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 response to the reply filed January 29, 2026.
Claims 1, 5, 10, 13, 16, and 18-20 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
As discussed in the Non-Obvious Subject Matter section below, the previous rejection under 35 USC 103 has been withdrawn in response to the submitted amendments.
Applicant’s arguments filed January 29, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the previous rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant presented the following arguments:
Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea under step 2A, and even if considered to be directed to an abstract idea (a point with which Applicant explicitly disagrees), that claim 1 integrates the abstract idea into a practical application and is therefore patent eligible under 101. For instance, claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea as the claim requires data collection from physical sensors and performing automatic operations by the computing system based on such data that is collected. For instance, claim 1 recites, inter alia, "automatically updating a transition point for the first walker courier to meet the vehicle courier with the first item and second item by: continuously obtaining the current location of the computing device associated with the first walker courier based on location-determining hardware of the computing device and the current location of a computing device associated with the vehicle courier; processing, by a transition point machine-learned model, the current location of the computing device associated with the first walker courier and the current location of the computing device associated with the vehicle courier to compute an updated transition point for the first walker courier to meet the vehicle courier with the first item and the second item." Additionally, Applicant submits that the claim requires processing of input data by machine-learned models trained for a specific purpose. For instance, claim 1 recites, inter alia, "determining, during the performance of the walking portion of the first order request, that the first walker courier can pick up a second item associated with the second order request from the second merchant based on a multi-order batching machine-learned model processing input comprising: (i) a current location of the computing device associated with the first walker courier, (ii) an estimated time of preparation for the second item associated with the second order request, and (iii) an estimated time of arrival for the vehicle courier to the merchant area determined based on a current location of the vehicle courier" and "processing, by a transition point machine-learned model, the current location of/the computing device associated with the first walker courier and the current location of the computing device associated with the vehicle courier to compute an updated transition point for the first walker courier to meet the vehicle courier with the first item and the second item." These aforementioned operations are technical processes that are not directed to "certain methods of organizing human activity."
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The mere nominal recitation of a computing device of the walker courier, a computing device of the vehicle courier, obtaining courier location data, a processor, a non-transitory computer readable media, and a machine-learned model does not take the claim of the method of organizing human activity grouping. Further, the claimed machine learning model has not been improved by the claims and instead amounts to the use of generic machine learning in a new data environment. See Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox. Corp., Fed Cir. No. 2023-2437 (Apr. 18, 2025) (slip op. at 18) ("[P]atents that do no more than claim the application of generic machine learning to new data environments, without disclosing improvements to the machine learning models to be applied, are patent ineligible under § 101.")
Regarding the previous rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant presented the following arguments:
Such features are similar to those in example 46 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, which is included in the following document (https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/pegoct_2019_app l pdf), in which sensors are used to monitor physical conditions that are then utilized by hardware and machine systems to perform a technical task. For instance, similar to example 46 which users sensors to monitor physical state (animal health) to trigger a specific action (sorting gate), the present claim utilizes sensors (e.g., location hardware) to monitor physical state (e.g., courier locations) to trigger a specific action (e.g., "automatically updating a transition point").
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are transmitting instructions to a courier which is simply transmitting information which is not the same as the automated machine control signals in Example 46.
Regarding the previous rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant presented the following arguments:
In this regard, claim 1 provides for "an improvement to other technology or technical field" such as the fields of logistics computer systems. Applicant further submits that claim l does not recite a "general computer" implementation equivalent to merely applying an alleged abstract idea on a general computer. Claim 1 recites a specific combination of elements. As such, this integration into a "particular machine" that applies the exception in a meaningful way that incorporates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed in the rejection below, the additional elements in the claim are generic computer elements and their arrangement does not appear to solve a technological problem similar to the claims in Bascom. The Bascom decision was directed toward filtering internet content. The court in Bascom found that the claims amounted to significantly more than the identified abstract idea of filtering internet content because the claims recited an inventive concept that improved filtering on the internet over the prior art. The identified improvement was determined to be a computer-based improvement to a computer-based problem rather than merely reciting filtering content with a requirement to perform it on the internet or perform it using generic computer components. In making this determination the court relied on the specification of the patent at issue in Bascom to determine that the claims overcame four specific problems including the problem that current filtering software was vulnerable to a computer literate end user. In the instant case, the claims to not offer an improvement in computer technology similar to the claims found eligible in Bascom.
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.
Alice/Mayo Framework Step 1:
Claims 1-9 recite a series of steps and therefore recite a process.
Claims 10-17 recite a combination of devices and therefore recite a machine.
Claims 18-20 recite a tangible article given properties through artificial means and therefore recite a manufacture.
Alice/Mayo Framework Step 2A – Prong 1:
Claims 1, 10, and 18, as a whole, are directed to the abstract idea of receiving multiple orders, determining walking and driving portions of the orders, assigning walker and vehicle couriers, and arranging the handoff between couriers, which is a method of organizing human activity. The claims recite a method of organizing human activity because the identified idea is a commercial or legal interaction (including business relations) by reciting arranging the exchange of items between merchants, walker couriers, and vehicle couriers wherein the business relation is between the merchants and the couriers as well as between the different couriers. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B). The claims recite a method of organizing human activity because the identified idea is managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) by reciting generating instructions for exchanging an item so that it may progress along the supply chain. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C). The method of organizing human activity of “receiving multiple orders, determining walking and driving portions of the orders, assigning walker and vehicle couriers, and arranging the handoff between couriers,” is recited by claiming the following limitations: accessing a first order, determining a walker courier for the first order, transmitting instructions to the first courier, determining a vehicle courier for the first order, determining an initial transition point, accessing a second order, determining a vehicle courier can perform both the first and second orders, determining the walker courier can pick up the second order, generating and transmitting updated walker courier instructions, computing an updated transition point between the walker and the vehicle, and transmitting the transition point to the couriers. The mere nominal recitation of a computing device of the walker courier, a computing device of the vehicle courier, obtaining courier location data, a processor, a non-transitory computer readable media, and a machine-learned model does not take the claim of the method of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
With regards to Claims 2, 4-5, 8, 11, 13, 16, and 19, the claims further recite the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea) by reciting the following limitations: updating the initial transition point, accessing a third order, the vehicle courier cannot accept a third order, transmitting instructions to a second vehicle courier to pick up the third order, determining the walker courier can pick up the third order, generating and transmitting updated walker courier instructions, matching the walker courier to the first order, determining candidate walker couriers, matching walker couriers to orders, obtaining courier times, and updating predictions.
Alice/Mayo Framework Step 2A – Prong 2:
Claims 1, 10, and 18 recite the additional elements: a computing device of the walker courier, a computing device of the vehicle courier, obtaining courier location data, a processor, a non-transitory computer readable media, and a machine learning model. These computing device of the walker courier, computing device of the vehicle courier, processor, non-transitory computer readable media limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The obtaining courier location data step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering location data), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Regarding claims 6 and 14, the machine learning model limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Taken individually these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Considering the limitations containing the judicial exception as well as the additional elements in the claim besides the judicial exception does not amount to a practical application of the abstract idea. The claim as a whole does not improve the functioning of a computer or improve other technology or improve a technical field. The claim as a whole is not implemented with a particular machine. The claim as a whole does not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state. The claim as a whole is not applied in any meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of dispatching couriers in a computer environment. The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform an existing supply chain process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Alice/Mayo Framework Step 2B:
Claims 1, 10, and 18 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims recite a generic computer performing generic computer function by reciting a computing device of the walker courier, a computing device of the vehicle courier, a processor, a non-transitory computer readable media. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1341 (describing a “processor” as a generic computer component); Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324–25 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims reciting an “interface,” “network,” and a “database” are nevertheless directed to an abstract idea); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347–48 (discussing the same with respect to “data” and “memory”). The claims recite the following computer functions recognized by the courts as generic computer functions by reciting transmitting information (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec; TLI Communications LLC; OIP Techs.; buySAFE, Inc.), processing information (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) performing repetitive calculations, Flook; Bancorp Services), retrieving information (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc.; OIP Technologies), and updating information (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp.; Ultramercial). The specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the following additional elements because they are described in a manner that indicates the elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a): a computing device of the walker courier (Specification [0119]), a computing device of the vehicle courier (Specification [0119]), a processor (Specification [0120]), a non-transitory computer readable media (Specification [0120]), a real-time multi-order batching machine learned model (Specification [0033], [0042]), a transition point machine learned model (Specification [0033], [0042]). See MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2). The claims add the words “apply it” or words equivalent to “apply the abstract idea” such as instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer by reciting a computing device of the walker courier, a computing device of the vehicle courier, a processor, a non-transitory computer readable media, and a machine learning model. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims recite insignificant extrasolution activity (i.e. mere data gathering, selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, or an insignificant application) by reciting obtaining courier location data. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The claims limit the field of use by reciting vehicle and walking couriers. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. See MPEP 2106.05(a). Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. See MPEP 2106.05(b). Therefore, the claims do not include additional elements alone, and in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
With regards to Claims 5-6 and 13-14, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Regarding claims 5-6 and 13-14, the specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the following additional elements because they are described in a manner that indicates the elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a): a machine learning model (Specification [0041]-[0042], [0049]-[0056], [0065]). See MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2). Claims 5-6 and 13-14 add the words “apply it” or words equivalent to “apply the abstract idea” such as instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer by reciting a machine learning model. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. See MPEP 2106.05(a). Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. See MPEP 2106.05(b). Therefore, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Remaining Claims:
With regards to Claims 3, 7, 9, 12, 15, 17, and 20, these claims merely add a degree of particularity to the limitations discussed above rather than adding additional elements capable of transforming the nature of the claimed subject matter. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, the claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Non-Obvious Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of non-obvious subject matter:
Applicant’s remarks filed January 29, 2026 on p. 18 regarding the actions of Bernstein occurring before the performance of the walking portion are found persuasive.
In addition to the closest prior art already made of record Vellanki et al. (U.S. P.G. Pub. 2023/0196272 A1) is made of record. Vellanki discloses identifying a transition location for a single courier to switch between walking and driving but does not indicate a transition location between different walking and driving couriers.
It would not have been obvious to modify the closest prior art of record to disclose, teach, or suggest the amended claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 SCOTT M TUNGATE whose telephone number is (571)431-0763. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 - 4:30 EST.
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.
/SCOTT M TUNGATE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights