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 responsive to Applicant’s claims filed 06/05/2025.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined here.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “monitoring component” . . . detecting in claims 9-10 and 18-19.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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. The claims are drawn to ineligible patent subject matter, because the claims are directed to a recited judicial exception to patentability (an abstract idea), without claiming something significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Claims are ineligible for patent protection if they are drawn to subject matter which is not within one of the four statutory categories, or, if the subject matter claimed does fall into one of the four statutory categories, the claims are ineligible if they recite a judicial exception, are directed to that judicial exception, and do not recite additional elements which amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 375 U.S. ___ (2014). Accordingly, claims are first analyzed to determine whether they fall into one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter. Then, if the claims fall within one of the four statutory categories, it must be determined whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). In determining whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception, the claim is first analyzed to determine whether the claim recites a judicial exception. If the claim does not recite one of these exceptions, the claim is directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. If the claim recites one of these exceptions, the claim is then analyzed to determine whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. Claims which integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception are directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. If the claim fails to integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Finally, if the claims are directed to a judicial exception to patentability, the claims are then analyzed determine whether the claims are directed to patent eligible subject matter by reciting meaningful limitations which transform the judicial exception into something significantly more than the judicial exception itself. If they do not, the claims are not directed towards eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding independent claims 1, 14, and 20 the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (a process, a machine, and an article of manufacture, respectively.) The claimed invention of independent claims 1, 14, and 20 is directed to a judicial exception to patentability, an abstract idea. The claims include limitations which recite elements which can be properly characterized under at least one of the following groupings of subject matter recognized as abstract ideas by MPEP 2106.04(a):
Mathematical Concepts: mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity: fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes: concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)
Claims 1, 14, and 20, as a whole, recite the following limitations:
receiving a delivery request. . . (claims 1, 14, 20; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could receive a delivery request; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment entities would perform this step in coordinating the last segment of a shipment to a customer)
in response to receiving the delivery request. . . . displays last segment data for a delivery location and an option to edit the last segment data; (claims 1, 14, 20; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could display this information and an option to edit it to a consumer; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment entities would perform this step in coordinating the last segment of a shipment to a customer)
in response to receiving a selection of the option. . . receive user generated content that edits at least a portion of the last segment data; (claims 1, 14, 20; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could receive edits in this manner; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment entities would perform this step in coordinating the last segment of a shipment to a customer)
receiving. . . the user generated content; (claims 1, 14, 20; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could receive this content; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment entities would perform this step in coordinating the last segment of a shipment to a customer)
revising the last segment data based on the user generated content; (claims 1, 14, 20; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could revise a last segment in this manner; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment entities would perform this step in coordinating the last segment of a shipment to a customer)
and causing presentation. . . map with navigation instructions and a visual indicator for a location associated with the revised last segment data. (claims 1, 14, 20; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could present a map to a user with revised last segment data; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment entities would perform this step in coordinating the last segment of a shipment to a customer)
The above elements, as a whole, recite mental processes since, but for the requirement to implement these steps using a set of generic computer components, a human could perform each of these steps using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment. Furthermore, the above limitations, as a whole, recite certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment entities would perform these steps in coordinating the last segment of a shipment to a customer.
Moving forward, the above recited abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
The added limitations do not represent an integration of the abstract idea into a practical application because:
the claims represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, and merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
the claims merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (activity which can be characterized as incidental to the primary purpose or product that is merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim). See MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or
the claims represent mere general linking of the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2016.05(h)
Beyond those limitations which recite the abstract idea, the following limitations are added:
A system comprising: (claim 14; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
one or more processors; (claim 14; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: (claim 14; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
A machine-storage medium comprising instructions which, when executed by one or more processors of a machine, cause the machine to perform operations comprising: (claim 20; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
. . . from a user device. . . (claims 1, 14, 20; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
. . . causing presentation of a user interface on the user device that. . . (claims 1, 14, 20; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
. . . configuring the user interface to. . . (claims 1, 14, 20; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
. . . via the user interface. . . (claims 1, 14, 20; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
. . . on a device of a courier, of a user interface that includes. . . (claims 1, 14, 20; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
The claims, as a whole, are directed to the abstract idea(s) which they recite. The claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)). Therefore, because the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea) and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claims, as a whole, are directed to the judicial exception.
Turning to the final prong of the test (Step 2B), independent claims 1, 14, and 20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because there are no meaningful limitations which transform the exception into a patent eligible application.
As outlined above, the claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)).
Furthermore, no specific limitations are added which represent something other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Besides performing the abstract idea itself, the generic computer components only serve to perform the court-recognized well-understood computer functions of receiving or transmitting data over a network, performing repetitive calculations, electronic record keeping, and storing and retrieving information in memory. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. The specification details any combination of a generic computer system program to perform the method. Generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be routine in any computer implementation and because the Alice decision noted that generic structures that merely apply the abstract ideas are not significantly more than the abstract ideas. Therefore, independent claims 1, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to ineligible subject matter.
Claims 2-13, and 15-19, recite the same abstract idea as their respective independent claims.
The following additional features are added in the dependent claims:
Claim 2:
wherein the configuring the user interface to receive the user generated content comprises causing presentation of a pin on a map displayed on the user interface, the pin being associated with a location of the last segment data.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could receive this content and present a pin on a map; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment entities would perform this step in coordinating the last segment of a shipment to a customer.
Claim 3:
wherein the receiving the user generated content comprises: detecting, via the user interface, movement of the pin on the map to revise a corresponding location;
and determining coordinates corresponding to a final position of the pin on the map.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could detect movement of a pin and determine coordinates corresponding to a final position of the pin; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment entities would perform this step in coordinating the last segment of a shipment to a customer.
Claims 4 and 15:
using the user generated content as feedback to retrain a machine learning (ML) inference model, the ML inference model being used to generate the last segment data.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could use feedback to retrain a machine learning model; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment entities would perform this step in coordinating the last segment of a shipment to a customer; alternatively still, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mathematical concepts since training and using a machine learning model requires the use of formula and mathematical operations. Furthermore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation amounts to the mere requirement to implement the abstract idea in the field of machine learning, and amounts to the mere requirement to “apply” the abstract idea using a machine learning model since the model is used as a tool to perform an existing process and since the limitation merely recites the outcome or solution of using the model without indicating how the outcome or solution is accomplished.
Claims 5 and 16:
deriving the last segment data by: accessing aggregated trip data;
and based on the aggregated trip data, inferring the last segment data by clustering location information from the aggregated trip data and identifying a cluster that satisfies a predefined cluster threshold.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could access aggregated data, cluster it, and determine whether it meets a threshold; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment entities would perform this step in coordinating the last segment of a shipment to a customer.
Claim 6:
wherein the last segment data comprises at least one of: a parking location; an entrance location; or a drop-off location.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation merely alters the information used in the abstract idea above and therefore further recites one or more abstract ideas for the reasons outlined above.
Claim 7:
wherein the user generated content includes metadata associated with the delivery location, the metadata comprising at least one of: an entry code for accessing a building; a description of a parking location; or an image of an entrance or drop-off location.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation merely alters the information used in the abstract idea above and therefore further recites one or more abstract ideas for the reasons outlined above.
Claims 8 and 17:
detecting a conflict between inference data and the user generated content;
analyzing past courier actions detected from trip data to determine whether couriers generally followed the inference data or the user generated content;
and based on the analyzing, prioritizing either the inference data or the user generated content.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could detect a conflict, analyze past courier actions, and prioritizing one set of data or another based on the analysis; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment entities would perform this step in coordinating the last segment of a shipment to a customer.
Claims 9 and 18:
detecting, via a monitoring component, courier behavior indicating whether the courier followed the revised last segment data during a delivery;
and updating the last segment data based on the detected courier behavior.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could detect courier behavior and update data based on such; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment entities would perform this step in coordinating the last segment of a shipment to a customer. Regarding the use of the monitoring component, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use.
Claims 10 and 19:
detecting, via a monitoring component, courier behavior indicating whether the courier followed the revised last segment data during a delivery;
and using the detected courier behavior as feedback to retrain a machine learning inference model, the machine learning inference model being configured to generate future last segment data.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could detect courier behavior and use it to train a machine learning model; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment entities would perform this step in coordinating the last segment of a shipment to a customer; alternatively still, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mathematical concepts since training and using a machine learning model requires the use of formula and mathematical operations. Furthermore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation amounts to the mere requirement to implement the abstract idea in the field of machine learning, and amounts to the mere requirement to “apply” the abstract idea using a machine learning model since the model is used as a tool to perform an existing process and since the limitation merely recites the outcome or solution of using the model. Regarding the use of the monitoring component, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use.
Claim 11:
wherein the option to edit comprises a plurality of selectable options for editing the last segment data including one or more of a parking location edit option, an entrance location edit option, or a drop-off location edit option.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation merely alters the information used in the abstract idea above and therefore further recites one or more abstract ideas for the reasons outlined above.
Claim 12:
displaying, on the device of the courier, a confirmation prompt allowing the courier to verify an accuracy of the revised last segment data during a delivery.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could display a confirmation prompt allowing a courier to verify accuracy of a last segment; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment entities would perform this step in coordinating the last segment of a shipment to a customer.
Claim 13:
storing the revised last segment data in association with the delivery location, wherein the revised last segment data is shared across multiple users associated with the delivery location.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could store this information and share it across multiple users; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial shipment entities would perform this step in coordinating the last segment of a shipment to a customer.
The above limitations do not represent a practical application of the recited abstract idea. The claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)). Therefore, because the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea) and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claims are also directed to the judicial exception.
Furthermore, the added limitations do not direct the claim to significantly more than the abstract idea. No specific limitations are added which represent something other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, none of the dependent claims 2-13, and 15-19, individually, or as an ordered combination, are directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Please see MPEP §2106.05(d)(II) for a discussion of elements that the Courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional, activity in particular fields.
Please see MPEP §2106 for examination guidelines regarding patent subject matter eligibility.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-7, 9-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mason et al. (U.S. PG Pub. No. 20150338226; hereinafter "Mason") in view of Vellanki et al. (U.S. PG Pub. No. 20230196272; hereinafter "Vellanki").
As per claim 1, Mason teaches:
A method comprising:
Mason teaches a system and method for determining access paths of last legs of deliveries. (Mason: abstract)
receiving a delivery request from a user device;
Mason teaches that a user may have scheduled a delivery of fresh goods to a site. (Mason: paragraph [0055, 132])
in response to receiving the delivery request, causing presentation of a user interface on the user device that displays last segment data for a delivery location and an option to edit the last segment data;
Mason teaches that in response to a determination that a delivery is pending, a user interface may be displayed that displays the current expected final access path to the user, and allows the user to edit or update this last segment as the user sees fit. (Mason: paragraphs [0132-136], Figs. 9A-9G)
in response to receiving a selection of the option, configuring the user interface to receive user generated content that edits at least a portion of the last segment data;
Mason teaches that in response to a determination that a delivery is pending, a user interface may be displayed that displays the current expected final access path to the user, and allows the user to edit or update this last segment as the user sees fit. (Mason: paragraphs [0132-136], Figs. 9A-9G)
receiving, via the user interface, the user generated content;
Mason teaches that in response to a determination that a delivery is pending, a user interface may be displayed that displays the current expected final access path to the user, and allows the user to edit or update this last segment as the user sees fit. (Mason: paragraphs [0132-136], Figs. 9A-9G)
revising the last segment data based on the user generated content;
Mason teaches that the route may then be updated, and a driver may be directed to travel along the newly designated access path to the newly designated location within the site. (Mason: paragraphs [0034, 93-94, 109, 132-136, 153])
With respect to the following limitation:
and causing presentation, on a device of a courier, of a user interface that includes a map with navigation instructions and a visual indicator for a location associated with the revised last segment data.
Mason teaches that the access path and the map designated by the user may be output to the driver on the driver device. (Mason: paragraphs [0034, 93-94, 62-68, 109, 132-136, 153], Figs. 5B, 9A-9G, 10A-10J)
To be thorough, and to the extent that Mason does not explicitly teach that the user designated information is displayed on a map to the driver, Vellanki teaches this element. Vellanki teaches that a determined final segment including a determined parking hot spot may be displayed on a route on a map of a driver device. (Vellanki: paragraphs [0108-110], Figs. 7-8, 9A-9C) Vellanki teaches combining the above elements with the teachings of Mason for the benefit of enabling a navigation application to efficiently route users during trips, reducing computational resources, saving transporter time, reducing delivery delays, reducing carbon emissions, and discouraging unlawful stops. (Vellanki: paragraph [0018-20]) Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Vellanki with the teachings of Mason to achieve the aforementioned benefits.
As per claim 2, Mason in view of Vellanki teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outline above, and further teaches:
wherein the configuring the user interface to receive the user generated content comprises causing presentation of a pin on a map displayed on the user interface, the pin being associated with a location of the last segment data.
Mason teaches that in response to a determination that a delivery is pending, a user interface may be displayed that displays the current expected final access path to the user, and allows the user to edit or update this last segment as the user sees fit, wherein one or more pins associated with the segment may be displayed to the user. (Mason: paragraphs [0132-136], Figs. 9A-9G, 10A-10J)
As per claim 3, Mason in view of Vellanki teaches all of the limitations of claim 2, as outline above, and further teaches:
wherein the receiving the user generated content comprises: detecting, via the user interface, movement of the pin on the map to revise a corresponding location;
Mason teaches that in response to a determination that a delivery is pending, a user interface may be displayed that displays the current expected final access path to the user, and allows the user to edit or update this last segment as the user sees fit, wherein one or more pins associated with the segment may be displayed to the user. (Mason: paragraphs [0132-136], Figs. 9A-9G, 10A-10J) Mason further teaches that a user may move around the POIs on the map. (Mason: paragraph [0153])
and determining coordinates corresponding to a final position of the pin on the map.
Mason teaches that in response to a determination that a delivery is pending, a user interface may be displayed that displays the current expected final access path to the user, and allows the user to edit or update this last segment as the user sees fit, wherein one or more pins associated with the segment may be displayed to the user. (Mason: paragraphs [0132-136], Figs. 9A-9G, 10A-10J) Mason further teaches that a user may move around the POIs on the map, and may do so by updating location coordinates. (Mason: paragraph [0153])
As per claim 4, Mason in view of Vellanki teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outline above, and further teaches:
using the user generated content as feedback to retrain a machine learning (ML) inference model, the ML inference model being used to generate the last segment data.
Vellanki further teaches that a machine learning model may be used to determine clusters of previous location data associated with a delivery location, wherein, if a cluster meets a threshold to be considered a parking hotspot, the system may use this inference to derive and generate last segment data which may be displayed to a delivery driver. (Vellanki: paragraphs [0081-85, 91], Fig. 5) The motivation to combine Vellanki persists.
As per claim 5, Mason in view of Vellanki teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outline above, and further teaches:
deriving the last segment data by: accessing aggregated trip data;
Vellanki further teaches that a machine learning model may be used to determine clusters of previous location data associated with a delivery location, wherein, if a cluster meets a threshold to be considered a parking hotspot, the system may use this inference to derive and generate last segment data which may be displayed to a delivery driver. (Vellanki: paragraphs [0081-85, 91], Fig. 5) The motivation to combine Vellanki persists.
and based on the aggregated trip data, inferring the last segment data by clustering location information from the aggregated trip data and identifying a cluster that satisfies a predefined cluster threshold.
Vellanki further teaches that a machine learning model may be used to determine clusters of previous location data associated with a delivery location, wherein, if a cluster meets a threshold to be considered a parking hotspot, the system may use this inference to derive and generate last segment data which may be displayed to a delivery driver. (Vellanki: paragraphs [0081-85, 91], Fig. 5) The motivation to combine Vellanki persists.
As per claim 6, Mason in view of Vellanki teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outline above, and further teaches:
wherein the last segment data comprises at least one of: a parking location; an entrance location; or a drop-off location.
Mason teaches that in response to a determination that a delivery is pending, a user interface may be displayed that displays the current expected final access path to the user including an entrance locations and drop-off locations as well as parking locations, and allows the user to edit or update this last segment as the user sees fit. (Mason: paragraphs [0132-136, 145], Figs. 9A-9G)
As per claim 7, Mason in view of Vellanki teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outline above, and further teaches:
wherein the user generated content includes metadata associated with the delivery location, the metadata comprising at least one of: an entry code for accessing a building; a description of a parking location; or an image of an entrance or drop-off location.
Mason further teaches that the user generated content may comprise a specific loading dock to be used or a specific parking location. (Mason: paragraph [0145])
As per claim 9, Mason in view of Vellanki teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outline above, and further teaches:
detecting, via a monitoring component, courier behavior indicating whether the courier followed the revised last segment data during a delivery;
Mason teaches that a user may run a plan report vs an actual report which compares the planned routes against the routes that drivers are actually taking. (Mason: paragraph [0133])
and updating the last segment data based on the detected courier behavior.
Vellanki further teaches that a machine learning model may be used to determine clusters of previous location data associated with a delivery location, wherein, if a cluster meets a threshold to be considered a parking hotspot, the system may use this inference to derive and generate last segment data which may be displayed to a delivery driver. (Vellanki: paragraphs [0081-85, 91], Fig. 5) The motivation to combine Vellanki persists.
As per claim 10, Mason in view of Vellanki teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outline above, and further teaches:
detecting, via a monitoring component, courier behavior indicating whether the courier followed the revised last segment data during a delivery;
Mason teaches that a user may run a plan report vs an actual report which compares the planned routes against the routes that drivers are actually taking and therefore teaches the detection as to whether a courier followed the indicated directions. (Mason: paragraph [0133]) Vellanki further teaches that a machine learning model may be used to determine clusters of previous location data associated with a delivery location, wherein, if a cluster meets a threshold to be considered a parking hotspot, the system may use this inference to derive and generate last segment data which may be displayed to a delivery driver. (Vellanki: paragraphs [0081-85, 91], Fig. 5) The motivation to combine Vellanki persists.
and using the detected courier behavior as feedback to retrain a machine learning inference model, the machine learning inference model being configured to generate future last segment data.
Vellanki further teaches that a machine learning model may be used to determine clusters of previous location data associated with a delivery location, wherein, if a cluster meets a threshold to be considered a parking hotspot, the system may use this inference to derive and generate last segment data which may be displayed to a delivery driver. (Vellanki: paragraphs [0081-85, 91], Fig. 5) The motivation to combine Vellanki persists.
As per claim 11, Mason in view of Vellanki teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outline above, and further teaches:
wherein the option to edit comprises a plurality of selectable options for editing the last segment data including one or more of a parking location edit option, an entrance location edit option, or a drop-off location edit option.
Mason teaches that in response to a determination that a delivery is pending, a user interface may be displayed that displays the current expected final access path to the user including an entrance locations and drop-off locations as well as parking locations, and allows the user to edit or update this last segment as the user sees fit. (Mason: paragraphs [0132-136, 145, 152-153], Figs. 9A-9G)
As per claim 12, Mason in view of Vellanki teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outline above, and further teaches:
displaying, on the device of the courier, a confirmation prompt allowing the courier to verify an accuracy of the revised last segment data during a delivery.
Mason further teaches that the driver may be presented with an opportunity to override the access path if the driver indicates that the route is not the most efficient route. (Mason: paragraph [0104-105])
As per claim 13, Mason in view of Vellanki teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outline above, and further teaches:
storing the revised last segment data in association with the delivery location, wherein the revised last segment data is shared across multiple users associated with the delivery location.
Mason teaches that stored versions of the determined plan may be shared across multiple drivers associated with the location. (Mason: paragraphs [0122-129, 132-136, 152-153])
As per claim 14, Mason in view of Vellanki teaches the limitations of this claim which are substantially identical to those of claim 1, as outline above, and further teaches:
A system comprising:
Mason teaches a system and method for determining access paths of last legs of deliveries. (Mason: abstract)
one or more processors;
Mason teaches the implementation of the system and method using one or more computer processors which execute code stored in a physical memory in order to perform the functions of the system. (Mason: paragraph [0162-164])
and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
Mason teaches the implementation of the system and method using one or more computer processors which execute code stored in a physical memory in order to perform the functions of the system. (Mason: paragraph [0162-164])
As per claims 15, 16, 18, and 19, Mason in view of Vellanki teaches the limitations of these claims which are substantially identical to those of claims 4, 5, 9, and 10, respectively, and claims 15, 16, 18, and 19 are rejected for the same reasons as claims 4, 5, 9, and 10, respectively, as outlined above.
As per claim 20, Mason in view of Vellanki teaches the limitations of this claim which are substantially identical to those of claim 1, as outline above, and further teaches:
A machine-storage medium comprising instructions which, when executed by one or more processors of a machine, cause the machine to perform operations comprising:
Mason teaches a system and method for determining access paths of last legs of deliveries. (Mason: abstract) Mason teaches the implementation of the system and method using one or more computer processors which execute code stored in a physical memory in order to perform the functions of the system. (Mason: paragraph [0162-164])
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mason in view of Vellanki further in view of Trum (U.S. PG Pub. No. 20110087429; hereinafter "Trum").
As per claim 8, Mason in view of Vellanki teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
detecting a conflict between inference data and the user generated content;
Mason teaches that a user may run a plan report vs an actual report which compares the planned routes against the routes that drivers are actually taking. (Mason: paragraph [0133])
analyzing past courier actions detected from trip data to determine whether couriers generally followed the inference data or the user generated content;
Mason teaches that a user may run a plan report vs an actual report which compares the planned routes against the routes that drivers are actually taking. (Mason: paragraph [0133])
Mason in view of Vellanki does not appear to explicitly teach:
and based on the analyzing, prioritizing either the inference data or the user generated content.
Trum, however, teaches that routes taken by goods carrying vehicles which deviate from a designated route may be analyzed, wherein if it is determined that the route provides some benefit, future routes may be updated using the deviations rather than the original route. (Trum: paragraph [0046, 100-102], Fig. 9, 11) Trum teaches combining the above elements with the teachings of Mason in view of Vellanki for the benefit of enabling information to be collected easily and thoroughly in a highly automated and cost-effective manner. (Trum: paragraph [0103]) Trum further teaches the benefit of permitting the collection of an extremely valuable source of expert knowledge for goods-vehicles which can refine navigation route planning and enable inexperienced drivers to benefit from expert knowledge. Id. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Trum with the teachings of Mason in view of Vellanki to achieve the aforementioned benefits.
As per claim 17, Mason in view of Vellanki further in view of Trum teaches the limitations of this claim which are substantially identical to those of claim 8, and claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 8, as outlined above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMETT K WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2624. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 6 a.m. - 4:45 p.m..
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at 571-270-3445. 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.
/EMMETT K. WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628