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 07/15/2026.
Claims 1 and 3-15 are currently pending and have been examined here.
Claim 2 has been canceled.
Claims 1, 3-7, 10, and 14-15 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 9 of Applicant’s response filed 07/15/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been fully considered, and they are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 14 of Applicant’s response, with respect to claim 15 failing to recite one of the four statutory categories have been fully considered, and they are persuasive. This specific rationale for rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-14 of Applicant’s response filed 07/15/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, on pages 10 and 13-14, that the claims solve the technical problem of providing visibility into the completion progress of sub-waybills in order to identify and handle issues, therefore, the claims are directed to patent eligible subject matter. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner respectfully nots that, at most, such benefits are to the abstract idea itself, rather than to any technical component or technical field. Merely updating a completion progress of sub-waybills amounts to the improvement of a business process, rather than to any technical field or technical component, since, if practiced outside the realm of the generic computer components recited, the same benefits of increased visibility would be brought about. Claims which set forth only an improvement to the abstract idea itself do not recite a technical improvement. MPEP 2106.05(a)(II). As such, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive.
Applicant argues, on pages 10-13, that the determination of completion progress based on hardware signals of the first airport precludes the characterization that the claim recites a mental process. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner respectfully notes that the use of a hardware signal amounts to the mere generic computer implementation of the abstract idea as well as the mere requirement to “apply” the abstract idea using a hardware device signal. The recitation of sending or receiving completion progress in response to packages being placed at a designated location in an airport or in a storage device does in fact recite abstract ideas in the form of mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity for the reasons set forth below. Since the claims to do more than recite one or more abstract ideas along with the requirement to “apply” them using a hardware signal or implement them using generic computer components, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive.
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 and 3-15 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 15 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 15 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 15, as a whole, recite the following limitations:
receiving a delivery order, wherein the delivery order comprises a pickup address, a destination address, and recipient's contact information; (claims 1, 14, 15; 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 order of this type; 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 performing shipment services for their customers)
generating a first sub-waybill and a second sub-waybill based on the pickup address and the destination address; (claims 1, 14, 15; 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 generate sub-waybills based on this information; 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 performing shipment services for their customers)
issuing the first sub-waybill to a ground delivery system, wherein the first sub-waybill is used to transport goods corresponding to the delivery order from the pickup address to a first airport; (claims 1, 14, 15; 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 issue a waybill to a ground delivery system; 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 performing shipment services for their customers)
issuing the second sub-waybill to a flight operation system of the first airport, to enable the flight operation system to dispatch a UAV to transport the goods from the first airport to a second airport, wherein a distance between the destination address and the second airport is less than a preset distance threshold; (claims 1, 14, 15; 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 issue a waybill to a flight operation system; 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 performing shipment services for their customers)
and sending a recipient notification message to a recipient based on the recipient's contact information; (claims 1, 14, 15; 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 send a recipient notification messages based on their contact information; 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 performing shipment services for their customers)
receiving first state information. . . wherein the first state information comprises a completion progress of the first sub-waybill,. . . when the goods are placed in a storage device or designated location at the first airport; (claims 1, 14, 15; 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 state information comprising a completion progress of a sub-waybill when goods are placed in a storage device or designated location in an airport; 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 performing shipment services for their customers)
receiving second state information. . . wherein the second state information comprises a completion progress of the second sub-waybill; and (claims 1, 14, 15; 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 second state information which comprises a completion progress; 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 performing shipment services for their customers)
synchronizing the first state information and the second state information. . . (claims 1, 14, 15; 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 synchronize first and second state information; 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 performing shipment services for their customers)
The above elements, as a whole, recite mental processes since, but for the requirement to implement the above steps on a set of generic computer components, the entirety of the above steps could be performed by a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgement. Furthermore, the above steps, as a whole, recite certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since the steps collectively recite a process for performing multi-modal delivery of an article for a user, which comprises a business relation and commercial sales activity.
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 Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) delivery method, wherein the method is performed by a cloud and comprises: (claim 1; 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; furthermore, the use of a UAV and/or AGV amounts to the mere requirement to “apply” the abstract idea using a UAV or an AGV since the limitation merely uses a UAV or AGV as a tool to perform an existing process, and since the claims merely recite the outcome or result of using these vehicles without indicating how the solution or outcome is achieved)
A Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) delivery device, 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 processor; (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 transceiver; (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, configured to store instructions executable by the processor, wherein the processor, upon executing the instruction, is configured to: (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 non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing computer-readable program instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to: (claim 15; 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)
. . . fed back by the ground delivery system. . . (claims 1, 14-15; 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 completion progress of the first sub-waybill is determined based on a storage hardware signal of the first airport, wherein the storage hardware signal is triggered when the goods are placed in a storage device or designated location at the first airport; (claims 1, 14-15; 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; furthermore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation amounts to the mere requirement to “apply” the abstract idea using a storage hardware signal triggered at a storage hardware device since the element is recited at a high level of generality, since the element merely operates in its existing capacity to perform the abstract idea of triggering a notification, and since the outcome or solution of triggering a notification based on a detection of good placed in a storage device or designated location without describing how the solution or outcome is brought about)
. . . fed back by the flight operation system. . . (claims 1, 14-15; 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)
. . . to a sender's client of the delivery order and/or to a recipient's client of the delivery order. . . (claims 1, 14-15; 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 15 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 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to ineligible subject matter.
Claims 3-13, recite the same abstract idea as their respective independent claims.
The following additional features are added in the dependent claims:
Claim 3:
wherein the method further comprises: determining, based on the first state information, that the first sub-waybill has been completed, and generating a first ground task;
issuing the first ground task to an airport operation system of the first airport, wherein the first ground task is used to load the goods onto the UAV.
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 perform each of the determine and issue steps above; 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 these steps in performing shipment services for their customers.
Claim 4:
wherein the method further comprises: determining, based on the second state information, that the second sub-waybill has been completed, and generating a second ground task;
issuing the second ground task to an airport operation system of the second airport, wherein the second ground task is used to store the goods into a storage locker of the second airport;
in response to storing the goods into the storage locker of the second airport, generating pickup information corresponding to the goods;
sending the recipient notification message to the recipient based on the recipient's contact information comprises: sending the pickup information to the recipient's client corresponding to the goods.
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 perform each of the determining, issuing, generating, and sending steps above; 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 these steps in performing shipment services for their customers.
Claim 5:
wherein the method further comprises: determining, based on the second state information, that the second sub-waybill has been completed, and generating a third sub-waybill;
issuing the third sub-waybill to the ground delivery system, wherein the third sub-waybill is used to transport the goods from the second airport to the destination address.
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 perform each of the determining and issuing steps above; 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 these steps in performing shipment services for their customers.
Claim 6:
wherein the method further comprises: receiving an order cancellation request, wherein the order cancellation request is used to request cancellation of the delivery order;
and in response to the order cancellation request and determining, based on the first state information, that the goods have not yet been picked up from the pickup address, issuing an order cancellation message to the ground delivery system and the flight operation system of the first airport, to enable the ground delivery system to cancel the first sub-waybill and the flight operation system of the first airport to cancel the second sub-waybill.
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 perform each of the receiving and issuing steps above; 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 these steps in performing shipment services for their customers.
Claim 7:
wherein the second state information further comprises in-flight event information and estimated landing time information of the UAV.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation merely alters the state information used in the abstract idea above and therefore further recites one or more abstract ideas for the reasons outlined above.
Claim 8:
wherein generating the first sub-waybill and the second sub-waybill based on the pickup address and the destination address comprises: selecting the first airport from a plurality of airports based on distances between the pickup address and the plurality of airports;
selecting the second airport from the plurality of airports based on distances between the destination address and the plurality of airports;
generating the first sub-waybill based on the pickup address and the first airport;
and generating the second sub-waybill based on the first airport and the second airport.
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 perform each of the selecting, selecting, generating, and generating steps above; 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 these steps in performing shipment services for their customers.
Claim 9:
wherein the method comprises: receiving heartbeat information sent by airport equipment of a current airport, wherein the heartbeat information is periodically sent by the airport equipment, and the current airport is the first airport or the second airport;
updating a heartbeat record based on the heartbeat information and replying with determining information;
determining a current operation condition category of the current airport based on the heartbeat record in a previous time window, wherein the operation condition category is used to indicate a network condition of the current airport;
and issuing a throughput operation strategy corresponding to the operation condition category to a flight operation system of the current airport.
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 perform each of the receiving, updating, determining, and issuing steps above; 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 these steps in performing shipment services for their customers.
Claim 10:
wherein determining the current operation condition category of the current airport based on the heartbeat record in the previous time window comprises: determining the current operation condition category of the current airport as a real-time online operation condition in response to a quantity of lost heartbeats in the previous time window being less than a preset quantity;
determining the current operation condition category of the current airport as a weak network operation condition in response to the quantity of lost heartbeats in the previous time window being greater than or equal to the preset quantity and an ongoing flight itinerary that has not been completed existing at the current airport;
and determining the current operation condition category of the current airport as an offline operation condition in response to the quantity of lost heartbeats in the previous time window being greater than or equal to the preset quantity and the ongoing flight itinerary that has not been completed not existing at the current airport.
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 perform each of the determining steps above; 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 these steps in performing shipment services for their customers.
Claim 11:
wherein the method further comprises: in response to the current operation condition category of the current airport being the weak network operation condition, issuing a notification message to the flight operation system of the current airport, wherein the notification message is used to notify the current airport of using near-field communication to contact the UAV and to feed back a communication result with the UAV to the cloud;
and switching the current operation condition category of the current airport to the offline operation condition in response to the received communication result indicating a communication failure.
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 perform each of the issuing and switching steps above; 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 these steps in performing shipment services for their customers. Regarding the use of NFC and a cloud, 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 12:
wherein in response to the current operation condition category of the current airport being the real-time online operation condition, the throughput operation strategy corresponding to the operation condition category is to operate at maximum flight throughput;
in response to the current operation condition category of the current airport being the weak network operation condition, the throughput operation strategy corresponding to the operation condition category is to reduce flight throughput;
and in response to the current operation condition category of the current airport being the offline operation condition, the throughput operation strategy corresponding to the operation condition category is to stop operation.
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 perform each of the steps above; 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 these steps in performing shipment services for their customers.
Claim 13:
wherein the method further comprises: receiving a storage locker space occupancy rate sent by an airport operation system of the second airport;
and in response to the storage locker space occupancy rate exceeding a preset occupancy rate, adjusting a throughput operation strategy related to the second airport and issuing an adjusted throughput operation strategy to the flight operation system of the first airport, wherein the adjusted throughput operation strategy is used to reduce a quantity of UAVs flying to the second airport.
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 perform each of the receiving and adjusting steps above; 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 these steps in performing shipment services for their customers.
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 3-13, 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.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
Prosecution Insights