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 office action is in response to an application filed on 05/14/2025. The applicant submits two Information Disclosure Statement dated 09/10/2025 and 09/10/2025. The applicant does not make a claim for Foreign priority. The applicant does make a claim for Domestic priority to application filed on 11/27/2018 and 11/26/2019, and 10/10/2023.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 - 16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 - 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,816,624. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are directed to the inventive concept of food prepared with a vehicle and uses unmanned aerial vehicles to deliver the food.
Claims 1 – 16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 - 25 of U.S. Patent No. 11,361,686. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are directed to the inventive concept of food prepared with a vehicle and uses unmanned aerial vehicles to deliver the food.
Claims 1 – 16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 - 23 of U.S. Patent No. 11,790,403. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are directed to the inventive concept of food prepared with a vehicle and uses unmanned aerial vehicles to deliver the food.
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 – 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of the organization of human activity without significantly more. The claims are evaluated with respect to the MPEP and the 2019 Subject Matter Guidance, specifically example 42 as the reference for the analysis.
STEP 1
The claims recite a system for preparation and drone-based delivery of food items and a method of preparation and drone-based delivery of food items. The claims pass Step 1 by claiming one of the four statutory categories.
STEP 2A PRONG I
Independent claim 1 is reproduced below identifying the abstract idea and the pre/post solution.
Claim 1
A system for preparation and drone based delivery of food items, the system comprising:
a plurality of drones configured to carry payloads comprising the food items to a plurality of delivery locations;
a vehicle comprising: (pre solution)
a cargo area configured to provide an environment for preparation of the food items; (organization of human activity) and
one or more docking stations configured to:
provide a secure docking mechanism to the plurality of drones; (pre solution)
facilitate transfer of the food items as the payloads to the plurality of drones; (organization of human activity) and
provide a launching mechanism for the plurality of drones; (pre solution) and
a controller configured to:
determine vehicle travel information, drone travel information, food item information, and preparation information associated with the food items to be prepared and delivered; (organization of human activity)
transmit instructions to an on-board controller of the vehicle to control one or more food preparation equipment to execute the preparation of the food items; (organization of human activity)
adjust one or more parameters of the preparation of the food items based on one or more of the vehicle travel information, availability of the plurality of drones, or delivery progress of the plurality of drones; (organization of human activity) and
control an operation of the plurality of drones to carry the prepared food items from the delivery destination to the plurality of delivery locations. (post solution activity)
The inventive concept of the invention as identified under the MPEP 2106.07 is the organization of human activity of food preparation and delivery. With respect to the MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) the invention and the claims are directed to the human activity of a food truck that delivers food. The claims do not identify structure so unique and new that is equivalent to the data processing concepts of example 42. The claims use pre and post solution activity of using drones to deliver the food. The technology doesn’t involve data processing and the claims to do not identify what actually is performed in the autonomous operations. Therefore, with respect to the MPEP and the 2019 Guidance the claims are directed to the organization of human activity.
With respect to the dependent claims, the claims do not identify data processing operations or functions that satisfy the standards of the 2019 Guidance or the MPEP. Thus, the claims fail Step 2A Prong I.
STEP 2A PRONG II
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims fail to satisfy the MPEP requirements of 2106.04(d)(1,2). The claims fail to show a new or improved operation in the food delivery organization of human activity. The claims are autonomous in the operation of use of a uav but not the preparation of food. Therefore, the claims fail Step 2A Prong II.
STEP 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the inventive concept is food preparation and distribution, which, is a an organization of human activity. The claims do not identify a new or improved concept to satisfy MPEP 2106.05(a-h) or the 209 Subject Matter Guidance. Therefore, the claims fail Step 2B.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYLER D PAIGE whose telephone number is (571)270-5425. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00am - 6:00pm (mst).
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, Kito Robinson can be reached at 5712703921. 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.
/TYLER D PAIGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights