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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/27/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim 20 is directed toward “computer-readable medium”. The computer-readable medium is described in exemplary terms in par.26, “The computer-readable medium may include a non-transitory computer-readable medium”. This description does not exclude transitory media , therefore under BRI of the computer readable media covers transitory propagating signal per se in view of the specification, therefore claim 20 is rejected under 35 USC 101 as covering nonstatutory subject matter. See MPEP 2106.03.
For the purpose of compact prosecution, examiner interprets the limitation as non-transitory computer readable medium.
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 1-9 are directed to a server (i.e., a machine); Claims 10-18 are directed to a method (i.e., a process); and claim 20 is directed to a computer readable medium (i.e., a machine); Therefore, claims 1-20 all fall within the one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One
Independent claim 1 substantially recites receive, from a user, a request for an item delivery service to be provided to the user en route to a destination during a use of a transport service, wherein the request for the item delivery service includes information about at least one selected item for the item delivery service; determine that a travel route of the user associated with the transport service overlaps with at least one of a plurality of predetermined travel routes where a plurality of delivery outposts are placed; identify a candidate set of the plurality of delivery outposts placed on the travel route of the user; and select a delivery outpost from the candidate set of the plurality of delivery outposts based on at least one criterion, for the user to pick up the selected item along the travel route of the user to the destination. Claims 10 and 20 recite similar limitations as claim 1.
The limitations stated above are processes/ functions that under broadest reasonable interpretation ( i.e., identifying a delivery outpost placed on the travel route of the user for the for the user to pick up the selected item along the travel route of the user to the destination) which covers “certain methods of organizing human activities” (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people and commercial or legal interactions and following rules or instructions). Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 as a whole amounts to: (i) merely invoking generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (or an equivalent), Claims 10 and 20 recite similar limitations as claim 1.
The independent claims recite the additional elements of: (i) server, memory for storing instructions, processor for executing the stored instructions, computing device, computer-readable medium comprising program instructions, which are recited at a high-level of generality (See specification [0036] As shown in FIG. 1, the system 200 may include, but is not limited to, the server 100, a database system 140, a network 150, a computing device 160, and one or more external devices 170, 180, 19 [0039] the computing device 160 may include, but is not limited to, at least one of the following: a mobile phone, a tablet computer, a laptop computer, a desktop computer, a head-mounted display and a smart watch [0025-26] The computer-readable medium may include a non-transitory computer-readable medium. [0041] the server 100, for example, implemented by a server computer, may include a communication interface 110, a processor 120, and a memory 130 (as will be described with reference to FIG. 2 [0049]), such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination (as shown in Fig. 1 & 2 ) , do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements amount to no more than: (i) “apply it” (or an equivalent). The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., (i) merely invoking the generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it”, which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional elements of: (i) server, memory for storing instructions, processor for executing the stored instructions, computing device, computer-readable medium comprising program instructions, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in the claims adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are ineligible.
Dependent Claims Step 2A:
The limitations of the dependent claims but for those addressed below merely set forth further refinements of the abstract idea without changing the analysis already presented. Additionally, for the same reasons as above, the limitations fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea (e.g., using computers to communicate data). Therefore, the claims are ineligible.
Dependent Claims Step 2B:
The dependent claims merely use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea. Accordingly, they are not directed to significantly more than the exception itself, and are not eligible subject matter under § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-4, 10-13, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stevens (US20150193731 A1) in view of Woulfe ( US 20190043001 A1)
As per claim 1, Stevens teaches:
A server for processing on-demand services, the server comprising: a memory for storing instructions; and a processor for executing the stored instructions and configured to: ( see at least: Fig.1 [0019] [0024])
receive, from a computing device associated with a user, a request for an item delivery service to be provided to the user ( see at least:[0007] receiving a request to deliver an item to a user [0056] activity information regarding the customer's address or route including expected timing during the requested day of delivery is gathered. this customer activity information including expected timing can be obtained directly by the customer during the order process, from a user preferences database, or from information accessible with permission on the customer's system or elsewhere such as calendaring information.)
Stevens does not explicitly teach receive a request for an item to be provided to the user en route to a destination during a use of a transport service, however this is taught by Woulfe ( see at least: [0004] a system receives order data that indicates a selection of a product for delivery to a receiving vehicle that is operating on a roadway system. [0018] a person may use a client computing device (e.g., a smartphone) to obtain directions to the destination-location and to indicate that he or she would like to receive the specific value meal option while traveling en route to the destination-location. [0040] the intended recipient of the product may be temporarily associated with the receiving vehicle 106. For example, the intended recipient may be an occupant of a taxi, a bus, a rental vehicle, a rideshare vehicle, and/or any other mode of transportation that an occupant may be temporarily associated with.[0003] the delivery vehicle is dispatched on the roadway system to carry the product along a specific route that partially overlaps with another route on which the receiving vehicle is traveling towards the destination-location)
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to combine the ordering while en route during the use of a transport service feature for the same reasons its useful in Woulfe -namely, to facilitate an en route delivery of a product to a receiving vehicle that is traveling on a roadway system towards a destination-location ( par.32). Moreover, this is merely a combination of old elements in the art. In the combination, no element would serve a purpose other than it already did independently, and one skilled in the art would have recognized that the combination could have been implemented through routine engineering producing predictable results.
Stevens further teaches the request for the item delivery service includes information about at least one selected item for the item delivery service; ( see at least: [0037] Order system 330 may also communicate directly with inventory database 342 for receiving information about an order item and product/package characteristics database 344 for determining shipping characteristics and storage requirements of the packaging for items ordered. The order information includes a list of the items ordered,)
Stevens further teaches determine that a travel route of the user associated with the transport service overlaps with at least one of a plurality of predetermined travel routes where a plurality of delivery outposts are placed; ( see at least:[0036] provide optimized deliver locations through user interface 310, including offering multiple delivery locations in navigationally proximate locations. That is, a location is considered navigationally proximate if a customer can be reasonable expected to pick up an item from a delivery location with limited effect to the user's expected route. That location can also be navigationally proximate if a delivery vehicle can be reasonably expected to deliver items to that location within an expected schedule of deliveries [0046] Delivery system 348 includes a list of delivery vehicles, their capabilities and expected routes. Also included are the expected routes of the delivery vehicles including locker locations [outposts] visited and expected delivery times for each location. This allows for identifying which routes may be useful for delivery packages to coincide with the user's expected travel route the day of delivery [overlap])
Stevens further teaches identify a candidate set of the plurality of delivery outposts placed on the travel route of the user; ( see at least: [0046] Delivery system 348 includes a list of delivery vehicles, their capabilities and expected routes. Also included are the expected routes of the delivery vehicles including locker locations [outposts] visited and expected delivery times for each location. This allows for identifying which routes may be useful for delivery packages to coincide with the user's expected travel route the day of delivery [overlap] [0059] In step 535, those lockers closest (navigationally proximate) to the customer's address and route (or other person picking up the ordered items) are identified where a delivery can occur prior to the customer being in the area of the locker [0061] If there are lockers remaining for consideration in step 545, then in step 560 the lockers are ranked according to customer (or other person picking up the ordered items) convenience. This includes considering navigational proximity to the user's address and route)
Stevens further teaches select a delivery outpost from the candidate set of the plurality of delivery outposts based on at least one criterion, for the user to pick up the selected item along the travel route of the user to the destination. ( see at least: [0061-62] These value ranking criteria include delivery cost, convenience of picking up the item and delivering the item to the address, cost of usage of the locker, user preference, historical usage, end delivery date, etc. [criterion] Then in step 570, the convenience and costs are weighed using the criteria including predetermined factors and user preferences to generate a final value ranking based on providing the greatest value for the customer and seller [0007] analyzing the item for storage requirements to identify lockers meeting the requirements which are navigationally proximate to the user route; ranking the identified lockers with a ranking based on criteria; and presenting an ordering of the identified lockers based on the ranking for user selection).
As per claim 2, Stevens in view of Woulfe teaches claim 1 as above. Stevens further teaches:
receive, from the computing device, a request for a search for the item delivery service; and provide the computing device with a list of items, associated with at least one item provider, ( see at least: [0007] The order information includes a list of the items ordered, which product sources (e.g., warehouses) in the vicinity of the delivery area have the ordered items in stock, [0043] Inventory 342 includes a current list of all products available. This is important to avoid recommending delivery of items for scheduled delivery that are not in stock. )
which can be prepared and delivered to the candidate set of the plurality of delivery outposts within an estimated time of arrival of the user to the candidate set of the plurality of delivery outposts. ( see at least: [0043] Inventory 342 includes a current list of all products available. This is important to avoid recommending delivery of items for scheduled delivery that are not in stock. [0040] if the user is at his or her place of business the next day as indicated by scheduled meetings, then the ordered item(s) can be delivered to a nearby locker for pickup by the user during a break or at the end of work [0041] Route management system 326 is able to take the timing constraints (and locations) identified by timing management system 324 and generate an expected route for the user. Route management system 326 is also able to take the delivery constraints and the expected delivery routes for that day and determine a set of lockers that are navigationally proximate to the expected user route and one or more of the expected delivery routes. [0063] The presentation of the lockers should include the time the items would be available at each location, the relative location of that locker to the customer's (or other person picking up the ordered items) address and route, [0056] routes includes expected timing)
As per claim 3, Stevens in view of Woulfe teaches claim 2 as above. Stevens further teaches:
the selected item is selected from the list of items; provide the information about the selected item to a selected item provider associated with the selected item for preparing the selected item. ( see at least: Fig.4A- B [0043] Inventory 342 can include information whether an item is available for sale or has been sold but is still in inventory awaiting selection for preparation and delivery to a customer. Inventory 342 can also provide the location of products for packaging and delivery such as the location of any sources (e.g., warehouses) in the vicinity that have an available product. [0037] The order information includes a list of the items ordered, which product sources (e.g., warehouses) in the vicinity of the delivery area have the ordered items in stock)
As per claim 4, Stevens in view of Woulfe teaches claim 3 as above. Stevens further teaches:
select a delivery service provider from one or more delivery service providers based on a geographical location of the one or more delivery service providers; ( see at least: [0062] These value ranking criteria include delivery cost, convenience of picking up the item and delivering the item to the address, cost of usage of the locker, user preference, historical usage, end delivery date, etc [0072] Special considerations 730 can include and shipping characteristics and storage requirements needed to determine whether a delivery vehicle or locker is able to ship or store the packaged item [0074] FIG. 7D is a block diagram of a record 760 stored in a delivery system database for use in identifying delivery vehicles and routes which can be utilized for delivering ordered items to lockers. Record 760 includes a delivery vehicle identifier 762 such as VIN, a route 764, vehicle attributes 766 and any special factors 768. Route 764 can specify a unique route that includes the route source (e.g., warehouse), lockers delivered to, and time of delivery. [0050])
request the selected delivery service provider to pick up the selected item at a geographical location of the selected item provider and deliver the selected item to the selected delivery outpost. ( see at least: [0058] relevant warehouse and delivery vehicle information is obtained and selected for identifying possible lockers for delivery of the ordered items. That is, only those warehouses and delivery routes in the vicinity of the customer or other person route are considered unless the ordered item is not located in any nearby warehouses. For example, two routes may service the same locker. If one of those routes is eliminated and the other route can be utilized to deliver the ordered item to that locker in a timely manner, then that locker is not eliminated from consideration. [0072] Special considerations 730 can include and shipping characteristics and storage requirements needed to determine whether a delivery vehicle or locker is able to ship or store the packaged item [0074])
Claims 10-13, and 20 recite similar limitations as claims 1-4, therefore they are rejected over the same rationales.
Novelty/Non-Obviousness
No prior art has been found that teaches or suggest alone, or in combination with other arts all the limitations of claims 5 and 14 and their dependent claims ( claims 6-9, 15-18).
The closest prior art of records:
Lin ( US 20140011522 A1) reciting a system and method for providing dynamic supply positioning for on-demand services. Lin does not disclose “segment each of the plurality of regions into a plurality of sub-regions such that one or more item providers connected to each of the plurality of predetermined travel routes are grouped into each sub-region and place the plurality of delivery outposts along the plurality of predetermined travel routes, wherein the candidate set of the plurality of delivery outposts comprises one or more delivery outposts placed in a same sub-region”.
Dearing ( US20190325389) reciting a system and method for dynamic routing of delivery resources for delivery of items from a pickup location on or near a first planned route to a delivery location on or near a second planned route.
Chraibi ( US 20190019146 A1) reciting a system and method for arranging deliveries and ridesharings.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANAL A. ALSAMIRI whose telephone number is (571)272-5598. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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.
/MANAL A. ALSAMIRI/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights