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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/02/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 6-17, and 21-26 are pending. Claims 2-5 and 18-20 are cancelled. Claims 1, 10, 13 and 26 are amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 02/02/2026, with respect to the 101 rejection have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, on pages 12-13, that that claim 1 as amended integrates the alleged abstract idea into a practical application in the form of an improvement to technology, namely how to securely authenticate delivery-related information to a handheld electronic device of a deliverer. In particular, the technological problem of maintaining encryption of the delivery-related information until the last stage of delivery.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim limitations as drafted, recite a concept, that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, is a certain method of organizing human activity. The limitations are analogous to managing personal behavior or interactions between people (interactions between people), or a commercial or legal interaction (sales activity) such as selectively sharing delivery information with a sender/deliverer in order to perform delivery of an item. The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, the additional elements, when viewed individually and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The same analysis applies in step 2B. The additional elements, when considered separately and in combination, do not add significantly more to the exception because they amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Furthermore, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology. Here, the alleged improvement is not to a technology or technical field. Instead it is an alleged improvement to the delivery process which is part of the business practice/abstract idea.
Applicant argues, on pages 13-15, similar arguments for independent claims 13 and 15 citing an improvement to the technical field of allowing decryption of encrypted information without access to backend services.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As mentioned above, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and the alleged improvements appear are to the abstract idea and not a technology or technical field. Examiner notes the Patent Board Decision (mail date 10/24/2024, page 22) the steps send shipping related data with a shipment and to a handheld device after checking credentials and geographic position, without significantly more. Therefore, the claims are considered ineligible.
Novelty/Non-Obviousness
The closest prior art of record is included in the previous office action mailed on 10/01/2025. The claims would be considered allowable if re-written or amended to overcome the rejections in this office action.
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, 6-17, and 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-3, 6-19, 21-26 are directed a method and therefore is a process.
Independent Claims
Step 2A Prong One
The limitation of Claim 1 recites:
A method of managing delivery-related information …by selectively releasing the delivery-related information to entities involved in a delivery process to limit exposure of the delivery-related information to a sender, the method comprising:
- storing, …, delivery-related information for a plurality of persons;
- securely communicating between … and a person of the plurality of persons … to obtain credentials of the person while the person is coordinating shipping of a shipment from the sender;
- based on a determination that the credentials of the person match the credentials of the person stored …:
- preparing first information comprising at least partially encrypted delivery- related information of the person, wherein the first information comprises neither a name of the recipient nor a house number of the recipient or comprises the name of the recipient and the house number of the recipient in encrypted form only; and
- providing the first information from the … to … associated with the sender of the shipment, wherein the first information is configured to be attached or associated with to the shipment, by … the sender, and thus obtainable by … associated with a deliverer involved in a process of delivering the shipment according to the at least partially encrypted delivery-related information;
- receiving … (i) at least a part of the first information, (ii) a geographical position …, and (iii) authorization;
- determining whether the geographical position … is within a pre-defined area associated with the delivery-related information and whether the authorization information entitles the deliverer to receive second information associated with the first information that is received at least in part from…;
- based on a determination that the received geographical position of …is within the pre-defined area and that the deliverer is entitled to receive the second information, providing the second information …, wherein the second information comprises a decryption key configured to decrypt at least a portion of the partially encrypted delivery-related information;
- wherein the second information is neither provided to … nor to the sender.
The limitations of Claim 10 recites:
A method, comprising:
- obtaining second information … of a deliverer that is involved in a process of delivering a shipment according to delivery-related information that is at least partially encrypted, the second information being provided by a providing apparatus and the second information comprising a decryption key;
- obtaining a geographical position of … of the deliverer using …, wherein the obtained geographical position comprises evidence of authenticity regarding whether … is trustworthy and/or whether the obtained geographical position has not been manipulated;
- checking or enabling checking of a condition, …, that the obtained geographical position of the … of the deliverer is within a pre-defined area associated with delivery-related information and that the evidence of authenticity establishes that the … is trustworthy and/or that the obtained geographical position has not been manipulated; and
- capturing from a shipment, with a scanner or sensor of the handheld electronic device of the deliverer, first information that is associated with or comprises the at least partially encrypted delivery-related information and contains neither a name of the recipient nor a house number of the recipient or comprises the name of the recipient and the house number of the recipient in encrypted form only;
- based on a determination, …, that the obtained geographical position of the … is within the pre-defined area and that the obtained geographical position was received from a trustworthy … and/or was not manipulated, utilizing the decryption key of the second information to decrypt at least a portion of the at least partially encrypted delivery- related information.
The limitations of Claim 13 recites:
A method of coordinating a delivery of a shipment from a sender to a person by accessing … delivery-related information for a plurality of persons maintained … in which, during performance of the method, the sender is not exposed to an entirety of delivery-related information of the shipment, the method comprising:
-operating, by the sender, an … shop through which the person is able to purchase a good, the … shop providing options for coordination of a delivery of a shipment of the good to the person;
- receiving, …, credentials of the person;
- checking, …, whether the credentials of the person received match the credentials of the person stored …;
- based on a determination that the credentials of the person match the credentials of the person stored …:
- preparing, …, first information comprising at least partially encrypted delivery-related information of the person, wherein the first information contains neither a name of the recipient nor a house number of the recipient or comprises the name of the recipient and the house number of the recipient in encrypted form only; and
- sending the first information to … associated with the sender of the shipment;
- conducting or triggering a process in which the first information is attached to or associated with the shipment and thus becomes obtainable from the shipment by … associated with an entity that is involved in a process of delivering the shipment according to delivery-related information;
- preparing second information comprising a decryption key configured to decrypt at least a portion of the at least partially encrypted delivery related information forwarded to …, wherein the second information is protected … such that the description key can only be accessed …is within a pre-defined area associated with the delivery-related information;
- sending the second information …;
- wherein the … requires evidence of authenticity regarding whether a … is trustworthy and/or whether a geographical position determined by the … has not been manipulated.
The claim limitations as drafted, recite a concept, that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, is a certain method of organizing human activity. The limitations are analogous to managing personal behavior or interactions between people (interactions between people), or a commercial or legal interaction (sales activity) such as selectively sharing delivery information with a sender/deliverer in order to perform delivery of an item. The generic computer implementations (see below) do not change the character of the limitations. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements:
Claim 1:
a repository maintained on at least one computer or server having an internet connection
computer or server
internet connection
first apparatus
Handheld electronic device
Claim 10:
Handheld electronic device
Providing Apparatus
Positioning sensor of the handheld electronic device of the deliverer based on global navigation satellite system (GNSS), cellular, or WLAN signals
a scanner or sensor of the handheld electronic device
signature based software
Claim 13:
Online shop
Repository
First Apparatus
Providing Apparatus
Second apparatus
Another/other apparatus
Computer or server
Handheld electronic device
Positioning determining device
Signature based software
These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, the additional elements, when viewed individually and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h))
Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements, amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The same analysis applies here in 2B. The additional elements, when considered separately and in combination, do not add significantly more to the exception. They are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claims are ineligible.
Dependent Claims
Step 2A Prong One
Dependent claims 6-9, 11-12, 14-17, and 21-26 further recite the same abstract ideas recited in Claim 1 and 10 and 13, respectively. Therefore, claims 6-9, 11-12, 14-17, and 21-26 are directed to an abstract idea for the reasons given above.
Step 2A Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the dependent claims recite the following additional elements:
Claim 6
First intermediary apparatus
Second intermediary apparatus
Claim 7
First intermediary apparatus
Claim 9
Online shop
An apparatus
Claim 11
An apparatus
Claim 14
An apparatus
Claim 17
Tamper resistant software
Claim 22
First intermediary apparatus
These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, the additional elements, when viewed individually and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements, amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The same analysis applies here in 2B. The additional elements, when considered separately and in combination, do not add significantly more to the exception. They are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claims are ineligible.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISMAIL A MANEJWALA whose telephone number is (571)272-8904. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8-5.
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, Nathan Uber can be reached on 571-270-3923. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ISMAIL A MANEJWALA/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights