provides support that it would be obvious to combine the references to provide an obviousness rejection.
Maloney discloses a server connected to a restaurant service communication with a restaurant and a driver to provide an incentive for food preparation and delivery time frames. However, Maloney fails to disclose determining a dynamic value that is associated with the request, separate and apart from a value associated with the one or more items of the request.
Radhakrishnan discloses determining a dynamic value that is associated with the request, separate and apart from a value associated with the one or more items of the request.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the task management
(system/method/apparatus) of Maloney the determining a dynamic value that is associated with the request, separate and apart from a value associated with the one or more items of the request as taught by Radhakrishnan since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additionally, Maloney, and Radhakrishnan teach the collecting and analysis of data in order to provide delivered products utilizing a delivery service at designated times and they do not contradict or diminish the other alone or when combined.
Referring to Claim 2, see discussion of claim 1 above, while Maloney in view of Radhakrishnan teaches the system above, Maloney does not explicitly discloses a system having the limitations of, however,
Radhakrishnan teaches the alternative service time is during an expected off-peak time (see; par. [0060] and par. [0077] of Radhakrishnan that there are surge prices and the user has the ability to reject the surge price as they do not wish to accept a much higher price (i.e. off-peak time)).
The Examiner notes that Maloney teaches similar to the instant application teaches receiving bids from diners for expedited food delivery. Specifically, Maloney discloses a server connected to a restaurant service communication with a restaurant and a driver to provide an incentive for food preparation and delivery time frames it is therefore viewed as analogous art in the same field of endeavor. Additionally, Radhakrishnan teaches enabling a user to verify a price for on demand services and as it is comparable in certain respects to Maloney which receiving bids from diners for expedited food delivery as well as the instant application it is viewed as analogous art and is viewed as reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. This provides support that it would be obvious to combine the references to provide an obviousness rejection.
Maloney discloses a server connected to a restaurant service communication with a restaurant and a driver to provide an incentive for food preparation and delivery time frames. However, Maloney fails to disclose the alternative service time is during an expected off-peak time.
Radhakrishnan discloses the alternative service time is during an expected off-peak time.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the task management
(system/method/apparatus) of Maloney the alternative service time is during an expected off-peak time as taught by Radhakrishnan since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Additionally, Maloney, and Radhakrishnan teach the collecting and analysis of data in order to provide delivered products utilizing a delivery service at designated times and they do not contradict or diminish the other alone or when combined.
Referring to Claim 3, see discussion of claim 1 above, while Maloney in view of Radhakrishnan teaches the system above, Maloney does not explicitly discloses a system having the limitations of:
associating a priority with the request for the delivery service (see; col. 2, line (43) – col. 3, line (13) of Radhakrishnan teaches offering the ability to bid on expedited delivery (i.e. priority)).
accelerating the service time based on the associated priority (see; Figure 8 and col. 8, lines (23-44) of Radhakrishnan teaches expediting dinner delivery (i.e. accelerating) based on selected communication between the diner and driver’s availability).
wherein the dynamic value is based on the accelerated service time (see; Fig. 3, col. 5, lines (53) – col. 6, line (2) of Radhakrishnan teaches a cost and time is presented and additional options are provided based on when ordering was taking place).
Referring to Claim 4, see discussion of claim 3 above, while Maloney in view of Radhakrishnan teaches the system above, Maloney further discloses a system having the limitations of:
associating the priority with the request includes associating the priority with at least one of a handling or preparation of the first set of one or more items (see; Abstract and col. 2, line (66) – col. 3, line (13) of Maloney teaches incentives based on food preparation time frames and incentives based on delivery time frames).
Referring to Claim 5, see discussion of claim 3 above, while Maloney in view of Radhakrishnan teaches the system above, Maloney further discloses a system having the limitations of:
communicating information about the request to a computing device associated with the first entity, the information indicating the priority associated with the request (see; Abstract of Maloney teaches an order server communicating with a server and a driver, and generates potential incentives, Fig. 3 shows an example of indicating a priority available, which provides col. 3, lines (14-25) a list of incentives based on different delivery plans (i.e. request)).
Referring to Claim 6, see discussion of claim 1 above, while Maloney in view of Radhakrishnan teaches the system above, Maloney further discloses a system having the limitations of:
the first set of one or more items include one or more items for purchase at a store (see; Fig. 2 of Maloney teaches providing a flow chart that describes the order from a restaurant which is viewed as a type of a store as it sells finished products (meals) to consumers).
Referring to Claim 7, see discussion of claim 1 above, while Maloney in view of Radhakrishnan teaches the system above, Maloney further discloses a system having the limitations of:
the first set of one or more items include one or more items that are to be prepared (see; col. 2, line (43-54) of Maloney teaches providing made to order food as an option that needs to be prepared before they are delivered).
Referring to Claim 8, Maloney in view of Radhakrishnan teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium. Claim 8 recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 1, Claim 8 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above in claim 1.
Referring to Claim 9, see discussion of claim 8 above, while Maloney in view of Radhakrishnan teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium above Claim 9 recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 2, Claim 9 is therefore rejected for the same or similar limitations as set forth above in claim 2.
Referring to Claim 10, see discussion of claim 8 above, while Maloney in view of Radhakrishnan teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium above Claim 10 recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 3, Claim 10 is therefore rejected for the same or similar limitations as set forth above in claim 3.
Referring to Claim 11, see discussion of claim 10 above, while Maloney in view of Radhakrishnan teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium above Claim 11 recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 4, Claim 11 is therefore rejected for the same or similar limitations as set forth above in claim 4.
Referring to Claim 12, see discussion of claim 10 above, while Maloney in view of Radhakrishnan teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium above Claim 12 recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 5, Claim 12 is therefore rejected for the same or similar limitations as set forth above in claim 5.
Referring to Claim 13, see discussion of claim 8 above, while Maloney in view of Radhakrishnan teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium above Claim 13 recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 6, Claim 13 is therefore rejected for the same or similar limitations as set forth above in claim 6.
Referring to Claim 14, see discussion of claim 8 above, while Maloney in view of Radhakrishnan teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium above Claim 14 recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 7, Claim 14 is therefore rejected for the same or similar limitations as set forth above in claim 7.
Referring to Claim 15, Maloney in view of Radhakrishnan teaches a computer implemented method. Claim 15 recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 1, Claim 15 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above in claim 1.
Referring to Claim 16, see discussion of claim 15 above, while Maloney in view of Radhakrishnan teaches the method above Claim 16 recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 2, Claim 16 is therefore rejected for the same or similar limitations as set forth above in claim 2.
Referring to Claim 17, see discussion of claim 15 above, while Maloney in view of Radhakrishnan teaches the method above Claim 17 recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 3, Claim 17 is therefore rejected for the same or similar limitations as set forth above in claim 3.
Referring to Claim 18, see discussion of claim 17 above, while Maloney in view of Radhakrishnan teaches the method above Claim 18 recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 4, Claim 18 is therefore rejected for the same or similar limitations as set forth above in claim 4.
Referring to Claim 19, see discussion of claim 17 above, while Maloney in view of Radhakrishnan teaches the method above Claim 19 recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 5, Claim 19 is therefore rejected for the same or similar limitations as set forth above in claim 5.
Referring to Claim 20, see discussion of claim 15 above, while Maloney in view of Radhakrishnan teaches the method above Claim 20 recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 6 and 7, Claim 20 is therefore rejected for the same or similar limitations as set forth above in claim 6 and 7.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Amin et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2014/0129951 A1) discloses providing on-demand services through use of portable computing devices.
Braumoeller et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 7,295,990 B1) discloses generating current order fulfillment plans based on expected future orders.
MacLaurin et al. (U.S. Patent 10,963,951 B2) discloses shopping trip planner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN S SWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7789. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00 - 6:00.
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, Boswell Beth can be reached at 571 272-6737. 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.
/S.S.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3625
/MUSTAFA IQBAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625