Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Reissue Applications
2. Reissue application 17/325,162 was filed 05/19/2021 as a reissue of Application 15/009,287 filed on 01/28/2016 which issued as US 10,296,865 B2 on 05/21/2019.
Because the instant reissue application was filed on or after September 16, 2012, the statutory provisions of the America Invents Act (“AIA ”) will govern this reissue proceeding and all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the current provisions. 37 CFR 1.171 through 1.178 are rules directed to reissue.
3. This action is responsive to communications: Amendments and Response filed on 12/05/2025.
4. Claims 1-20 and 28-41 are pending. Claims 21-27 are cancelled. Claims 28-41 are newly added claims.
Reissues
5. Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceeding in which Patent No. US US 10,296,865 B2 is or was involved. These proceedings would include any trial at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, interferences, reissues, reexaminations, supplemental examinations, and litigation.
Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is material to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue application.
These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Manner of Making Amendments
6. The amendment filed 12/05/2025 proposes amendments to the claims that do not comply with 37 CFR 1.173(b), which sets forth the manner of making amendments in reissue applications. A supplemental paper correctly amending the reissue application is required.
Specifically, 1.173(b) states that any changes relative to the patent being reissued that are made to the specification, including the claims but excluding "Large Tables" (§ 1.58(c) ), a "Computer Program Listing Appendix" (§ 1.96(c) ), a "Sequence Listing" (§ 1.821(c) ), and a "Sequence Listing XML" (§ 1.831(a) ) upon filing or by an amendment paper in the reissue application, must include the following markings:
(1) The matter to be omitted by reissue must be enclosed in brackets; and
(2) The matter to be added by reissue must be underlined.
For example, new claims 28-34 are not underlined, but are entirely new claims.
Election/Restrictions
7. This Restriction/Election Requirement addresses U.S. Application 17/325,162, which is a reissue application of U.S. Application 15/009,287, filed 1/28/2016, now U.S. Patent 10,296,865 B2. The claims were subject to a prior restriction in US Application 15/009,287. See Restriction/Election dated 12/13/2017.
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-20 and 35-41, drawn to a method of shipping a parcel, classified in G06Q 10/0835.
II. Claims 28-34, drawn to a method of receiving a package classified in G06Q 10/0833.
8. The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as combination and subcombination. Inventions in this relationship are distinct if it can be shown that (1) the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed for patentability, and (2) that the subcombination has utility by itself or in other combinations (MPEP § 806.05(c)). In the instant case, the combination as claimed in Invention I does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed because claims 1-20 and 35-40 do not rely upon the specific limitations of the subcombination for its patentability. The subcombination has separate utility such as allowing various parties in a delivery transaction to prepare and determine locations for delivery including selecting options for locations for shipment drop off for transport and generation of second machine readable code for routing and shipping purposes.
Inventions I and III are related as combination and subcombination. Inventions in this relationship are distinct if it can be shown that (1) the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed for patentability, and (2) that the subcombination has utility by itself or in other combinations (MPEP § 806.05(c)). In the instant case, the combination as claimed in Invention I does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed because claims 1-20 and 35-40 do not rely upon the specific limitations of the subcombination for its patentability. The subcombination has separate utility such as setting up an ecommerce account for various parties.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required. The inventions require a different field of search (e.g. searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources or employing different search strategies or search queries).
In Reissue, the original patent claims will be held to be constructively elected. Claims drawn to the original patented invention will continue to be examined and the non-elected claims to any added inventions will be held in abeyance in a withdrawn status. The non-elected claims will only be examined if filed in a divisional reissue application. Accordingly, claims 28-34 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention and withdrawn from consideration. See 37 CFR 1.176 and MPEP 1450.
The examiner suggest that the applicant may file a divisional reissue application directed to the constructively non-elected invention.
Oath/Declaration
U.S.C. 251
9. The reissue oath/declaration filed with this application is defective (see 37 CFR 1.175 and MPEP § 1414) because of the following: The prior claims have been cancelled and the newly presented claims are withdrawn from consideration for being directed to a non-elected invention as outlined above. Thus, the reissue oath/declaration fails to identify a proper error which is relied upon to support the reissue application. If errors previously identified in the inventor’s oath or declaration for a reissue application pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section are no longer being relied upon as the basis for reissue, the applicant must identify an error being relied upon as the basis for reissue. See 37 CFR 1.175 and MPEP § 1414.
10. Claims 1-20 and 35-40 are rejected as being based upon a defective reissue Declaration under 35 U.S.C. 251 as set forth above. See 37 CFR 1.175.
The nature of the defect(s) in the Declaration is set forth in the discussion above in this Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
10. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
11. Claims 1-20 and 35-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 35, Examiner is unable to find support in the Specification for several limitations including sending a recipient account identifier corresponding to a recipient party to said server, wherein said server is configured to determine a destination address for said packaging based on said recipient account identifier correspond to a recipient party and a default destination previously received by said server from said recipient party and electronically receiving, from said server, a confirmation message.
Dependent claims 2 and 36-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph for incorporating the deficiencies of their base claim from which they depend.
Regarding claims 3 and 38, Examiner is unable to find support in the Specification for several limitations including electronically determining, by a carrier party, a destination address…based on matching a recipient account identifier…with said recipient account identifier corresponding to a recipient party received from said recipient party; electronically sending a confirmation message indicating that said recipient account identifier…matched a recipient account identifier corresponding to a recipient party received from a recipient party.
Dependent claims 4-13 and 39-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph for incorporating the deficiencies of their base claim from which they depend.
Regarding claims 14 and 41, Examiner is unable to find support in the Specification regarding receiving a first destination from an ecommerce party followed by receiving a second destination from a recipient party. It is unclear how several features and the combination of elements is supported in the Specification. For example, it is unclear where an ecommerce account sends a first destination or payment information. It is unclear where support for receiving a second destination from a recipient after receiving a first destination from an ecommerce party is supported. It is unclear where verifying whether a first transmission’s recipient account identifier is associated with a recipient account is supported. It is unclear where a second destination is electronically determined based on said first transmission’s recipient account identifier and said recipient account associated with said recipient account identifier. It is unclear where a second destination is associated with a shipment record, it is unclear where a second destination is determined based on data from an ecommerce party and shipment record, it is unclear where a request to return the packaging. Clarification of how each claim limitation is supported by the Specification is requested.
Dependent claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph for incorporating the deficiencies of their base claim from which they depend.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
12. 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 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.
13. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
14. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shucker et al., US 2015/0317597 A1, 11/05/2015 (filed 05/02/2014) in view of Hanks, US 2016/0239789 A1, 08/18/2016 (filed 05/12/2015, continuation filed 02/13/2015), Hunt, US 2014/0164091 A1, 06/12/2014 and Hillbush, US 8,719,182 B2, 05/06/2014 (filed 12/28/2012, priority dating to 02/07/2000).
Regarding claim 1, Shucker discloses a method of shipping a parcel. See abstract and page 1, paragraph [0005] disclosing a package delivery system in which a package is shipped.
Shucker discloses obtaining, by a shipper party, a packaging, said packaging comprising a machine-readable code, wherein said machine readable code represents data comprising a packaging identifier. See page 1, paragraph [0005] and [0015] disclosing a package with a machine-readable code for display on the package. The machine-readable code may be a QR code, barcode, or other suitable code. See also paragraph [0041] disclosing a package delivery system receives a package for delivery. The package delivery system may be any system, company, organization, government service, or individual that delivers packages from one location to another. For example, the package delivery system may be a courier, postal service, package delivery company, a merchant system, a retailer, or any other suitable system that delivers packages. The package for delivery arrives at the package delivery system with appropriate paperwork for delivery to a user 101. The paperwork may be digital, a barcode or other machine-readable code, a sticker, or any suitable paperwork. The paperwork may contain a user 101 name, a user address, a confirmation number, a sender name and address, and other identifying information for the recipient, sender, origin location, and/or delivery location. Paragraph [0005] discloses that a request for the package delivery includes an identification of the package. Paragraph [0043] discloses that the package delivery system obtains a delivery address from the digital information associated with the package and that the delivery address is stored with identification of the package in the package delivery system. See also claim 1.
However, to the extent Shucker does not explicitly disclose that the machine-readable code comprises a package identifier, Hanks discloses processing parcels to be shipped where the parcels include scannable parcel identifiers. Machine-readable indica on a parcel comprises data indicative of an identifier for the parcel and a destination for the parcel. See paragraphs [0007] and [0010]. See also figure 1.
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention to include a parcel or package identifier as data represented by machine readable code, as suggested by Hanks, within Shucker’s system which also utilizes machine readable codes with package information and the results would have been predictable. Moreover, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention to include a package id in Shucker’s paperwork because Shucker discloses that the packaging with a machine-readable code and paperwork includes any suitable paperwork regarding the package and also indicates that the delivery address is associated with the package id as referenced in [0043]. Thus, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan that a package with a machine-readable code and all information regarding the package could include a package identifier as suggested by Hanks for the sake of associating the package identifier with all the other information regarding the package such as the sender, receiver, addresses, etc.
Shucker discloses electronically sending, by said shipper party, said data to a server. See figure 1 and paragraphs [0020]-[0022] depicting network computing devices communicating with each other over a network including a server. A user can interact with a package delivery system comprising a web server. The package delivery system can deliver or receive packages and associates the package with an aerial delivery device. Scanning a QR code or other machine-readable code communicates information including delivery addresses, GPS locations, package details and other information to the server. See paragraphs [0023]-0033]. This information is used by the aerial delivery device. To the extent, Shucker does not explicitly state that the data includes the packaging identifier, Hanks discloses as in figure 1 sending said data including the package id to the server by the shipper party. See also [0038]-[0042] disclosing the main processing unit 102 may comprise a single processor, a group of processors, or a specially-designed server system. The processor comprising the main processing unit 102 is configured to, among other things, receive data identifying a parcel from a plurality of parcels within the parcel processing facility 150, determine a customer associated with the identified parcel. It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention to include a parcel or package identifier as data represented by machine readable code, as suggested by Hanks, within Shucker’s system which also utilizes machine readable codes with package information and the results would have been predictable.
Shucker discloses electronically sending, by said shipper party, a recipient account identifier corresponding to a recipient party to said server, wherein said server is configured to determine a destination address for said packaging based on said recipient account identifier corresponding to a recipient party and a default destination previously received by said server from said recipient party. See paragraph [0041] disclosing a package delivery system receives a package for delivery. The package delivery system may be any system, company, organization, government service, or individual that delivers packages from one location to another. For example, the package delivery system may be a courier, postal service, package delivery company, a merchant system, a retailer, or any other suitable system that delivers packages. The package for delivery arrives at the package delivery system with appropriate paperwork for delivery to a user 101. The paperwork may be digital, a barcode or other machine-readable code, a sticker, or any suitable paperwork. The paperwork may contain a user 101 name, a user address, a confirmation number, a sender name and address, and other identifying information for the recipient, sender, origin location, and/or delivery location. Figure 4 discloses the method of identifying a delivery location. The aerial delivery device computing system is provided with information specifying that the QR code is located on a property associated with a destination address. Shucker discloses that the aerial delivery device transports the package to an address associated with a user 101. See paragraph [0055]. The aerial delivery device may navigate via a mapping program to an address to reach the address of the user. Hanks also discloses in [0038]-[0044] that the processor comprising the main processing unit 102 is configured to, among other things, receive data identifying a parcel from a plurality of parcels within the parcel processing facility 150, determine a customer associated with the identified parcel, processing the parcel may include determining a drop point for the parcel or determining the ultimate destination for the parcel. The database 104 stores the customer profiles and other data generated by the main processing unit. The standard customer file format may include, a parcel identification number for every parcel included in the customer order, a destination address, a customer number, a drop off point, a tracking number, a sorting facility destination, cost center IDs, parcel weights, and reference fields, or any other piece of information.
Although Shucker and Hanks discloses electronically sending, by said shipper party, a recipient account identifier corresponding to a recipient party to said server, wherein said server is configured to determine a destination address for said packaging based on said recipient account identifier corresponding to a recipient party, Hunt more clearly discloses that determining a destination address for said packaging is based on said recipient account identifier corresponding to a recipient party and a default destination previously received by said server from said recipient party. Specifically, Hunt discloses a shopper account database in which a shopper record maintains information including the shopper identifier uniquely identifying the shopper and the shopper account as well as a shipping address for the shopper. See paragraph [0090]. The shopper registers this information with an e-commerce server by providing basic information such as a username, address, etc. See paragraph [0055]. Hunt discloses that shoppers register with the system by providing basic user information including a physical address. See paragraph [0113]. Paragraph [0150] further states the user account database stores a record for each user or shopper where each record includes a shipping address for the user.
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention to have incorporated Hunt’s shopper database with a shopper record including the recipient account id and default destination within Shucker/Hank’s system which also managed identifying information for a recipient in order to determine and/or confirm the default destination associated with a recipient and the results were predictable. Specifically, providing a default destination based on a recipient identification was an efficient way of determining where to ship a package and storing such information in a database such as Hunt’s would allow for quick and convenient access to this information when used in conjunction with Shucker’s shipping methods. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would recognize that a shopper’s registration including a shopper’s shipping address would be the default address and the results would have been predictable to one skilled in the art.
Shucker discloses electronically receiving, from said server, a confirmation message indicating that said server was able to determine a destination for said packaging based on said recipient account identifier corresponding to a recipient party. See page 5, paragraph [0063] disclosing that the aerial delivery device transmits the QR code to the package delivery system for confirmation of delivery location by the package delivery system. If there is a match to a location associated with a QR code, the delivery can be made. If there is not a match, the delivery may be aborted. Additionally, Hunt’s system also maintains the shipping information which is provided at checkout for further confirmation. See paragraph [0055]-[0056].
Shucker discloses payment on delivery or payment of delivery costs at pickup was well known in the art (see paragraph [0003] as does Hank (see [0010]; however, Shucker does not disclose electronically sending, by said shipper party, payment information to said server. However, Hunt discloses providing payment information. See paragraph [0055]-[0056] and general disclosure. However, Hunt provides a payment from the shopper. Hilbush discloses an internet package shipping system and method in which a payment system is associated with the order receiving system for receiving payment information from a customer and processing a customer payment for shipment of the package via a payment interface on an Internet site which meets the limitation, electronically sending, by said shipper party, payment information to said server. See column 4, lines 4-17 and columns 33-34, “Payment Routine”.
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention to have incorporated Hilbush’s electronic payment for shipments within Shucker’s package delivery system and the results would have been predictable because it was desirable at the time of the invention to allow for electronic payment for shipping as opposed to traditional cash on delivery type methods in order to fully automate the shipment processing of packages including the payment portion.
15. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shucker et al., US 2015/0317597 A1, 11/05/2015 (filed 05/02/2014) in view of Hanks, US 2016/0239789 A1, 08/18/2016 (filed 05/12/2015, continuation filed 02/13/2015), Hunt, US 2014/0164091 A1, 06/12/2014, Hillbush, US 8,719,182 B2, 05/06/2014 (filed 12/28/2012, priority dating to 02/07/2000) and Robinson et al, US 11,182,733 B2, 11/23/2021 (filed 02/05/2019, continuation of application filed on 10/14/2014).
Regarding claim 2, Shucker/Hillbush do not explicitly disclose the method further comprising: electronically sending, by said shipper party, a request to said server to open a locker. However, Robinson discloses a Locker Bank comprising one or more secure lockers. The Locker Bank is controlled by an associated Locker Bank Computer. A PIN Generation Server is configured to generate one or more PIN numbers for unlocking the lockers within the Locker Bank. The PIN Generation server communicates a generated PIN to the Locker Bank Computer and the computer may allow access to a locker in response to the PIN. See column 5, lines 14-59. It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention to have incorporated Robinson’s electronic request to a server to open a locker within Shucker/Hillbush in order to better and more accurately facilitate package retrieval and delivery/shipment of a package.
16. Claim(s) 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shucker et al., US 2015/0317597 A1, 11/05/2015 (filed 05/02/2014) in view of Hanks, US 2016/0239789 A1, 08/18/2016 (filed 05/12/2015, continuation filed 02/13/2015) and Hunt, US 2014/0164091 A1, 06/12/2014
Regarding claim 3, Shucker discloses a method of shipping a parcel. See abstract and page 1, paragraph [0005] disclosing a package delivery system in which a package is shipped.
Shucker discloses placing, by a manufacturer party, a machine readable code on a packaging, wherein said machine readable code represents data comprising a packaging identifier; See page 1, paragraph [0005] and [00158] disclosing a package with a machine-readable code for display on the package. The machine-readable code may be a QR code, barcode, or other suitable code. The QR code is associated with the package. See paragraph [0052]. See also paragraph [0041] disclosing a package delivery system receives a package for delivery. The package delivery system may be any system, company, organization, government service, or individual that delivers packages from one location to another. For example, the package delivery system may be a courier, postal service, package delivery company, a merchant system, a retailer, or any other suitable system that delivers packages. The package for delivery arrives at the package delivery system with appropriate paperwork for delivery to a user 101. The paperwork may be digital, a barcode or other machine-readable code, a sticker, or any suitable paperwork. The paperwork may contain a user 101 name, a user address, a confirmation number, a sender name and address, and other identifying information for the recipient, sender, origin location, and/or delivery location.
However, to the extent Shucker does not explicitly disclose that the machine-readable code comprises a package identifier, Hanks discloses processing parcels to be shipped where the parcels include scannable parcel identifiers. Machine-readable indica on a parcel comprises data indicative of an identifier for the parcel and a destination for the parcel. See paragraphs [0007] and [0010]. See also figure 1.
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention to include a parcel or package identifier as data represented by machine readable code, as suggested by Hanks, within Shucker’s system which also utilizes machine readable codes with package information and the results would have been predictable. Moreover, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention to include a package id in Shucker’s paperwork because Shucker discloses that the packaging with a machine-readable code and paperwork includes any suitable paperwork regarding the package and also indicates that the delivery address is associated with the package id as referenced in [0043]. Thus, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan that a package with a machine-readable code and all information regarding the package could include a package identifier as suggested by Hanks for the sake of associating the package identifier with all the other information regarding the package such as the sender, receiver, addresses, etc.
Shucker discloses providing, by a distributor party, said packaging to a shipper party. See paragraph [0014]-[0026] disclosing a package delivery system such as a courier service, a package delivery agent in which a user arranges for the delivery of a package.
Shucker discloses electronically receiving, by a carrier party, said packaging identifier from said shipper party; See figure 1 and paragraphs [0020]-[0022] depicting network computing devices communicating with each other over a network including a server. A user can interact with a package delivery system comprising a web server. The package delivery system can deliver or receive packages and associates the package with an aerial delivery device. Scanning a QR code or other machine-readable code communicates information including delivery addresses, GPS locations, package details and other information to the server. See paragraphs [0023]-0033]. This information is used by the aerial delivery device. However, to the extent Shucker does not explicitly disclose a package identifier, Hanks discloses processing parcels to be shipped where the parcels include scannable parcel identifiers. Machine-readable indica on a parcel comprises data indicative of an identifier for the parcel and a destination for the parcel. See paragraphs [0004], [0007] and [0010] disclosing receiving, by a carrier party, the package id. See also figure 1.
Shucker discloses electronically receiving, by said carrier party, a recipient account identifier corresponding to a recipient party; electronically receiving, by said carrier party, a default destination from said recipient party. See paragraphs [0023]-[0027], [0039] and [0042] indicating a user (who can be a recipient) may enter the delivery information into the website of the package delivery system. However, Hunt more clearly discloses the recipient party providing an account identifier and default destination. Specifically, Hunt discloses a shopper account database in which a shopper record maintains information including the shopper identifier uniquely identifying the shopper and the shopper account as well as a shipping address for the shopper. See paragraph [0090]. The shopper registers this information with an e-commerce server by providing basic information such as a username, address, etc. See paragraph [0055]. Hunt discloses that shoppers register with the system by providing basic user information including a physical address. See paragraph [0113]. Paragraph [0150] further states the user account database stores a record for each user or shopper where each record includes a shipping address for the user. It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention to have incorporated Hunt’s shopper database with a shopper record including the recipient account id and default destination within Shucker’s system which also managed identifying information for a recipient in order to determine and/or confirm the default destination associated with a recipient and the results were predictable. Specifically, providing a default destination based on a recipient identification was an efficient way of determining where to ship a package and storing such information in a database such as Hunt’s would allow for quick and convenient access to this information when used in conjunction with Shucker’s shipping methods.
Shucker discloses electronically associating, by said carrier party, said recipient account identifier corresponding to a recipient party with said default destination from said recipient party. See paragraph [0041] disclosing a package delivery system receives a package for delivery. The package delivery system may be any system, company, organization, government service, or individual that delivers packages from one location to another. For example, the package delivery system may be a courier, postal service, package delivery company, a merchant system, a retailer, or any other suitable system that delivers packages. The package for delivery arrives at the package delivery system with appropriate paperwork for delivery to a user 101. The paperwork may be digital, a barcode or other machine-readable code, a sticker, or any suitable paperwork. The paperwork may contain a user 101 name, a user address, a confirmation number, a sender name and address, and other identifying information for the recipient, sender, origin location, and/or delivery location. Figure 4 discloses the method of identifying a delivery location. The aerial delivery device computing system is provided with information specifying that the QR code is located on a property associated with a destination address. Shucker discloses that the aerial delivery device transports the package to an address associated with a user 101. See paragraph [0055]. The aerial delivery device may navigate via a mapping program to an address to reach the address of the user. Although Shucker discloses electronically receiving, by said carrier party, a recipient account identifier corresponding to a recipient party as well as receiving the default destination, Hunt more clearly discloses that electronically associating, by said carrier party, said recipient account identifier corresponding to a recipient party with said default destination from said recipient party. Specifically, Hunt discloses a shopper account database in which a shopper record maintains information including the shopper identifier uniquely identifying the shopper and the shopper account as well as a shipping address for the shopper. See paragraph [0090]. It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention to have incorporated Hunt’s shopper database with a shopper record including the recipient account id and default destination within Shucker’s system which also managed identifying information for a recipient and the results were predictable. Specifically, providing a default destination based on a recipient identification was an efficient way of determining where to ship a package and storing such information in a database such as Hunt’s would allow for quick and convenient access to this information when used in conjunction with Shucker’s shipping methods.
Shucker discloses electronically receiving, by said carrier party, said recipient account identifier corresponding to a recipient party from said shipper party. The package for delivery arrives at the package delivery system with appropriate paperwork for delivery to a user 101. The paperwork may be digital, a barcode or other machine-readable code, a sticker, or any suitable paperwork. The paperwork may contain a user 101 name, a user address, a confirmation number, a sender name and address, and other identifying information for the recipient, sender, origin location, and/or delivery location.
Shucker discloses electronically determining, by said carrier party, a destination address for said packaging. The package for delivery arrives at the package delivery system with appropriate paperwork for delivery to a user 101. The paperwork may be digital, a barcode or other machine-readable code, a sticker, or any suitable paperwork. The paperwork may contain a user 101 name, a user address, a confirmation number, a sender name and address, and other identifying information for the recipient, sender, origin location, and/or delivery location. However, to the extent Shucker alone does not disclose electronically determining, by said carrier party, a destination for said packaging based on matching said recipient account identifier corresponding to a recipient party received from said shipper party with said recipient account identifier corresponding to a recipient party received from said recipient party or electronically sending, by said carrier party, a confirmation message indicating that said recipient account identifier corresponding to a recipient party received from said shipper party matched a recipient account identifier corresponding to a recipient party received from a recipient party, the combination of Shucker and Hunt disclose this feature. As noted above, both the recipient party and the shipper party provide a recipient account identifier to the carrier party in Shucker. Moreover, Hunt discloses a shopper account database in which a shopper record maintains information including the shopper identifier uniquely identifying the shopper and the shopper account as well as a shipping address for the shopper. See paragraph [0090]. Thus, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention to have incorporated Hunt’s shopper registration including registering an account with an e-commerce server including the recipient account id and default destination within Shucker’s system which also managed identifying information for a recipient such as recipient identifying information and recipient address provided by the shipper for the sake of matching and sending a message indicating a match occurred with a destination address as it served to confirm a recipient’s address and the results were predictable. Specifically, providing a default destination based on a recipient identification was an efficient way of determining where to ship a package and storing such information in a database such as Hunt’s would allow for quick and convenient access to this information when used in conjunction with Shucker’s shipping methods and as a means for confirming a destination address of the recipient.
Further, in a different context, Shucker discloses electronically sending, by said carrier party, a confirmation message indicating that said recipient account identifier corresponding to a recipient party received from said shipper party matched a recipient account identifier corresponding to a recipient party received from a recipient party. The package for delivery arrives at the package delivery system with appropriate paperwork for delivery to a user 101. The paperwork may be digital, a barcode or other machine-readable code, a sticker, or any suitable paperwork. The paperwork may contain a user 101 name, a user address, a confirmation number, a sender name and address, and other identifying information for the recipient, sender, origin location, and/or delivery location. Figure 4 discloses the method of identifying a delivery location. The aerial delivery device computing system is provided with information specifying that the QR code is located on a property associated with a destination address. Shucker discloses that the aerial delivery device transports the package to an address associated with a user 101. See paragraph [0055]. The aerial delivery device may navigate via a mapping program to an address to reach the address of the user. See page 5, paragraph [0063] disclosing that the aerial delivery device transmits the QR code to the package delivery system for confirmation of delivery location by the package delivery system. As an example, Shucker indicates that certain commercial locations may desire to receive different packages at different locations and more than one QR code may be employed. If there is a match to a location associated with a QR code, the delivery can be made. If there is not a match, the delivery may be aborted. In confirming a delivery location, Shucker is matching a recipient address received by the recipient party with that of the shipper party. A skilled artisan at the time of the invention would recognize that confirming a delivery location is inclusive of confirming a recipient’s id/address against that sent by the shipper.
Shucker discloses physically receiving, by said carrier party, said packaging from said shipper party; and electronically associating, by said carrier party, said packaging identifier with said destination address. See paragraph [0014]-[0026] disclosing a package delivery system such as a courier service, a package delivery agent in which a user arranges for the delivery of a package by physically providing the package to the shipper party with a destination address. See paragraph [0026]-[0028] where a user interacts with a package delivery system, a merchant system or other system to arrange for the delivery of a package. The package for delivery arrives at the package delivery system with appropriate paperwork for delivery to a user 101. The paperwork may be digital, a barcode or other machine-readable code, a sticker, or any suitable paperwork. The paperwork may contain a user 101 name, a user address, a confirmation number, a sender name and address, and other identifying information for the recipient, sender, origin location, and/or delivery location. Figure 4 discloses the method of identifying a delivery location. However, to the extent Shucker does not explicitly disclose a package identifier is associated with the destination address, Hanks discloses processing parcels to be shipped where the parcels include scannable parcel identifiers. Machine-readable indica on a parcel comprises data indicative of an identifier for the parcel and a destination for the parcel. See paragraphs [0007] and [0010]. See also figure 1.
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention to include a parcel or package identifier as data represented by machine readable code, as suggested by Hanks, within Shucker’s system which also utilizes machine readable codes with package information and the results would have been predictable. Moreover, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention to include a package id in Shucker’s paperwork because Shucker discloses that the packaging with a machine-readable code and paperwork includes any suitable paperwork regarding the package and also indicates that the delivery address is associated with the package id as referenced in [0043]. Thus, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan that a package with a machine-readable code and all information regarding the package could include a package identifier as suggested by Hanks for the sake of associating the package identifier with all the other information regarding the package such as the sender, receiver, addresses, etc.
Regarding claim 13, Shucker discloses electronically receiving, by said carrier party, a destination from said shipping party; and verifying, by said carrier party, whether said destination from said shipping party matches said destination from said recipient party. The package for delivery arrives at the package delivery system with appropriate paperwork for delivery to a user 101. The paperwork may be digital, a barcode or other machine-readable code, a sticker, or any suitable paperwork. The paperwork may contain a user 101 name, a user address, a confirmation number, a sender name and address, and other identifying information for the recipient, sender, origin location, and/or delivery location. Figure 4 discloses the method of identifying a delivery location. The aerial delivery device computing system is provided with information specifying that the QR code is located on a property associated with a destination address. Shucker discloses that the aerial delivery device transports the package to an address associated with a user 101. See paragraph [0055]. The aerial delivery device may navigate via a mapping program to an address to reach the address of the user. See page 5, paragraph [0063] disclosing that the aerial delivery device transmits the QR code to the package delivery system for confirmation of delivery location by the package delivery system. As an example, Shucker indicates that certain commercial locations may desire to receive different packages at different locations and more than one QR code may be employed. If there is a match to a location associated with a QR code, the delivery can be made. If there is not a match, the delivery may be aborted.
Next, regarding the portion of the portion of the limitation reciting, “destination from said recipient party”, as noted in the rejections above, Hunt discloses a shopper account database in which a shopper record maintains information including the shopper identifier uniquely identifying the shopper and the shopper account as well as a shipping address for the shopper. See paragraph [0090]. Hunt discloses that shoppers register with the system by providing basic user information. See paragraph [0113]. Paragraph [0150] further states the user account database stores a record for each user or shopper where each record includes a user name, address, and payment information for a user. The shopper registers this information with an e-commerce server by providing basic information such as a username, address, etc. See paragraph [0055]. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would recognize that a shopper’s registration includes said destination from a recipient party.
Thus, Shucker discloses the package for delivery arrives at the package delivery system with appropriate paperwork for delivery to a user 101. The paperwork may be digital, a barcode or other machine-readable code, a sticker, or any suitable paperwork. The paperwork may contain a user 101 name, a user address, a confirmation number, a sender name and address, and other identifying information for the recipient, sender, origin location, and/or delivery location. However, to the extent Shucker does not explicitly state verifying, by said carrier party, whether said destination from said shipper party matches said destination from said recipient party, the combination of Shucker and Hunt disclose this feature. As noted above, both the recipient party and the shipper party provide a destination (location and/or address). Moreover, Hunt discloses a shopper account database in which a shopper record maintains information including the shopper identifier uniquely identifying the shopper and the shopper account as well as a shipping address for the shopper. See paragraph [0090]. Thus, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention to have incorporated Hunt’s shopper registration including registering an account with an e-commerce server including the destination within Shucker’s system which also received a destination address provided by the shipper for the sake of matching and sending a message indicating a match occurred with a destination address as it served to confirm a recipient’s address and the results were predictable. Specifically, providing a default destination based on a recipient identification was an efficient way of determining where to ship a package and storing such information in a database such as Hunt’s would allow for quick and convenient access to this information when used in conjunction with Shucker’s shipping methods and as a means for confirming a destination address of the recipient.
17. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shucker et al., US 2015/0317597 A1, 11/05/2015 (filed 05/02/2014) in view of Hanks, US 2016/0239789 A1, 08/18/2016 (filed 05/12/2015, continuation filed 02/13/2015), Hunt, US 2014/0164091 A1, 06/12/2014 and Simske et al., US 7,543,745 B1, 06/09/2009.
Regarding claim 4, Shucker does not teach said packaging identifier is initially generated using a random number generation algorithm; however, Simske discloses that a package identifier is formed by aggregating RFID information, encrypted M bit EM information and print target information in which the RFID information is generated by a random number generator. Thus, Simske discloses that at least a portion of the package identifier is generated using a random number generator. See column 7, lines 24-34. It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention to have implemented Simske’s random number generator within Shucker’s package identifier as a way of assigning a package ID and the results would have been predictable as it was a well known method of assigning package IDs.
18. Claim(s) 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shucker et al., US 2015/0317597 A1, 11/05/2015 (filed 05/02/2014) in view of Hanks, US 2016/0239789 A1, 08/18/2016 (filed 05/12/2015, continuation filed 02/13/2015), Hunt, US 2014/0164091 A1, 06/12/2014 and Williams et al., US 2002/0032573 A1, 03/14/2002.
Regarding claim 5, Shucker discloses payment on delivery or payment of delivery costs at pickup was well known in the art (see paragraph [0003]; however, Shucker does not disclose electronically receiving, by said carrier party, at a server of said carrier party, payment information from said recipient party; and electronically associating, by said carrier party, said packaging identifier with said payment information from said recipient party. However, Williams discloses payment methods for paying for shipping including billing the recipient. See paragraphs [0382]-[0395]. A recipient can click on a hyperlink that will direct them to payment methods. The hyperlink provides a package identifier (PID) including account information.
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention to have incorporated William’s electronic payment for shipments within Shucker’s package delivery system and the results would have been predictable because it was desirable at the time of the invention to allow for electronic payment for shipping as opposed to traditional cash on delivery type methods in order to fully automate the shipment processing of packages including the payment portion. Moreover, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention that the payment for the shipment of a package would be associated with a package identifier. This is why William’s disclosure discloses a hyperlink that provides a PID including the account information in which a recipient can make a payment. It is obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention that such a payment for the package via a hyperlink including a PID associates the payment information to the package id.
Regarding claim 6, Shucker does not disclose electronically receiving, by said carrier party, at a server of said carrier party, an additional destination from said recipient party. However, Hanks discloses receiving an additional destination from said recipient party. See paragraph [0046] disclosing a customer file may include a second destination address. Furthermore, Hunt discloses a shopper account database in which a shopper record maintains information including the shopper identifier uniquely identifying the shopper and the shopper account as well as a shipping address for the shopper. See paragraph [0090]. The shopper registers this information with an e-commerce server by providing basic information such as a username, address, etc. See paragraph [0055]. Hunt discloses that shoppers register with the system by providing basic user information including a physical address. See paragraph [0113]. Paragraph [0150] further states the user account database stores a record for each user or shopper where each record includes a shipping address for the user. A user may also include multiple addresses (see figure 2B, 222 indicating multiple addresses supplied by the recipient). It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention to have incorporated Hank’s multiple destination addresses or Hunt’s shopper database with a shopper record including multiple addresses within Shucker’s system which also managed identifying information for a recipient in order to determine and/or confirm the ideal or preferred destination associated with a recipient and the results were predictable. Specifically, providing a destination based on a recipient identification was an efficient way of determining where to ship a package and storing such information in a database such as Hunt’s would allow for quick and convenient access to this information when used in conjunction with Shucker’s shipping methods.
To the extent Shucker does not disclose electronically associating by said carrier party, said packaging identifier with said additional destination from said recipient party. Hanks discloses processing parcels to be shipped where the parcels include scannable parcel identifiers. Machine-readable indica on a parcel comprises data indicative of an identifier for the parcel and multiple destinations for the parcel. See paragraphs [0007] and [0010]. See paragraphs [0044]-[0048] disclosing a database storing packaging identifiers with multiple destination addresses.
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention to include a parcel or package identifier as data represented by machine readable code, as suggested by Hanks, within Shucker’s system which also utilizes machine readable codes with package information and the results would have been predictable. Moreover, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention to include a package id in Shucker’s paperwork because Shucker discloses that the packaging with a machine-readable code and paperwork includes any suitable paperwork regarding the package and also indicates that the delivery address is associated with the package id as referenced in [0043]. Thus, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan that a package with a machine-readable code and all information regarding the package could include a package identifier as suggested by Hanks for the sake of associating the package identifier with all the other information regarding the package such as the sender, receiver, addresses, etc. Further, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention to associate a package identifier with Hunt’s additional destinations within Shucker because Shucker discloses that the packaging with a machine-readable code and paperwork includes any suitable paperwork regarding the package and also indicates that the delivery address is associated with the package id as referenced in [0043]. Further, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan that a package with a machine-readable code and all information regarding the package would include a package identifier itself as merely receiving a package with all other information such as addresses, recipients, senders without an identification of a package would not make sense in a system that makes a point of associating the delivery address with a package identifier as noted in paragraph [0043].
19. Claim(s) 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shucker et al., US 2015/0317597 A1, 11/05/2015 (filed 05/02/2014) in view of Hanks, US 2016/0239789 A1, 08/18/2016 (filed 05/12/2015, continuation filed 02/13/2015), Hunt, US 2014/0164091 A1, 06/12/2014, Williams et al., US 2002/0032573 A1, 03/14/2002 and Robinson et al, US 11, 182,733 B2, 11/23/2021 (filed 02/05/2019, continuation of application filed on 10/14/2014).
Regarding claim 7, Shucker does not explicitly disclose electronically receiving, by said carrier party, a request to open a locker; verifying, by said carrier party, that the sender of said request is authorized to access said locker; and electronically opening, by said carrier party, said locker. However, Robinson discloses a Locker Bank comprising one or more secure lockers. The Locker Bank is controlled by an associated Locker Bank Computer. A PIN Generation Server is configured to generate one or more PIN numbers for unlocking the lockers within the Locker Bank. The PIN Generation server communicates a generated PIN to the Locker Bank Computer and the computer may allow access to a locker in response to the PIN. See column 5, lines 14-59. It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention to have incorporated Robinson’s electronic request to a server to open a locker within Shucker in order to better and more accurately facilitate package retrieval and delivery/shipment of a package.
Regarding claim 8, Shucker does not explicitly disclose wherein said data further comprises at least one of packaging length, width, and depth. Williams discloses that shipment data can include parcel weight and dimensions in order to determine delivery costs, requirements or constraints. See paragraph [0011] and [0254].
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention to have incorporated William’s dimension data for shipments within Shucker’s package delivery system and the results would have been predictable because it was desirable at the time of the invention to take such data into account when determining the price of the shipment for a package.
20. Claim(s) 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shucker et al., US 2015/0317597 A1, 11/05/2015 (filed 05/02/2014) in view of Hanks, US 2016/0239789 A1, 08/18/2016 (filed 05/12/2015, continuation filed 02/13/2015), Hunt, US 2014/0164091 A1, 06/12/2014 and Hillbush, US 8,719,182 B2, 05/06/2014 (filed 12/28/2012, priority dating to 02/07/2000).
Regarding claim 9, Shucker discloses payment on delivery or payment of delivery costs at pickup was well known in the art (see paragraph [0003]; however, Shucker does not disclose electronically receiving, by said carrier party, payment information from said shipping party; and electronically associating, by said carrier party, said packaging identifier with said payment information from said shipping party. However, Hilbush discloses an internet package shipping system and method in which a payment system is associated with the order receiving system for receiving payment information from a customer and processing a customer payment for shipment of the package via a payment interface on an Internet site which meets the limitation, electronically receiving, by said carrier party, payment information from said shipping party; and electronically associating, by said carrier party, said packaging identifier with said payment information from said shipping party. See column 4, lines 4-17 and columns 33-34, “Payment Routine”. Further, Hanks discloses associating parcel identifiers with payment information. See paragraphs [0007] and [0010]. See paragraphs [0044]-[0048]. It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention to include a parcel or package identifier associated with payment information, as suggested by Hanks, within Shucker’s system for the sake of associating the package identifier with all the other information regarding the package such as the sender, receiver, addresses, payments, etc. and the results would have been predictable. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention to have incorporated Hilbush’s electronic payment for shipments within Shucker’s package delivery system and the results would have been predictable because it was desirable at the time of the invention to allow for electronic payment for shipping as opposed to traditional cash on delivery type methods in order to fully automate the shipment processing of packages including the payment portion.
Regarding claim 10, Shucker does not disclose electronically receiving, by said carrier party, an additional destination from said shipping party; and electronically associating, by said carrier party, said packaging identifier with said additional destination from said shipping party. However, Hanks discloses receiving an additional destination from said recipient party. See paragraph [0046] disclosing a customer file may include a second destination address. Furthermore, Hunt discloses a shopper account database in which a shopper record maintains information including the shopper identifier uniquely identifying the shopper and the shopper account as well as a shipping address for the shopper. See paragraph [0090]. The shopper registers this information with an e-commerce server by providing basic information such as a username, address, etc. See paragraph [0055]. Hunt discloses that shoppers register with the system by providing basic user information including a physical address. See paragraph [0113]. Paragraph [0150] further states the user account database stores a record for each user or shopper where each record includes a shipping address for the user. A user may also include multiple addresses (see figure 2B, 222 indicating multiple addresses supplied by the recipient). It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention to have incorporated Hank’s multiple destination addresses or Hunt’s shopper database with a shopper record including multiple addresses within Shucker’s system which also managed identifying information for a recipient in order to determine and/or confirm the ideal or preferred destination associated with a recipient and the results were predictable. Specifically, providing a destination based on a recipient identification was an efficient way of determining where to ship a package and storing such information in a database such as Hunt’s would allow for quick and convenient access to this information when used in conjunction with Shucker’s shipping methods.
To the extent Shucker does not disclose electronically associating by said carrier party, said packaging identifier with said additional destination from said shipping party. Hanks discloses processing parcels to be shipped where the parcels include scannable parcel identifiers. Machine-readable indica on a parcel comprises data indicative of an identifier for the parcel and multiple destinations for the parcel. See paragraphs [0007] and [0010]. See paragraphs [0044]-[0048] disclosing a database storing packaging identifiers with multiple destination addresses.
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention to include a parcel or package identifier as data represented by machine readable code, as suggested by Hanks, within Shucker’s system which also utilizes machine readable codes with package information and the results would have been predictable. Moreover, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention to include a package id in Shucker’s paperwork because Shucker discloses that the packaging with a machine-readable code and paperwork includes any suitable paperwork regarding the package and also indicates that the delivery address is associated with the package id as referenced in [0043]. Thus, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan that a package with a machine-readable code and all information regarding the package could include a package identifier as suggested by Hanks for the sake of associating the package identifier with all the other information regarding the package such as the sender, receiver, addresses, etc.
21. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shucker et al., US 2015/0317597 A1, 11/05/2015 (filed 05/02/2014) in view of Hanks, US 2016/0239789 A1, 08/18/2016 (filed 05/12/2015, continuation filed 02/13/2015), Hunt, US 2014/0164091 A1, 06/12/2014 and Neal et al., WO 2007/084357 A2, 07/26/2007.
Regarding claim 11, Shucker does not explicitly disclose said recipient account identifier corresponding to a recipient party is a username. However, Neal discloses that recipients are associated with a unique user id or usernames. See page 28, lines 20-27. It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention to have incorporated Neal’s username as one way of identifying a recipient account because the association of a recipient from information such as email addresses, user names, or another unique user ID were well known and implementing the account identifier to be one of either a username or email address within Shucker would have been predictable to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention. Given Neal’s disclosure of maintaining a database of recipient information including data such as email addresses, usernames, user ids so that they can be associated with a recipient, a skilled artisan would have been capable of implementing the association of an account id with a username or email address and the results would have been predictable.
22. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shucker et al., US 2015/0317597 A1, 11/05/2015 (filed 05/02/2014) in view of Hanks, US 2016/0239789 A1, 08/18/2016 (filed 05/12/2015, continuation filed 02/13/2015), Hunt, US 2014/0164091 A1, 06/12/2014 and Neal et al., WO 2007/084357 A2, 07/26/2007 and Henry et al., US 11,107,029 B1, 08/31/2021 (filed 03/09/2015)
Regarding claim 12, Shucker does not explicitly disclose said recipient account identifier corresponding to a recipient party is an email address. Neal discloses that recipients are associated with a unique user id or usernames. See page 28, lines 20-27. Additionally, Henry discloses identification information for the recipient (e.g., the recipient’s email address used when placing an order with the shipper, a recipient’s account established with the shipper and/or the shipping management system, etc.) may be utilized in accessing records for the shipments managed by shipping management system. See column 26, lines 45-51. It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention to have incorporated Neal’s username/email address or Henry’s email address as one way of identifying a recipient account because the association of a recipient from information such as email addresses, user names, or another unique user ID were well known and implementing the account identifier to be one of either a username or email address within Shucker would have been predictable to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention. Given Neal’s disclosure of maintaining a database of recipient information including data such as email addresses, usernames, user ids so that they can be associated with a recipient, a skilled artisan would have been capable of implementing the association of an account id with a username or email address and the results would have been predictable. Additionally, Henry discloses utilizing email addresses associated with a user account in order to access records. Thus, a skilled artisan would have been capable of implementing the association of an account id with a username or email address and the results would have been predictable.
23. Claim(s) 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henry et al., US 11,107,029 B1, 08/31/2021 (filed 03/09/2015) in view of Hanks, US 2016/0239789 A1, 08/18/2016 (filed 05/12/2015, continuation filed 02/13/2015), Hunt, US 2014/0164091 A1, 06/12/2014 and Shucker et al., US 2015/0317597 A1, 11/05/2015 (filed 05/02/2014).
Regarding claim 14, Henry discloses a method of shipping a parcel. See abstract, columns 1-2, column 6 and figure 2 disclosing a method for facilitating shipping services of an item or parcel.
Henry discloses a shipper may utilize a user device comprising systems for shipping management in order to manage shipments, obtain information about shipments, and the like. A shipper may provide information to the shipping management system 111 as may be stored in database 113 such as in association with a user account for the shipper which meets the limitation, electronically receiving, from an ecommerce party, a request to open an ecommerce account; creating an ecommerce account corresponding to said ecommerce party. See column 22, lines 51-column 23, lines 18.
Henry discloses electronically receiving, from said ecommerce party, a first destination. See column 13, lines 48-67 disclosing providing shipping information including addresses.
Henry discloses electronically receiving, from said ecommerce party, payment information. See column 5, lines 42-50 and column 25, lines 39-50 disclosing pre-shipment status information includes payment information for the order.
Henry discloses electronically receiving, from a recipient party, a request to open a recipient account; creating a recipient account corresponding to said recipient party. See column 6, lines 11-15 and column 27 disclosing a recipient may also utilize the shipping management system to acquire status information about shipments. However, Hunt more clearly discloses receiving a request from a shopper or receiver to create an account. See paragraphs [0090], [0096] allowing a new shopper to register an account. It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention to have combined Hunt’s recipient account creation corresponding to a recipient party within Henry’s shipment management system for the purpose of providing shipment management for a recipient as suggested in column 6 of Henry and the results would have been predictable.
Henry discloses electronically receiving, from said recipient party, a second destination. See column 13, lines 43-65 disclosing a recipient may provide shipping information including alternate delivery instructions. See column 18, lines 19-25. However, Hanks more explicitly discloses receiving an additional destination from said recipient party. See paragraph [0046] disclosing a customer file may include a second destination address. Additionally, Hunt discloses a shopper may provide an address or multiple addresses. See paragraph [0090]. Hunt discloses a shopper account database in which a shopper record maintains information including the shopper identifier uniquely identifying the shopper and the shopper account as well as a shipping address for the shopper. See paragraph [0090]. The shopper registers this information with an e-commerce server by providing basic information such as a username, address, etc. See paragraph [0055]. Hunt discloses that shoppers register with the system by providing basic user information including a physical address. See paragraph [0113]. Paragraph [0150] further states the user account database stores a record for each user or shopper where each record includes a shipping address for the user. A user may also include multiple addresses (see figure 2B, 222 indicating multiple addresses supplied by the recipient). It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention to have incorporated Hank’s multiple destination addresses or Hunt’s shopper database with a shopper record including multiple addresses within Henry’s system which also managed identifying information for a recipient in order to determine and/or confirm the ideal or preferred destination associated with a recipient and the results were predictable. Specifically, providing a destination based on a recipient identification was an efficient way of determining where to ship a package and storing such information in a database such as Hunt’s would allow for quick and convenient access to this information when used in conjunction with Henry’s shipping methods.
Henry discloses creating a recipient account; however, Hunt more clearly discloses electronically receiving, from said recipient party, a recipient account identifier. See paragraph [0090] which provides a shopper id. Additionally, Hanks discloses
Henry discloses electronically receiving, from said ecommerce party, a first transmission comprising a request to create a shipment and said recipient account identifier. See column 13, lines 46-65 disclosing receiving a shipment of an item including a request to create a shipment and information about the recipient. As noted above, Hunt more explicitly discloses a recipient account identifier. Hank also discloses receiving a shipment request with a recipient account identifier. See paragraphs [0007], [0010], and [0046]-[0047] disclosing receiving a parcel with customer file which can include a recipients name or customer number.
Henry discloses creating a shipment record corresponding to said request to create a shipment; electronically associating said ecommerce account with said shipment record. See column 13, lines 46-column 14 and figure 2. The shipping management system obtains details regarding the shipment and creates a database record of the shipment. See also claim 1 of Henry.
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention to have incorporated Hunt’s teachings of receiving a recipient account identifier or Hanks’ recipient name/customer number within Henry’s shipment tracking system that provides shipment status information because it would allow for recipients to retrieve information regarding their package and status updates regarding the shipment and the results would have been predictable. Henry discloses providing a shipment identifier associated with a shipment record. See column 13, lines 46-67 disclosing generating a shipping label or postage indicia in Henry. Henry discloses information regarding the shipment includes information about the recipient including user account information.
Henry does not explicitly disclose verifying the recipient account identifier is associated with a recipient account; however, Shucker discloses electronically verifying whether said first transmission's recipient account identifier is associated with a recipient account. See paragraph [0041] disclosing a package delivery system receives a package for delivery. The package for delivery arrives at the package delivery system with appropriate paperwork for delivery to a user 101. The paperwork may be digital, a barcode or other machine-readable code, a sticker, or any suitable paperwork. The paperwork may contain a user 101 name, a user address, a confirmation number, a sender name and address, and other identifying information for the recipient, sender, origin location, and/or delivery location. Figure 4 discloses the method of identifying a delivery location. The aerial delivery device computing system is provided with information specifying that the QR code is located on a property associated with a destination address. Shucker discloses that the aerial delivery device transports the package to an address associated with a user 101. See paragraph [0055]. The aerial delivery device may navigate via a mapping program to an address to reach the address of the user. Thus, Shucker discloses verifying that the first transmission including the request to create a shipment’s recipient account identifier is ultimately associated with a recipient account and determining a second destination; however, Hunt more clearly states that verifying whether said first transmission’s recipient account identifier is associated with a recipient account. Specifically, Hunt discloses a shopper account database in which a shopper record maintains information including the shopper identifier uniquely identifying the shopper and the shopper account as well as a shipping address for the shopper. See paragraph [0090]. The shopper registers this information with an e-commerce server by providing basic information such as a username, address, etc. See paragraph [0055]. Hunt discloses that shoppers register with the system by providing basic user information including a physical address. See paragraph [0113]. Paragraph [0150] further states the user account database stores a record for each user or shopper where each record includes a shipping address for the user. It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention to incorporate Shucker’s verification within Henry for purposes of verifying that the delivery is made to the correct recipient/location. Further, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention to have incorporated Hunt’s shopper database with a shopper record including the recipient account id and destination within Henry/Shucker’s system which also managed identifying information for a recipient in order to determine and/or confirm a recipient’s account and the destination associated with a recipient and the results were predictable. Specifically, providing a destination based on a recipient identification was an efficient way of determining where to ship a package and storing such information in a database such as Hunt’s would allow for quick and convenient access to this information in order to verify correct delivery of the package when used in conjunction with Henry/Shucker’s shipping methods.
Moreover, Hanks also discloses verifying a first transmission’s recipient account identifier is associated with a recipient account. See paragraphs [0007], [0010], [0044]-[0048] disclosing verifying that a recipient’s account is associated with a recipient name. Hanks also discloses electronically determining said second destination based on said first transmission's recipient account identifier and said recipient account associated with said recipient account identifier. See paragraphs [0044]-[0046] disclosing determining a second destination address associated with a recipient’s name and customer number. The second destination is associated with a customer file data structure as depicted in figure 2 and discussed in [0043]-[0046] which meets the limitations electronically associating said second destination with said shipment record. Furthermore, Hanks discloses electronically associating a package identifier with said shipment records. See paragraphs [0007] and [0010] disclosing associating a parcel id with shipment records. It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention to include a parcel or package identifier in the shipment records, as suggested by Hanks, within Henry/Shucker’s system which also utilizes machine readable codes with package information and the results would have been predictable.
Shucker discloses physically receiving, from said ecommerce party, a packaging comprising a machine-readable code, wherein said machine readable code represents data comprising said packaging identifier; electronically reading said data from said machine readable code of said packaging received from said ecommerce party and electronically determining whether said data's packaging identifier is associated with a shipment record. See page 1, paragraph [0005] and [0015] disclosing a package with a machine-readable code for display on the package. The machine-readable code may be a QR code, barcode, or other suitable code. See also paragraph [0041] disclosing a package delivery system receives a package for delivery. The package delivery system may be any system, company, organization, government service, or individual that delivers packages from one location to another. For example, the package delivery system may be a courier, postal service, package delivery company, a merchant system, a retailer, or any other suitable system that delivers packages. The package for delivery arrives at the package delivery system with appropriate paperwork for delivery to a user 101. The paperwork may be digital, a barcode or other machine-readable code, a sticker, or any suitable paperwork. The paperwork may contain a user 101 name, a user address, a confirmation number, a sender name and address, and other identifying information for the recipient, sender, origin location, and/or delivery location. Paragraph [0005] discloses that a request for the package delivery includes an identification of the package. Paragraph [0043] discloses that the package delivery system obtains a delivery address from the digital information associated with the package and that the delivery address is stored with identification of the package in the package delivery system. See also claim 1.
However, to the extent Shucker does not explicitly disclose that the machine-readable code comprises a package identifier, Hanks discloses processing parcels to be shipped where the parcels include scannable parcel identifiers. Machine-readable indica on a parcel comprises data indicative of an identifier for the parcel and a destination for the parcel. See paragraphs [0007] and [0010]. See also figure 1.
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention to include a parcel or package identifier as data represented by machine readable code, as suggested by Hanks, within Shucker’s system which also utilizes machine readable codes with package information and the results would have been predictable. Moreover, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention to include a package id in Shucker’s paperwork because Shucker discloses that the packaging with a machine-readable code and paperwork includes any suitable paperwork regarding the package and also indicates that the delivery address is associated with the package id as referenced in [0043]. Thus, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan that a package with a machine-readable code and all information regarding the package could include a package identifier as suggested by Hanks for the sake of associating the package identifier with all the other information regarding the package such as the sender, receiver, addresses, etc.
Shucker does not disclose electronically determining said second destination based on said data from said packaging received from said ecommerce party and said shipment record associated with said data's packaging identifier; physically delivering said packaging to said second destination. However, Hanks discloses determining a second destination based on said data from packaging received from said ecommerce party and said shipment record associated with said data's packaging identifier; physically delivering said packaging to said second destination. See paragraphs [0007], [0010], [0044]-[0048]. See paragraphs [0044]-[0046] disclosing determining a second destination address associated with a recipient’s name and customer number. The second destination is associated with a customer file data structure as depicted in figure 2 and discussed in [0043]-[0046] Furthermore, Hanks discloses physically delivering said packaging to said second destination. See paragraphs [0007], [0009], [0010] and [0044]-[0046]. It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention to include a parcel or package identifier in the shipment records, as suggested by Hanks, within Henry/Shucker’s system which also utilizes machine readable codes with package information and the results would have been predictable.
Henry discloses electronically receiving, from either said ecommerce party or said recipient, a second transmission comprising a request to return said packaging; associating said request to return said packaging with said shipment record; physically receiving, from said recipient party; electronically reading said data from said machine readable code of said packaging received from said recipient party and electronically determining whether said data's packaging identifier is associated with a shipment record; electronically determining said first destination based on said data from said packaging received from said recipient party, said shipment record associated with said data's packaging identifier; said ecommerce account associated with said shipment record, and said request to return said packaging associated with said shipment record; electronically associating said first destination with said shipment record; and physically delivering said packaging to said first destination. See column 26, lines 15-column 27 disclosing that a recipient may wish to return an item in which case the shipping management system may be used to request a suitable return label or postage indicia and processing of the return. The return would be managed with a return shipping label in the same manner as the shipment of the item. Tracking information based on the shipment record and package identifier would be utilized by the shipping management system to physically deliver the return. As noted above, Shucker discloses a machine-readable code on the packaging providing the delivery and shipment information. See also paragraphs [0115]-[0121] of Hanks disclosing a return address associated with all parcels and customer profiles in the same manner described above with respect to the shipment of returns. See also figure 20. It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention to have provided a return process using the same methodology as the shipping process as described in Henry and hanks to allow for packages that a recipient wished to return to be shipped back.
Regarding claim 15, Hunt discloses electronically billing a cost associated with delivery to the second destination using said payment information; electronically receiving, from said recipient party, a second payment information; and electronically billing a cost associated with delivery to the first destination using said second payment information. See paragraph [0097]-[0098] disclosing enabling a shopper to provide payment information associated with the shipment upon receiving a bill. See also Hunt’s general disclosure dealing extensively with the billing of a cost associated with a shipment and receiving payment from a shopper. It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention to have incorporated Hunt’s billing and payment system within Henry as it provided an effective way for billing and acquiring payment for the shipment of packages and a skilled artisan would have been able to implement such a payment system and the results would have been predictable. Furthermore, Hanks discloses calculating the cost to ship a parcel to a destination and billing a customer for that cost. See paragraph [0007]. It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention to have incorporated Hanks’ billing system for various destinations withing Hunt as a means for facilitating payment for the cost of shipping and the results would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 16. Shucker discloses electronically generating, in response to receiving said first transmission, said packaging identifier; electronically sending said packaging identifier to said ecommerce party. See page 1, paragraph [0005] and [00158] disclosing a package with a machine-readable code for display on the package. The machine-readable code may be a QR code, barcode, or other suitable code. The QR code is associated with the package. See paragraph [0052]. See also paragraph [0041] disclosing a package delivery system receives a package for delivery. The package delivery system may be any system, company, organization, government service, or individual that delivers packages from one location to another. For example, the package delivery system may be a courier, postal service, package delivery company, a merchant system, a retailer, or any other suitable system that delivers packages. The package for delivery arrives at the package delivery system with appropriate paperwork for delivery to a user 101. The paperwork may be digital, a barcode or other machine-readable code, a sticker, or any suitable paperwork. The paperwork may contain a user 101 name, a user address, a confirmation number, a sender name and address, and other identifying information for the recipient, sender, origin location, and/or delivery location. It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention to have incorporated Shucker’s packaging identifier utilized for storing various package information such as destination, sender name, etc within Henry because it provides an effective and efficient way of managing the delivery of packages such as by providing much more package details than the conventional address label. Thus, a skilled artisan would have been motivated to utilize a package identifier, as suggested by Shucker as an effective delivery management tool within Henry and the results would have been predictable.
However, to the extent Shucker does not explicitly disclose that the machine-readable code comprises a package identifier, Hanks discloses processing parcels to be shipped where the parcels include scannable parcel identifiers. Machine-readable indica on a parcel comprises data indicative of an identifier for the parcel and a destination for the parcel. See paragraphs [0007] and [0010]. See also figure 1.
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention to include a parcel or package identifier as data represented by machine readable code, as suggested by Hanks, within Shucker’s system which also utilizes machine readable codes with package information and the results would have been predictable. Moreover, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention to include a package id in Shucker’s paperwork because Shucker discloses that the packaging with a machine-readable code and paperwork includes any suitable paperwork regarding the package and also indicates that the delivery address is associated with the package id as referenced in [0043]. Thus, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan that a package with a machine-readable code and all information regarding the package could include a package identifier as suggested by Hanks for the sake of associating the package identifier with all the other information regarding the package such as the sender, receiver, addresses, etc.
Regarding claim 17, Shucker discloses wherein said first transmission further comprises said packaging identifier. See page 1, paragraph [0005] and [00158] disclosing a package with a machine-readable code for display on the package. The machine-readable code may be a QR code, barcode, or other suitable code. The QR code is associated with the package. See paragraph [0052]. See also paragraph [0041] disclosing a package delivery system receives a package for delivery. The package delivery system may be any system, company, organization, government service, or individual that delivers packages from one location to another. For example, the package delivery system may be a courier, postal service, package delivery company, a merchant system, a retailer, or any other suitable system that delivers packages. The package for delivery arrives at the package delivery system with appropriate paperwork for delivery to a user 101. The paperwork may be digital, a barcode or other machine-readable code, a sticker, or any suitable paperwork. The paperwork may contain a user 101 name, a user address, a confirmation number, a sender name and address, and other identifying information for the recipient, sender, origin location, and/or delivery location. It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention to have incorporated Shucker’s packaging identifier utilized for storing various package information such as destination, sender name, etc within Henry because it provides an effective and efficient way of managing the delivery of packages such as by providing much more package details than the conventional address label. Thus, a skilled artisan would have been motivated to utilize a package identifier, as suggested by Shucker as an effective delivery management tool within Henry and the results would have been predictable.
However, to the extent Shucker does not explicitly disclose that the machine-readable code comprises a package identifier, Hanks discloses processing parcels to be shipped where the parcels include scannable parcel identifiers. Machine-readable indica on a parcel comprises data indicative of an identifier for the parcel and a destination for the parcel. See paragraphs [0007] and [0010]. See also figure 1.
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention to include a parcel or package identifier as data represented by machine readable code, as suggested by Hanks, within Shucker’s system which also utilizes machine readable codes with package information and the results would have been predictable. Moreover, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention to include a package id in Shucker’s paperwork because Shucker discloses that the packaging with a machine-readable code and paperwork includes any suitable paperwork regarding the package and also indicates that the delivery address is associated with the package id as referenced in [0043]. Thus, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan that a package with a machine-readable code and all information regarding the package could include a package identifier as suggested by Hanks for the sake of associating the package identifier with all the other information regarding the package such as the sender, receiver, addresses, etc.
Regarding claim 18, Shucker discloses wherein said packaging identifier is a packaging identifier not generated by the party receiving said transmission. See page 3, paragraphs [0041]-[0043] indicating the package identifier is provided by the sender or the user can enter the information into a delivery application. It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention to have incorporated Shucker’s packaging identifier utilized for storing various package information such as destination, sender name, etc within Henry because it provides an effective and efficient way of managing the delivery of packages such as by providing much more package details than the conventional address label. Thus, a skilled artisan would have been motivated to utilize a package identifier, as suggested by Shucker as an effective delivery management tool within Henry and the results would have been predictable.
However, to the extent Shucker does not explicitly disclose that the machine-readable code comprises a package identifier, Hanks discloses processing parcels to be shipped where the parcels include scannable parcel identifiers. Machine-readable indica on a parcel comprises data indicative of an identifier for the parcel and a destination for the parcel. See paragraphs [0007] and [0010]. See also figure 1.
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention to include a parcel or package identifier as data represented by machine readable code, as suggested by Hanks, within Shucker’s system which also utilizes machine readable codes with package information and the results would have been predictable. Moreover, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention to include a package id in Shucker’s paperwork because Shucker discloses that the packaging with a machine-readable code and paperwork includes any suitable paperwork regarding the package and also indicates that the delivery address is associated with the package id as referenced in [0043]. Thus, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan that a package with a machine-readable code and all information regarding the package could include a package identifier as suggested by Hanks for the sake of associating the package identifier with all the other information regarding the package such as the sender, receiver, addresses, etc.
Regarding claim 19. Henry discloses verifying, in response to receiving said first transmission, whether said packaging identifier not generated by the party receiving said transmission is associated with any previously created shipment records. See column 11, lines 58-column 12 disclosing historical data collected regarding the shipment. See also column 15 disclosing identifying relevant historical information relevant to the shipment in question. However, to the extent Henry does not explicitly disclose a package identifier, Hanks discloses processing parcels to be shipped where the parcels include scannable parcel identifiers. Machine-readable indica on a parcel comprises data indicative of an identifier for the parcel and a destination for the parcel. See paragraphs [0007] and [0010]. See also figure 1. It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention to include a parcel or package identifier, as suggested by Hanks, within Henry’s system and the results would have been predictable because a skilled artisan at the time of the invention would be motivated to include a package id as suggested by Hanks for the sake of associating the package identifier with all the other information regarding the package such as the sender, receiver, addresses, etc.
Regarding claim 20, Shucker discloses wherein said packaging identifier is a packaging identifier generated by said ecommerce party. See page 3, paragraphs [0041]-[0043] indicating the package identifier is provided by the sender or the user can enter the information into a delivery application. See also paragraphs [0013]-[0015] disclosing a package delivery system identifies the package for delivery to the user and the user is provided with a machine readable code for display at a delivery location. It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention to have incorporated Shucker’s packaging identifier utilized for storing various package information such as destination, sender name, etc within Henry because it provides an effective and efficient way of managing the delivery of packages such as by providing much more package details than the conventional address label. Thus, a skilled artisan would have been motivated to utilize a package identifier, as suggested by Shucker as an effective delivery management tool within Henry and the results would have been predictable.
However, to the extent Shucker does not explicitly disclose that the machine-readable code comprises a package identifier, Hanks discloses processing parcels to be shipped where the parcels include scannable parcel identifiers. Machine-readable indica on a parcel comprises data indicative of an identifier for the parcel and a destination for the parcel. See paragraphs [0007] and [0010]. See also figure 1.
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention to include a parcel or package identifier as data represented by machine readable code, as suggested by Hanks, within Shucker’s system which also utilizes machine readable codes with package information and the results would have been predictable. Moreover, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention to include a package id in Shucker’s paperwork because Shucker discloses that the packaging with a machine-readable code and paperwork includes any suitable paperwork regarding the package and also indicates that the delivery address is associated with the package id as referenced in [0043]. Thus, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan that a package with a machine-readable code and all information regarding the package could include a package identifier as suggested by Hanks for the sake of associating the package identifier with all the other information regarding the package such as the sender, receiver, addresses, etc.
24. Claim(s) 35-36 and 38-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being24 unpatentable over Shucker et al., US 2015/0317597 A1, 11/05/2015 (filed 05/02/2014) in view of Hanks, US 2016/0239789 A1, 08/18/2016 (filed 05/12/2015, continuation filed 02/13/2015), Hunt, US 2014/0164091 A1, 06/12/2014, Hillbush, US 8,719,182 B2, 05/06/2014 (filed 12/28/2012, priority dating to 02/07/2000) and Dearing, et al., US 2015/0287113 A1, 10/08/2015.
Regarding claim 35, Shucker discloses a method of shipping a parcel. See abstract and page 1, paragraph [0005] disclosing a package delivery system in which a package is shipped.
Shucker discloses obtaining, by a shipper party, a packaging, said packaging comprising a machine-readable code, wherein said machine readable code represents data comprising a packaging identifier. See page 1, paragraph [0005] and [0015] disclosing a package with a machine-readable code for display on the package. The machine-readable code may be a QR code, barcode, or other suitable code. See also paragraph [0041] disclosing a package delivery system receives a package for delivery. The package delivery system may be any system, company, organization, government service, or individual that delivers packages from one location to another. For example, the package delivery system may be a courier, postal service, package delivery company, a merchant system, a retailer, or any other suitable system that delivers packages. The package for delivery arrives at the package delivery system with appropriate paperwork for delivery to a user 101. The paperwork may be digital, a barcode or other machine-readable code, a sticker, or any suitable paperwork. The paperwork may contain a user 101 name, a user address, a confirmation number, a sender name and address, and other identifying information for the recipient, sender, origin location, and/or delivery location. Paragraph [0005] discloses that a request for the package delivery includes an identification of the package. Paragraph [0043] discloses that the package delivery system obtains a delivery address from the digital information associated with the package and that the delivery address is stored with identification of the package in the package delivery system. See also claim 1.
However, to the extent Shucker does not explicitly disclose that the machine-readable code comprises a package identifier, Hanks discloses processing parcels to be shipped where the parcels include scannable parcel identifiers. Machine-readable indica on a parcel comprises data indicative of an identifier for the parcel and a destination for the parcel. See paragraphs [0007] and [0010]. See also figure 1.
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention to include a parcel or package identifier as data represented by machine readable code, as suggested by Hanks, within Shucker’s system which also utilizes machine readable codes with package information and the results would have been predictable. Moreover, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention to include a package id in Shucker’s paperwork because Shucker discloses that the packaging with a machine-readable code and paperwork includes any suitable paperwork regarding the package and also indicates that the delivery address is associated with the package id as referenced in [0043]. Thus, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan that a package with a machine-readable code and all information regarding the package could include a package identifier as suggested by Hanks for the sake of associating the package identifier with all the other information regarding the package such as the sender, receiver, addresses, etc.
Shucker discloses electronically sending, by said shipper party, said data to a server. See figure 1 and paragraphs [0020]-[0022] depicting network computing devices communicating with each other over a network including a server. A user can interact with a package delivery system comprising a web server. The package delivery system can deliver or receive packages and associates the package with an aerial delivery device. Scanning a QR code or other machine-readable code communicates information including delivery addresses, GPS locations, package details and other information to the server. See paragraphs [0023]-0033]. This information is used by the aerial delivery device. To the extent, Shucker does not explicitly state that the data includes the packaging identifier, Hanks discloses as in figure 1 sending said data including the package id to the server by the shipper party. See also [0038]-[0042] disclosing the main processing unit 102 may comprise a single processor, a group of processors, or a specially-designed server system. The processor comprising the main processing unit 102 is configured to, among other things, receive data identifying a parcel from a plurality of parcels within the parcel processing facility 150, determine a customer associated with the identified parcel. It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention to include a parcel or package identifier as data represented by machine readable code, as suggested by Hanks, within Shucker’s system which also utilizes machine readable codes with package information and the results would have been predictable.
Shucker discloses electronically sending, by said shipper party, a recipient account identifier corresponding to a recipient party to said server, wherein said server is configured to determine a destination address for said packaging based on said recipient account identifier corresponding to a recipient party and a default destination previously received by said server from said recipient party. See paragraph [0041] disclosing a package delivery system receives a package for delivery. The package delivery system may be any system, company, organization, government service, or individual that delivers packages from one location to another. For example, the package delivery system may be a courier, postal service, package delivery company, a merchant system, a retailer, or any other suitable system that delivers packages. The package for delivery arrives at the package delivery system with appropriate paperwork for delivery to a user 101. The paperwork may be digital, a barcode or other machine-readable code, a sticker, or any suitable paperwork. The paperwork may contain a user 101 name, a user address, a confirmation number, a sender name and address, and other identifying information for the recipient, sender, origin location, and/or delivery location. Figure 4 discloses the method of identifying a delivery location. The aerial delivery device computing system is provided with information specifying that the QR code is located on a property associated with a destination address. Shucker discloses that the aerial delivery device transports the package to an address associated with a user 101. See paragraph [0055]. The aerial delivery device may navigate via a mapping program to an address to reach the address of the user. Hanks also discloses in [0038]-[0044] that the processor comprising the main processing unit 102 is configured to, among other things, receive data identifying a parcel from a plurality of parcels within the parcel processing facility 150, determine a customer associated with the identified parcel, processing the parcel may include determining a drop point for the parcel or determining the ultimate destination for the parcel. The database 104 stores the customer profiles and other data generated by the main processing unit. The standard customer file format may include, a parcel identification number for every parcel included in the customer order, a destination address, a customer number, a drop off point, a tracking number, a sorting facility destination, cost center IDs, parcel weights, and reference fields, or any other piece of information.
Although Shucker and Hanks discloses electronically sending, by said shipper party, a recipient account identifier corresponding to a recipient party to said server, wherein said server is configured to determine a destination address for said packaging based on said recipient account identifier corresponding to a recipient party, Hunt more clearly discloses that determining a destination address for said packaging is based on said recipient account identifier corresponding to a recipient party and a default destination previously received by said server from said recipient party. Specifically, Hunt discloses a shopper account database in which a shopper record maintains information including the shopper identifier uniquely identifying the shopper and the shopper account as well as a shipping address for the shopper. See paragraph [0090]. The shopper registers this information with an e-commerce server by providing basic information such as a username, address, etc. See paragraph [0055]. Hunt discloses that shoppers register with the system by providing basic user information including a physical address. See paragraph [0113]. Paragraph [0150] further states the user account database stores a record for each user or shopper where each record includes a shipping address for the user.
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention to have incorporated Hunt’s shopper database with a shopper record including the recipient account id and default destination within Shucker/Hank’s system which also managed identifying information for a recipient in order to determine and/or confirm the default destination associated with a recipient and the results were predictable. Specifically, providing a default destination based on a recipient identification was an efficient way of determining where to ship a package and storing such information in a database such as Hunt’s would allow for quick and convenient access to this information when used in conjunction with Shucker’s shipping methods. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would recognize that a shopper’s registration including a shopper’s shipping address would be the default address and the results would have been predictable to one skilled in the art.
Shucker discloses electronically receiving, from said server, a confirmation message indicating that said server was able to determine a destination for said packaging based on said recipient account identifier corresponding to a recipient party. See page 5, paragraph [0063] disclosing that the aerial delivery device transmits the QR code to the package delivery system for confirmation of delivery location by the package delivery system. If there is a match to a location associated with a QR code, the delivery can be made. If there is not a match, the delivery may be aborted. Additionally, Hunt’s system also maintains the shipping information which is provided at checkout for further confirmation. See paragraph [0055]-[0056].
Shucker discloses payment on delivery or payment of delivery costs at pickup was well known in the art (see paragraph [0003] as does Hank (see [0010]; however, Shucker does not disclose electronically sending, by said shipper party, payment information to said server. However, Hunt discloses providing payment information. See paragraph [0055]-[0056] and general disclosure. However, Hunt provides a payment from the shopper. Hilbush discloses an internet package shipping system and method in which a payment system is associated with the order receiving system for receiving payment information from a customer and processing a customer payment for shipment of the package via a payment interface on an Internet site which meets the limitation, electronically sending, by said shipper party, payment information to said server. See column 4, lines 4-17 and columns 33-34, “Payment Routine”.
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention to have incorporated Hilbush’s electronic payment for shipments within Shucker’s package delivery system and the results would have been predictable because it was desirable at the time of the invention to allow for electronic payment for shipping as opposed to traditional cash on delivery type methods in order to fully automate the shipment processing of packages including the payment portion.
Shucker discloses physically delivering, by said shipper party to a carrier party, said packaging unaddressed to said destination address. See page 3, paragraph [0041]-[0043] disclosing that the machine readable code contains the delivery address, but the package is not addressed as the address is stored with the identification of the package in the package delivery system.
Shucker discloses wherein said server is further configured to electronically send said destination address, in response to electronically receiving said data, to a system of said carrier party. See page 3, paragraph [0041]-[0043] disclosing that the machine readable code contains the delivery address, but the package is not addressed as the address is stored with the identification of the package in the package delivery system. Shucker does not disclose that the carrier party is configured to print a human-readable label comprising said destination address. However, Dearing discloses that information encoded within a barcode may be sent to a printer which can print the address label to be applied to the package for routing and delivery to a requester. See paragraph [0040].
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention to have incoproated Dearing’s extracting of an address encoded within a barcode in order to print a human readable label within Shucker’s method of shipping as it may be desirable to provide the physical, readable address in certain instances where the user’s anonymity is not an issue. See paragraph [0039] of Dearing.
Regarding claim 36, Shucker discloses wherein said machine readable code is a barcode, and said obtaining of said machine readable code comprises electronically sending a request for a barcode and electronically receiving a barcode image in response. See paragraph [0005], [0015] and [0041] disclosing the machine readable code is a barcode. A user is provided with a machine readable code or barcode electronically such as via purchase. See figure 2 and paragraph [0048]-[0049].
Regarding claim 38, Shucker discloses a method of shipping a parcel. See abstract and page 1, paragraph [0005] disclosing a package delivery system in which a package is shipped.
Shucker discloses providng, by a carrier party, a machine readable code on a packaging, wherein said machine readable code represents data comprising a packaging identifier; See page 1, paragraph [0005] and [00158] disclosing a package with a machine-readable code for display on the package. The machine-readable code may be a QR code, barcode, or other suitable code. The QR code is associated with the package. See paragraph [0052]. See also paragraph [0041] disclosing a package delivery system receives a package for delivery. The package delivery system may be any system, company, organization, government service, or individual that delivers packages from one location to another. For example, the package delivery system may be a courier, postal service, package delivery company, a merchant system, a retailer, or any other suitable system that delivers packages. The package for delivery arrives at the package delivery system with appropriate paperwork for delivery to a user 101. The paperwork may be digital, a barcode or other machine-readable code, a sticker, or any suitable paperwork. The paperwork may contain a user 101 name, a user address, a confirmation number, a sender name and address, and other identifying information for the recipient, sender, origin location, and/or delivery location.
However, to the extent Shucker does not explicitly disclose that the machine-readable code comprises a package identifier, Hanks discloses processing parcels to be shipped where the parcels include scannable parcel identifiers. Machine-readable indica on a parcel comprises data indicative of an identifier for the parcel and a destination for the parcel. See paragraphs [0007] and [0010]. See also figure 1.
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention to include a parcel or package identifier as data represented by machine readable code, as suggested by Hanks, within Shucker’s system which also utilizes machine readable codes with package information and the results would have been predictable. Moreover, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention to include a package id in Shucker’s paperwork because Shucker discloses that the packaging with a machine-readable code and paperwork includes any suitable paperwork regarding the package and also indicates that the delivery address is associated with the package id as referenced in [0043]. Thus, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan that a package with a machine-readable code and all information regarding the package could include a package identifier as suggested by Hanks for the sake of associating the package identifier with all the other information regarding the package such as the sender, receiver, addresses, etc.
Shucker discloses electronically receiving, by a carrier party, said packaging identifier from said shipper party; See figure 1 and paragraphs [0020]-[0022] depicting network computing devices communicating with each other over a network including a server. A user can interact with a package delivery system comprising a web server. The package delivery system can deliver or receive packages and associates the package with an aerial delivery device. Scanning a QR code or other machine-readable code communicates information including delivery addresses, GPS locations, package details and other information to the server. See paragraphs [0023]-0033]. This information is used by the aerial delivery device. However, to the extent Shucker does not explicitly disclose a package identifier, Hanks discloses processing parcels to be shipped where the parcels include scannable parcel identifiers. Machine-readable indica on a parcel comprises data indicative of an identifier for the parcel and a destination for the parcel. See paragraphs [0004], [0007] and [0010] disclosing receiving, by a carrier party, the package id. See also figure 1.
Shucker discloses electronically receiving, by said carrier party, a recipient account identifier corresponding to a recipient party; electronically receiving, by said carrier party, a default destination from said recipient party. See paragraphs [0023]-[0027], [0039] and [0042] indicating a user (who can be a recipient) may enter the delivery information into the website of the package delivery system. However, Hunt more clearly discloses the recipient party providing an account identifier and default destination. Specifically, Hunt discloses a shopper account database in which a shopper record maintains information including the shopper identifier uniquely identifying the shopper and the shopper account as well as a shipping address for the shopper. See paragraph [0090]. The shopper registers this information with an e-commerce server by providing basic information such as a username, address, etc. See paragraph [0055]. Hunt discloses that shoppers register with the system by providing basic user information including a physical address. See paragraph [0113]. Paragraph [0150] further states the user account database stores a record for each user or shopper where each record includes a shipping address for the user. It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention to have incorporated Hunt’s shopper database with a shopper record including the recipient account id and default destination within Shucker’s system which also managed identifying information for a recipient in order to determine and/or confirm the default destination associated with a recipient and the results were predictable. Specifically, providing a default destination based on a recipient identification was an efficient way of determining where to ship a package and storing such information in a database such as Hunt’s would allow for quick and convenient access to this information when used in conjunction with Shucker’s shipping methods.
Shucker discloses electronically associating, by said carrier party, said recipient account identifier corresponding to a recipient party with said default destination from said recipient party. See paragraph [0041] disclosing a package delivery system receives a package for delivery. The package delivery system may be any system, company, organization, government service, or individual that delivers packages from one location to another. For example, the package delivery system may be a courier, postal service, package delivery company, a merchant system, a retailer, or any other suitable system that delivers packages. The package for delivery arrives at the package delivery system with appropriate paperwork for delivery to a user 101. The paperwork may be digital, a barcode or other machine-readable code, a sticker, or any suitable paperwork. The paperwork may contain a user 101 name, a user address, a confirmation number, a sender name and address, and other identifying information for the recipient, sender, origin location, and/or delivery location. Figure 4 discloses the method of identifying a delivery location. The aerial delivery device computing system is provided with information specifying that the QR code is located on a property associated with a destination address. Shucker discloses that the aerial delivery device transports the package to an address associated with a user 101. See paragraph [0055]. The aerial delivery device may navigate via a mapping program to an address to reach the address of the user. Although Shucker discloses electronically receiving, by said carrier party, a recipient account identifier corresponding to a recipient party as well as receiving the default destination, Hunt more clearly discloses that electronically associating, by said carrier party, said recipient account identifier corresponding to a recipient party with said default destination from said recipient party. Specifically, Hunt discloses a shopper account database in which a shopper record maintains information including the shopper identifier uniquely identifying the shopper and the shopper account as well as a shipping address for the shopper. See paragraph [0090]. It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention to have incorporated Hunt’s shopper database with a shopper record including the recipient account id and default destination within Shucker’s system which also managed identifying information for a recipient and the results were predictable. Specifically, providing a default destination based on a recipient identification was an efficient way of determining where to ship a package and storing such information in a database such as Hunt’s would allow for quick and convenient access to this information when used in conjunction with Shucker’s shipping methods.
Shucker discloses electronically receiving, by said carrier party, said recipient account identifier corresponding to a recipient party from said shipper party. The package for delivery arrives at the package delivery system with appropriate paperwork for delivery to a user 101. The paperwork may be digital, a barcode or other machine-readable code, a sticker, or any suitable paperwork. The paperwork may contain a user 101 name, a user address, a confirmation number, a sender name and address, and other identifying information for the recipient, sender, origin location, and/or delivery location.
Shucker discloses electronically determining, by said carrier party, a destination address for said packaging. The package for delivery arrives at the package delivery system with appropriate paperwork for delivery to a user 101. The paperwork may be digital, a barcode or other machine-readable code, a sticker, or any suitable paperwork. The paperwork may contain a user 101 name, a user address, a confirmation number, a sender name and address, and other identifying information for the recipient, sender, origin location, and/or delivery location. However, to the extent Shucker alone does not disclose electronically determining, by said carrier party, a destination for said packaging based on matching said recipient account identifier corresponding to a recipient party received from said shipper party with said recipient account identifier corresponding to a recipient party received from said recipient party or electronically sending, by said carrier party, a confirmation message indicating that said recipient account identifier corresponding to a recipient party received from said shipper party matched a recipient account identifier corresponding to a recipient party received from a recipient party, the combination of Shucker and Hunt disclose this feature. As noted above, both the recipient party and the shipper party provide a recipient account identifier to the carrier party in Shucker. Moreover, Hunt discloses a shopper account database in which a shopper record maintains information including the shopper identifier uniquely identifying the shopper and the shopper account as well as a shipping address for the shopper. See paragraph [0090]. Thus, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention to have incorporated Hunt’s shopper registration including registering an account with an e-commerce server including the recipient account id and default destination within Shucker’s system which also managed identifying information for a recipient such as recipient identifying information and recipient address provided by the shipper for the sake of matching and sending a message indicating a match occurred with a destination address as it served to confirm a recipient’s address and the results were predictable. Specifically, providing a default destination based on a recipient identification was an efficient way of determining where to ship a package and storing such information in a database such as Hunt’s would allow for quick and convenient access to this information when used in conjunction with Shucker’s shipping methods and as a means for confirming a destination address of the recipient.
Further, in a different context, Shucker discloses electronically sending, by said carrier party, a confirmation message indicating that said recipient account identifier corresponding to a recipient party received from said shipper party matched a recipient account identifier corresponding to a recipient party received from a recipient party. The package for delivery arrives at the package delivery system with appropriate paperwork for delivery to a user 101. The paperwork may be digital, a barcode or other machine-readable code, a sticker, or any suitable paperwork. The paperwork may contain a user 101 name, a user address, a confirmation number, a sender name and address, and other identifying information for the recipient, sender, origin location, and/or delivery location. Figure 4 discloses the method of identifying a delivery location. The aerial delivery device computing system is provided with information specifying that the QR code is located on a property associated with a destination address. Shucker discloses that the aerial delivery device transports the package to an address associated with a user 101. See paragraph [0055]. The aerial delivery device may navigate via a mapping program to an address to reach the address of the user. See page 5, paragraph [0063] disclosing that the aerial delivery device transmits the QR code to the package delivery system for confirmation of delivery location by the package delivery system. As an example, Shucker indicates that certain commercial locations may desire to receive different packages at different locations and more than one QR code may be employed. If there is a match to a location associated with a QR code, the delivery can be made. If there is not a match, the delivery may be aborted. In confirming a delivery location, Shucker is matching a recipient address received by the recipient party with that of the shipper party. A skilled artisan at the time of the invention would recognize that confirming a delivery location is inclusive of confirming a recipient’s id/address against that sent by the shipper.
Shucker discloses electronically associating, by said carrier party, said packaging identifier with said destination address. See paragraph [0014]-[0026] disclosing a package delivery system such as a courier service, a package delivery agent in which a user arranges for the delivery of a package by physically providing the package to the shipper party with a destination address. See paragraph [0026]-[0028] where a user interacts with a package delivery system, a merchant system or other system to arrange for the delivery of a package. The package for delivery arrives at the package delivery system with appropriate paperwork for delivery to a user 101. The paperwork may be digital, a barcode or other machine-readable code, a sticker, or any suitable paperwork. The paperwork may contain a user 101 name, a user address, a confirmation number, a sender name and address, and other identifying information for the recipient, sender, origin location, and/or delivery location. Figure 4 discloses the method of identifying a delivery location. However, to the extent Shucker does not explicitly disclose a package identifier is associated with the destination address, Hanks discloses processing parcels to be shipped where the parcels include scannable parcel identifiers. Machine-readable indica on a parcel comprises data indicative of an identifier for the parcel and a destination for the parcel. See paragraphs [0007] and [0010]. See also figure 1. It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention to include a parcel or package identifier as data represented by machine readable code, as suggested by Hanks, within Shucker’s system which also utilizes machine readable codes with package information and the results would have been predictable. Moreover, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention to include a package id in Shucker’s paperwork because Shucker discloses that the packaging with a machine-readable code and paperwork includes any suitable paperwork regarding the package and also indicates that the delivery address is associated with the package id as referenced in [0043]. Thus, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan that a package with a machine-readable code and all information regarding the package could include a package identifier as suggested by Hanks for the sake of associating the package identifier with all the other information regarding the package such as the sender, receiver, addresses, etc.
Shucker discloses electronically receiving, by said carrier party, a message comprising said data and indicating that said packaging from said shipper party was physically received by a handler party. See figure 2 depicting a package is received by a handler party at a delivery location and a QR code is scanned thereby sending a message indicating that packaging has been physically received. See also figure 3, paragraphs [0023]-[0065].
Shucker discloses wherein said packaging was physically received unaddressed to said destination address. See page 3, paragraph [0041]-[0043] disclosing that the machine readable code contains the delivery address, but the package is not addressed as the address is stored with the identification of the package in the package delivery system.
Shucker discloses and in response to electronically receiving said data, electronically sending, by said carrier party, said destination address to said handler party. See page 3, paragraph [0041]-[0043] disclosing that the machine readable code contains the delivery address, but the package is not addressed as the address is stored with the identification of the package in the package delivery system. Shucker does not disclose that for said handler party to print a label comprising said destination address. However, Dearing discloses that information encoded within a barcode may be sent to a printer which can print the address label to be applied to the package for routing and delivery to a requester. See paragraph [0040].
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention to have incoproated Dearing’s extracting of an address encoded within a barcode in order to print a human readable label within Shucker’s method of shipping as it may be desirable to provide the physical, readable address in certain instances where the user’s anonymity is not an issue. See paragraph [0039] of Dearing.
Regarding claim 39, Shucker discloses wherein said machine readable code is a barcode, and said obtaining of said machine readable code comprises electronically sending a request for a barcode and electronically receiving a barcode image in response. See paragraph [0005], [0015] and [0041] disclosing the machine readable code is a barcode. A user is provided with a machine readable code or barcode electronically such as via purchase. See figure 2 and paragraph [0048]-[0049].
25. Claim(s) 37 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shucker et al., US 2015/0317597 A1, 11/05/2015 (filed 05/02/2014) in view of Hanks, US 2016/0239789 A1, 08/18/2016 (filed 05/12/2015, continuation filed 02/13/2015), Hunt, US 2014/0164091 A1, 06/12/2014, Hillbush, US 8,719,182 B2, 05/06/2014 (filed 12/28/2012, priority dating to 02/07/2000), Dearing, et al., US 2015/0287113 A1, 10/08/2015 and Simske et al., US 7,543,745 B1, 06/09/2009.
Regarding claim 37, Shucker discloses wherein said receiving a barcode image further comprises receiving a corresponding alphanumeric code. See paragraph [0049] disclosing receiving a barcode image or alphanumeric code. Shucker does not disclose wherein said packaging identifier is initially generated using a random number generation algorithm or a chaotic function; however, Simske discloses that a package identifier is formed by aggregating RFID information, encrypted M bit EM information and print target information in which the RFID information is generated by a random number generator. Thus, Simske discloses that at least a portion of the package identifier is generated using a random number generator. See column 7, lines 24-34. It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention to have implemented Simske’s random number generator within Shucker’s package identifier as a way of assigning a package ID and the results would have been predictable as it was a well known method of assigning package IDs.
Regarding claim 40, Shucker discloses wherein said receiving a barcode image further comprises receiving a corresponding alphanumeric code. See paragraph [0049] disclosing receiving a barcode image or alphanumeric code. Shucker does not disclose wherein said packaging identifier is initially generated using a random number generation algorithm or a chaotic function; however, Simske discloses that a package identifier is formed by aggregating RFID information, encrypted M bit EM information and print target information in which the RFID information is generated by a random number generator. Thus, Simske discloses that at least a portion of the package identifier is generated using a random number generator. See column 7, lines 24-34. It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention to have implemented Simske’s random number generator within Shucker’s package identifier as a way of assigning a package ID and the results would have been predictable as it was a well known method of assigning package IDs.
26. Claim 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henry et al., US 11,107,029 B1, 08/31/2021 (filed 03/09/2015) in view of Hanks, US 2016/0239789 A1, 08/18/2016 (filed 05/12/2015, continuation filed 02/13/2015), Hunt, US 2014/0164091 A1, 06/12/2014 and Shucker et al., US 2015/0317597 A1, 11/05/2015 (filed 05/02/2014).
Regarding claim 41, Henry discloses a method of shipping a parcel. See abstract, columns 1-2, column 6 and figure 2 disclosing a method for facilitating shipping services of an item or parcel.
Henry discloses a shipper may utilize a user device comprising systems for shipping management in order to manage shipments, obtain information about shipments, and the like. A shipper may provide information to the shipping management system 111 as may be stored in database 113 such as in association with a user account for the shipper which meets the limitation, electronically receiving, from an ecommerce party, a request to open an ecommerce account; creating an ecommerce account corresponding to said ecommerce party. See column 22, lines 51-column 23, lines 18.
Henry discloses electronically receiving, from said ecommerce party, a first destination. See column 13, lines 48-67 disclosing providing shipping information including addresses.
Henry discloses electronically receiving, from said ecommerce party, payment information. See column 5, lines 42-50 and column 25, lines 39-50 disclosing pre-shipment status information includes payment information for the order.
Henry discloses electronically receiving, from a recipient party, a request to open a recipient account; creating a recipient account corresponding to said recipient party. See column 6, lines 11-15 and column 27 disclosing a recipient may also utilize the shipping management system to acquire status information about shipments. However, Hunt more clearly discloses receiving a request from a shopper or receiver to create an account. See paragraphs [0090], [0096] allowing a new shopper to register an account. It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention to have combined Hunt’s recipient account creation corresponding to a recipient party within Henry’s shipment management system for the purpose of providing shipment management for a recipient as suggested in column 6 of Henry and the results would have been predictable.
Henry discloses electronically receiving, from said recipient party, a second destination. See column 13, lines 43-65 disclosing a recipient may provide shipping information including alternate delivery instructions. See column 18, lines 19-25. However, Hanks more explicitly discloses receiving an additional destination from said recipient party. See paragraph [0046] disclosing a customer file may include a second destination address. Additionally, Hunt discloses a shopper may provide an address or multiple addresses. See paragraph [0090]. Hunt discloses a shopper account database in which a shopper record maintains information including the shopper identifier uniquely identifying the shopper and the shopper account as well as a shipping address for the shopper. See paragraph [0090]. The shopper registers this information with an e-commerce server by providing basic information such as a username, address, etc. See paragraph [0055]. Hunt discloses that shoppers register with the system by providing basic user information including a physical address. See paragraph [0113]. Paragraph [0150] further states the user account database stores a record for each user or shopper where each record includes a shipping address for the user. A user may also include multiple addresses (see figure 2B, 222 indicating multiple addresses supplied by the recipient). It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention to have incorporated Hank’s multiple destination addresses or Hunt’s shopper database with a shopper record including multiple addresses within Henry’s system which also managed identifying information for a recipient in order to determine and/or confirm the ideal or preferred destination associated with a recipient and the results were predictable. Specifically, providing a destination based on a recipient identification was an efficient way of determining where to ship a package and storing such information in a database such as Hunt’s would allow for quick and convenient access to this information when used in conjunction with Henry’s shipping methods.
Henry discloses creating a recipient account; however, Hunt more clearly discloses electronically receiving, from said recipient party, a recipient account identifier. See paragraph [0090] which provides a shopper id. Additionally, Hanks discloses
Henry discloses electronically receiving, from said ecommerce party, a first transmission comprising a request to create a shipment and said recipient account identifier. See column 13, lines 46-65 disclosing receiving a shipment of an item including a request to create a shipment and information about the recipient. As noted above, Hunt more explicitly discloses a recipient account identifier. Hank also discloses receiving a shipment request with a recipient account identifier. See paragraphs [0007], [0010], and [0046]-[0047] disclosing receiving a parcel with customer file which can include a recipients name or customer number.
Henry discloses creating a shipment record corresponding to said request to create a shipment; electronically associating said ecommerce account with said shipment record. See column 13, lines 46-column 14 and figure 2. The shipping management system obtains details regarding the shipment and creates a database record of the shipment. See also claim 1 of Henry.
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention to have incorporated Hunt’s teachings of receiving a recipient account identifier or Hanks’ recipient name/customer number within Henry’s shipment tracking system that provides shipment status information because it would allow for recipients to retrieve information regarding their package and status updates regarding the shipment and the results would have been predictable. Henry discloses providing a shipment identifier associated with a shipment record. See column 13, lines 46-67 disclosing generating a shipping label or postage indicia in Henry. Henry discloses information regarding the shipment includes information about the recipient including user account information.
Henry does not explicitly disclose verifying the recipient account identifier is associated with a recipient account; however, Shucker discloses electronically determining whether said first transmission's recipient account identifier is associated with a recipient account. See paragraph [0041] disclosing a package delivery system receives a package for delivery. The package for delivery arrives at the package delivery system with appropriate paperwork for delivery to a user 101. The paperwork may be digital, a barcode or other machine-readable code, a sticker, or any suitable paperwork. The paperwork may contain a user 101 name, a user address, a confirmation number, a sender name and address, and other identifying information for the recipient, sender, origin location, and/or delivery location. Figure 4 discloses the method of identifying a delivery location. The aerial delivery device computing system is provided with information specifying that the QR code is located on a property associated with a destination address. Shucker discloses that the aerial delivery device transports the package to an address associated with a user 101. See paragraph [0055]. The aerial delivery device may navigate via a mapping program to an address to reach the address of the user. Thus, Shucker discloses verifying that the first transmission including the request to create a shipment’s recipient account identifier is ultimately associated with a recipient account and determining a second destination; however, Hunt more clearly states that verifying whether said first transmission’s recipient account identifier is associated with a recipient account. Specifically, Hunt discloses a shopper account database in which a shopper record maintains information including the shopper identifier uniquely identifying the shopper and the shopper account as well as a shipping address for the shopper. See paragraph [0090]. The shopper registers this information with an e-commerce server by providing basic information such as a username, address, etc. See paragraph [0055]. Hunt discloses that shoppers register with the system by providing basic user information including a physical address. See paragraph [0113]. Paragraph [0150] further states the user account database stores a record for each user or shopper where each record includes a shipping address for the user. It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention to incorporate Shucker’s verification within Henry for purposes of verifying that the delivery is made to the correct recipient/location. Further, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention to have incorporated Hunt’s shopper database with a shopper record including the recipient account id and destination within Henry/Shucker’s system which also managed identifying information for a recipient in order to determine and/or confirm a recipient’s account and the destination associated with a recipient and the results were predictable. Specifically, providing a destination based on a recipient identification was an efficient way of determining where to ship a package and storing such information in a database such as Hunt’s would allow for quick and convenient access to this information in order to verify correct delivery of the package when used in conjunction with Henry/Shucker’s shipping methods.
Moreover, Hanks also discloses verifying a first transmission’s recipient account identifier is associated with a recipient account. See paragraphs [0007], [0010], [0044]-[0048] disclosing verifying that a recipient’s account is associated with a recipient name. Hanks also discloses electronically determining said second destination based on said first transmission's recipient account identifier and said recipient account associated with said recipient account identifier. See paragraphs [0044]-[0046] disclosing determining a second destination address associated with a recipient’s name and customer number. The second destination is associated with a customer file data structure as depicted in figure 2 and discussed in [0043]-[0046] which meets the limitations electronically associating said second destination with said shipment record. Furthermore, Hanks discloses electronically associating a package identifier with said shipment records. See paragraphs [0007] and [0010] disclosing associating a parcel id with shipment records. It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention to include a parcel or package identifier in the shipment records, as suggested by Hanks, within Henry/Shucker’s system which also utilizes machine readable codes with package information and the results would have been predictable.
Shucker discloses electronically receiving data comprising a packaging identifier and read from a machine-readable code of a packaging physically received from said ecommerce party, a packaging comprising a machine-readable code. See page 1, paragraph [0005] and [0015] disclosing a package with a machine-readable code for display on the package. The machine-readable code may be a QR code, barcode, or other suitable code. See also paragraph [0041] disclosing a package delivery system receives a package for delivery. The package delivery system may be any system, company, organization, government service, or individual that delivers packages from one location to another. For example, the package delivery system may be a courier, postal service, package delivery company, a merchant system, a retailer, or any other suitable system that delivers packages. The package for delivery arrives at the package delivery system with appropriate paperwork for delivery to a user 101. The paperwork may be digital, a barcode or other machine-readable code, a sticker, or any suitable paperwork. The paperwork may contain a user 101 name, a user address, a confirmation number, a sender name and address, and other identifying information for the recipient, sender, origin location, and/or delivery location. Paragraph [0005] discloses that a request for the package delivery includes an identification of the package. Paragraph [0043] discloses that the package delivery system obtains a delivery address from the digital information associated with the package and that the delivery address is stored with identification of the package in the package delivery system. See also claim 1.
However, to the extent Shucker does not explicitly disclose that the machine-readable code comprises a package identifier or receiving this data electronically, Hanks discloses processing parcels to be shipped where the parcels include scannable parcel identifiers. Machine-readable indica on a parcel comprises data indicative of an identifier for the parcel and a destination for the parcel. See paragraphs [0007] and [0010]. See also figure 1.
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention to include a parcel or package identifier as data represented by machine readable code, as suggested by Hanks, within Shucker’s system which also utilizes machine readable codes with package information and the results would have been predictable. Moreover, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention to include a package id in Shucker’s paperwork because Shucker discloses that the packaging with a machine-readable code and paperwork includes any suitable paperwork regarding the package and also indicates that the delivery address is associated with the package id as referenced in [0043]. Thus, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan that a package with a machine-readable code and all information regarding the package could include a package identifier as suggested by Hanks for the sake of associating the package identifier with all the other information regarding the package such as the sender, receiver, addresses, etc.
Shucker discloses said packaging physically received unaddressed to said second destination. See page 3, paragraph [0041]-[0043] disclosing that the machine readable code contains the delivery address, but the package is not addressed as the address is stored with the identification of the package in the package delivery system.
Shucker does not disclose electronically determining whether said data's packaging identifier is associated with a shipment record; electronically determining said second destination based on said data from said packaging received from said ecommerce party and said shipment record associated with said data's packaging identifier; However, Hanks discloses determining a second destination based on said data from packaging received from said ecommerce party and said shipment record associated with said data's packaging identifier. See paragraphs [0007], [0010], [0044]-[0048]. See paragraphs [0044]-[0046] disclosing determining a second destination address associated with a recipient’s name and customer number. The second destination is associated with a customer file data structure as depicted in figure 2 and discussed in [0043]-[0046] Furthermore, Hanks discloses electronically associating a package identifier with said shipment records. See paragraphs [0007] and [0010] disclosing associating a parcel id with shipment records. It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention to include a parcel or package identifier in the shipment records, as suggested by Hanks, within Henry/Shucker’s system which also utilizes machine readable codes with package information and the results would have been predictable.
Henry discloses electronically receiving, from either said ecommerce party or said recipient, a second transmission comprising a request to return said packaging; associating said request to return said packaging with said shipment record; electronically receiving data comprising a packaging identifier and read from the machine readable code of a packaging physically received from said recipient party, wherein said packaging was physically received unaddressed to said first destination, and electronically determining whether said data's packaging identifier is associated with a shipment record; electronically determining said first destination based on said data from said packaging received from said recipient party, said shipment record associated with said data's packaging identifier; said ecommerce account associated with said shipment record, and said request to return said packaging associated with said shipment record; electronically associating said first destination with said shipment record; and physically delivering said packaging to said first destination. See column 26, lines 15-column 27 disclosing that a recipient may wish to return an item in which case the shipping management system may be used to request a suitable return label or postage indicia and processing of the return. The return would be managed with a return shipping label in the same manner as the shipment of the item. Tracking information based on the shipment record and package identifier would be utilized by the shipping management system to physically deliver the return. As noted above, Shucker discloses a machine-readable code on the packaging providing the delivery and shipment information. See also paragraphs [0115]-[0121] of Hanks disclosing a return address associated with all parcels and customer profiles in the same manner described above with respect to the shipment of returns. See also figure 20. It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention to have provided a return process using the same methodology as the shipping process as described in Henry and hanks to allow for packages that a recipient wished to return to be shipped back. Shucker discloses said packaging physically received unaddressed to said first destination. See page 3, paragraph [0041]-[0043] disclosing that the machine readable code contains the delivery address, but the package is not addressed as the address is stored with the identification of the package in the package delivery system.
Response to Arguments
Restriction
27. Beginning on page 23, Applicant argues the amendment recites the same preamble across all claims and the restriction requirement cannot be sustained. Applicant argues the reference to a prior restriction in the original prosecution is not relevant.
Examiner disagrees.
The restriction made during the original prosecution closely mirror the claims subject to the current restriction requirement. A comparison of the claim groupings indicates that the original prosecution also required a restriction between the disparate inventions. For example, groups I-III which closely mirror the current claims of this reissue were drawn to separate and distinct inventions. Examiner finds the reintroduction of similar claims (i.e. receiving a parcel versus shipping a parcel) presents a similar basis for the restriction as was presented in the original examination. In Reissue, the original patent claims will be held to be constructively elected. Claims drawn to the original patented invention will continue to be examined and the non-elected claims to any added inventions will be held in abeyance in a withdrawn status. The non-elected claims will only be examined if filed in a divisional reissue application. Accordingly, claims 28-34 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention and withdrawn from consideration. See 37 CFR 1.176 and MPEP 1450.
With respect to the Applicant’ argument that the preamble is now the same as per the amendment, Examiner notes that merely having the same preamble does not avoid a restriction requirement if the criteria for it is met.
Applicant argues the claims invoke the same detailed architecture and processes and thus cannot be divided without severing essential structural and functional interrelationships among the claim limitations and elements. Applicant states the claims recite alternative statutory formulations. Applicant argues the record does not demonstrate the claims define independent/distinct inventions. Applicant argues there is no search or examination burden. Applicant argues claims 1-20 are directed to methods of shipping a parcel in a code-based system and the bodies of claims 28, 33, and 34 are directed to shipping a package. Applicant argues the groups recite the same core elements including automatic determination of a destination address based on an identifier and a default destination provided by a recipient, creation of shipment or transaction records and use of machine-readable codes associated with packaging. Thus, Applicant argues the restriction is not supported.
Examiner disagrees.
Claim 1 is drawn to a method of shipping a parcel comprising obtaining a packaging with a machine-readable code representing data comprising a packaging identifier. A shipper party sends this data and a recipient account identifier corresponding to the recipient party to the server where the server determines a destination address based on the recipient account identifier and a default destination previously stored on the server. A confirmation message indicating the destination was determined is then received and the shipper party sends payment information. This method is directed towards the shipping and payment of a parcel.
In contrast, the body of claim 28 discloses receiving a shipment and determining where the shipment should be dropped off at a selected drop off location based on a first machine readable code and generating a second physical machine readable code including an identifier for identifying a package. Upon receiving the package at a drop off location, instructions on what to do with the packaging upon scanning this code is sent to the package handler. Thus, the invention of claim 1 and the invention of claim 28 are different as claim 1 is drawn to shipping a package and confirming via a server that a destination address based on the recipient account identifier was determined; whereas, claim 28 is drawn to the process of receiving a request to send a shipment from a user of an ecommerce system, determining a destination address, creating a transaction record, presenting options for locations for the user to drop off the shipment for transport, sending a machine-readable code to a user to be scanned by a device at a drop off location, verifying that the drop off location is correct, generating a second physical machine readable code including an identifier to identify a package where the identifier is associated with the transaction record, receiving the package at the drop off location and sending instructions to the package handler after scanning a physical machine-readable code on a specific drop off location.
Thus, claim 28 is drawn to the actual package handling by the user of an ecommerce system and facilitation of the shipment using various machine readable codes to direct shipments to drop off locations and package handling; whereas, claim 1 is determining and confirming a destination address and sending payment information to the server by a shipper party. Claims 1 and 28 do not even deal with the same parties and are clearly drawn to different inventions. While claim 1 is concerned with a shipper party confirming a destination address and sending payment via server, claim 28 is drawn to the user of an ecommerce system facilitating the drop off of a package and directing it to a correct location. Thus, Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s argument that the claims have the same detailed architecture and processes and thus cannot be divided without severing essential structural and functional interrelationships among the claim limitations and elements.
Moreover, the dependent claims of claims 1, 3, and 14 expand on the features of identifying destination addresses and payment information; whereas the dependent claims of claim 28 expand on what to do with the packaging based on transaction records or instructions.
Amended claims 33-34 are drawn to dropping off a package including steps requiring options for locations for a user to drop off the shipment for transport, verifying the selected drop off location, electronically unlocking a locker after verification, and placing a machine-readable code and an alphanumeric code on the packaging and dropping it off at a drop off location in a locker. Similar to claim 28, these claims are drawn to the actual package handling by the user of an ecommerce system and facilitation of the shipment using various machine readable codes to direct shipments to drop off locations and package handling; whereas, claim 1 is determining and confirming a destination address and sending payment information to the server by a shipper party.
Applicant further argue the combination/sub-combination restriction must have separate utility by itself or in other combinations. Applicant argues claims 28-34 participate in the same shipping transaction processes as in claims 1-20 because the server-side routing logic cooperates to move a parcel from the shipper to the recipient. Thus, Applicant argues there is not a separate utility.
Examiner disagrees. Claims 28-34 have a separate utility as noted above. Specifically, claims 28-34 recite features for how to treat a package that has been received for shipment and the facilitation or transport of the shipment and determination of specific drop off locations where the package should be delivered.
Oath/Declaration
28. The reissue oath/declaration filed with this application is defective (see 37 CFR 1.175 and MPEP § 1414) because of the following: The prior claims have been cancelled and the newly presented claims are withdrawn from consideration for being directed to a non-elected invention as outlined above. Thus, the reissue oath/declaration fails to identify a proper error which is relied upon to support the reissue application. If errors previously identified in the inventor’s oath or declaration for a reissue application pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section are no longer being relied upon as the basis for reissue, the applicant must identify an error being relied upon as the basis for reissue. See 37 CFR 1.175 and MPEP § 1414.
35 USC 112(a) Rejections
29. Beginning on page 34, Applicant argues figures 6a-6c, 7, 14, and 18 address the 112(a) rejections and provide written support. Citing figures 6a and 6b, Applicant argues these figures disclose a data entry form where a user can create a user name, email address, phone number, and select courier delivery addresses, preferred drop-off locations or pick up locations. Citing figure 6c, Applicant argues the figure discloses a “My account” screen where a user can select how aspects of the code-based shipping system functions. Applicant states radio buttons 53 and 54 control selection of package destination options including a “preferred address” and “preferred pickup locations”. Thus, Applicant argues a skilled artisan would understand that this selection means the server is in possession of the destination address for the package. Applicant also cites figures 7 and 14 stating it depicts entry of preferred addresses and recipient information. Citing figure 18, Applicant states it is clear that what is displayed is determined by the recipient’s entries in screen 6c. Further citing columns 15-16, Applicant argues what is displayed depends on recipient’s selection from radio button groups 53 and 54. Applicant argues the shipping system uses a recipient account id to determine the mode of delivery and a delivery location/address. Applicant argues this is done by matching at the server the recipient account id with stored destination information provided in screens as in figures 6b and 6c. Applicant also argues a skilled artisan would understand that an “original shipment” and a “return shipment” proceed in the same manner and follow the same processes. Applicant also argues the label associated with a party can change based on the specific use of the code-based system and skilled artisan would understand these labels are for convenience and clarify the direct of travel of a package. With respect to claim 1, Applicant argues the specification describes code-based routing without requiring a user to enter a destination address as in figure 14 and columns 13-14. Applicant states the packaging has a machine-readable code corresponding to a packaging identifier and that the server associates that packaging identifier with a shipping record. Applicant states the system determines a destination associated with a recipient of the packaging as in figures 6b and 6c and uses that information to populate a shipment/transaction record. The server sends instructions to the package handler concerning routing or handling of a package associated with an id and describes scanning of the code at the drop off location. Thus, Applicant argues the limitations are supported.
Examiner disagrees that the limitation reciting, “sending… a recipient account identifier corresponding to a recipient party to said server, wherein said server is configured to determine a destination address for said packaging based on said recipient account identifier corresponding to a recipient party and a default destination previously received by said server from said recipient party” and “electronically receiving, from said server, a confirmation message indicating that the server was able to determine a destination for said packaging based on said recipient account identifier corresponding to a recipient party.” While certain portions of this limitation find support such as “sending… a recipient account identifier”, there is no specific support that the server determines a destination address id determined based on the recipient account identifier and a default destination previously received by the server. The ‘865 patent discloses in column 14 with reference to figure 15, “FIG. 15 is the next screen shown, which the user (e.g., shipper) uses to communicate how he or she will get the package to the package handlers (e.g., shipping company employees). In the preferred embodiment, the user can choose to have a courier pick up the package from him or her, or to self drop off the package at a dropoff location/point. The exemplary data shown in FIG. 15 assumes the user has set in his or her settings a preferred address for couriers and a pair of preferred dropoff locations (described above with respect to FIG. 6). Core software 10 preferably pulls said settings from the database and sends them to user device software 17 as part of the reply to user device software 17 sending the selected recipient. For any dropoff locations, core software 10 also projects availability based on the maximum capacity for dropoff and used capacity for dropoff associated with the location's record in the database. This can be projected, e.g., using a newsvendor model (a statistical method known in the art). If any location is projected to be full, the core software returns this as a flag with the location.
User device software 17 displays the preferred courier address 86. The user can select it or select button 87 to choose another address. If the user does not have a preferred courier address set, preferred courier address 86 isn't shown, and button 87 preferably says “Choose address” instead of “Choose other address”. Similarly, the software displays preferred dropoff locations, such as unavailable dropoff location 88 and available dropoff location 89. Preferably, unavailable dropoff locations are so marked (e.g., by prepending “[Full]”) and cannot be selected. The user can select an available dropoff location or select button 90 to choose another location. If the user does not have any preferred locations with availability, button 90 preferably says “Choose location” instead of “Choose other location”. In any case, the user's selection is sent to the server and recorded.”
Thus, the server receives a user’s address selection and records it, but there is no disclosure for the server being configured to determine the destination address from a recipient account identifier and a default destination and then sending a confirmation message indicating the server determined a destination based on the recipient account identifier. The cited portions by Applicant do not disclose a confirmation message.
Regarding claim 3, Examiner is unable to find support in the Specification for several limitations including electronically determining, by a carrier party, a destination address…based on matching a recipient account identifier…with said recipient account identifier corresponding to a recipient party received from said recipient party; electronically sending a confirmation message indicating that said recipient account identifier…matched a recipient account identifier corresponding to a recipient party received from a recipient party. Similar to the explanation above, the ‘865 patent falls short of disclosing a confirmation message.
Regarding claim 14, Examiner is unable to find support in the Specification regarding receiving a first destination from an ecommerce party followed by receiving a second destination from a recipient party. It is unclear how several features and the combination of elements is supported in the Specification. For example, it is unclear where support for receiving a second destination from a recipient after receiving a first destination from an ecommerce party is supported. It is unclear where verifying whether a first transmission’s recipient account identifier is associated with a recipient account is supported. It is unclear where a second destination is electronically determined based on said first transmission’s recipient account identifier and said recipient account associated with said recipient account identifier. It is unclear where a second destination is associated with a shipment record, it is unclear where a second destination is determined based on data from an ecommerce party and shipment record, it is unclear where a request to return the packaging.
Applicant cites various portions of the Specification for support. While these portions may support receiving a first destination or payment information, there is no explicit support for receiving a second destination or any of the limitations regarding the second destination. Further, there is no support for verifying if an account id is associated with a recipient account or for returning a package. The cited portions disclose rerouting packages by changing the address, but not returning a package.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103
30. Beginning on page 50, Applicant argues the rejections under 35 USC 103. On pages 50-55, Applicant argues there is no motivation to combine based on the references, but rather based on hindsight reasoning. Applicant further argues none of the prior art identifies problems solved by packaging-identifier forward and reverse routing model, the need for unaddressed packaging, destination determination, account-matching logic, forward-and-return routing, server-side computation of destination addresses, removal of destination data from partial indica, routing logic, destination look up.
Examiner disagrees as these are broad assertions without any support for what the references lack with respect to the specific claim language. Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Further, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Without any specific argument as to what feature is lacking, Examiner refers to the rejections above with respect to how each reference teaches each limitation.
Applicant argues none of the references identify a reason to merge systems into the limitations that the claim recites without addressing the specific reasons already outlined in the office action above. Without any specific argument as to what feature is lacking, Examiner refers to the rejections above with respect to how each reference teaches each limitation and the motivations provided to combine said references.
Applicant argues Shucker has no disclosure of packaging comprising a machine-readable code and that the proposed modifications would eliminate the sender-supplied destination address and require the carrier server to compute the destination based on a recipient account id. Applicant argues the proposed modifications would eliminate the need for property-based QR codes because the server would already know the destination from account data and also eliminate the need for a packaging-based code. Applicant argues removal of the destination from Shucker’s paperwork and property-based code would destroy the integrity of the Shucker’s system.
Examiner disagrees.
First, Shucker does disclose a machine-readable code. Shucker discloses placing, by a manufacturer party, a machine readable code on a packaging, wherein said machine readable code represents data comprising a packaging identifier; See page 1, paragraph [0005] and [00158] disclosing a package with a machine-readable code for display on the package. The machine-readable code may be a QR code, barcode, or other suitable code. The QR code is associated with the package. See paragraph [0052]. See also paragraph [0041] disclosing a package delivery system receives a package for delivery. The package delivery system may be any system, company, organization, government service, or individual that delivers packages from one location to another. For example, the package delivery system may be a courier, postal service, package delivery company, a merchant system, a retailer, or any other suitable system that delivers packages. The package for delivery arrives at the package delivery system with appropriate paperwork for delivery to a user 101. The paperwork may be digital, a barcode or other machine-readable code, a sticker, or any suitable paperwork. The paperwork may contain a user 101 name, a user address, a confirmation number, a sender name and address, and other identifying information for the recipient, sender, origin location, and/or delivery location. However, to the extent Shucker does not explicitly disclose that the machine-readable code comprises a package identifier, Hanks discloses processing parcels to be shipped where the parcels include scannable parcel identifiers. Machine-readable indica on a parcel comprises data indicative of an identifier for the parcel and a destination for the parcel. See paragraphs [0007] and [0010]. See also figure 1. It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention to include a parcel or package identifier as data represented by machine readable code, as suggested by Hanks, within Shucker’s system which also utilizes machine readable codes with package information and the results would have been predictable. Moreover, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention to include a package id in Shucker’s paperwork because Shucker discloses that the packaging with a machine-readable code and paperwork includes any suitable paperwork regarding the package and also indicates that the delivery address is associated with the package id as referenced in [0043]. Thus, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan that a package with a machine-readable code and all information regarding the package could include a package identifier as suggested by Hanks for the sake of associating the package identifier with all the other information regarding the package such as the sender, receiver, addresses, etc.
Thus, Shucker already discloses using a machine-readable code and modifying Shucker to include Hank’s package identifier as part of the machine readable code would have been obvious because the machine readable code included all information regarding the package. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to include the package identifier within the machine readable code as it is pertinent to information related to the package paperwork disclosed in Shucker and the results would have been predictable.
Claim 1
Beginning on page 56, Applicant argues Shucker does not disclose machine readable code provided with the packaging that represents data comprising a package identifier or that any machine readable code associated with packaging encodes other than conventional address or shipping label information. Applicant argues Hanks is relied upon to teach a label that encodes the parcel identifier and at least one destination. In contrast, Applicant argues claim 1 describes a code that carries a packaging identifier and describes a server-side account-based routing model that computes the destination address rather than merely a label in which destination information is directly encoded within the code itself. Further, Applicant argues substituting Hanks’ indicia into Shucker would change the nature of the machine-readable code from an identifier used in conjunction with a server-side account lookup into a hybrid identifier-destination token. Examiner disagrees. Initially, the claim does not describe a server-side account-based routing model that “computes” the destination address. This is simply not recited. The claim merely recites sending a recipient account identifier to a server which determines a destination address based on the recipient account identifier and a default destination. The server then sends a confirmation message indicating a destination was determined. However, there are rejections under 35 USC 112(a) regarding these limitations and the support for the computational aspect of the server. Further, Shucker discloses receiving a barcode or other machine-readable code including identifying information for the recipient on a package at a package delivery system which can be any system, company, organization, government service or individual that delivers packages from one location to another such as a courier, postal service, package delivery company, merchant system, retailer or other suitable system that delivers packages. See paragraph [0041] disclosing a package delivery system receives a package for delivery. The package for delivery arrives at the package delivery system with appropriate paperwork for delivery to a user 101. The paperwork may be digital, a barcode or other machine-readable code, a sticker, or any suitable paperwork. The paperwork may contain a user 101 name, a user address, a confirmation number, a sender name and address, and other identifying information for the recipient, sender, origin location, and/or delivery location. Shucker further states that the delivery address may be from digital information associated with the package and that the delivery address is stored with identification of the package in the package delivery system . See paragraph [0043]. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would recognize that upon scanning a barcode or machine-readable code on a package, the server would “determine” a recipient identifier. Thus, Examiner finds that the carrier party electronically determines a destination address for said packaging based on said recipient account identifier corresponding to a recipient party received from said shipper party. Regarding Applicant’s argument that substituting Hanks’ indicia into Shucker would change the nature of the machine-readable code from an identifier used in conjunction with a server-side account lookup into a hybrid identifier-destination token, Examiner notes that Hank is relied upon to disclose that the machine-readable code comprises a package identifier. Hanks discloses processing parcels to be shipped where the parcels include scannable parcel identifiers. Machine-readable indica on a parcel comprises data indicative of an identifier for the parcel and a destination for the parcel. See paragraphs [0007] and [0010]. See also figure 1. It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention to include a parcel or package identifier as data represented by machine readable code, as suggested by Hanks, within Shucker’s system which also utilizes machine readable codes with package information and the results would have been predictable. Moreover, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention to include a package id in Shucker’s paperwork because Shucker discloses that the packaging with a machine-readable code and paperwork includes any suitable paperwork regarding the package and also indicates that the delivery address is associated with the package id as referenced in [0043]. Thus, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan that a package with a machine-readable code and all information regarding the package could include a package identifier as suggested by Hanks for the sake of associating the package identifier with all the other information regarding the package such as the sender, receiver, addresses, etc. Applicant argues Hunt does not describe a method in which a separate shipper party obtains a packaging and machine-readable code for that packaging, sends the packaging identifier and recipient account identifier to the server, relies on the server to determine the destination address and default destination received by the server from a recipient party. Applicant argues Hunt does not disclose a default destination, unaddressed packing or a process in which destination computation occurs at the server. Applicant argues a combination of Hunt with Shucker would remove the sender-supplied destination and property-based QR code verification architecture of Shucker. Examiner disagrees. Initially, it is noted that Hunt is relied upon in combination with Shucker and other references, not singularly. Further, Hunt is relied upon to disclose determining a destination address for said packaging is based on said recipient account identifier corresponding to a recipient party and a default destination previously received by said server from said recipient party. Specifically, Hunt discloses a shopper account database in which a shopper record maintains information including the shopper identifier uniquely identifying the shopper and the shopper account as well as a shipping address for the shopper. See paragraph [0090]. It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention to have incorporated Hunt’s shopper database with a shopper record including the recipient account id and default destination within Shucker’s system which also managed identifying information for a recipient and the results were predictable. Specifically, providing a default destination based on a recipient identification was an efficient way of determining where to ship a package and storing such information in a database such as Hunt’s would allow for quick and convenient access to this information when used in conjunction with Shucker’s shipping methods. The argument that a combination of Hunt with Shucker would remove the sender-supplied destination and property-based QR code verification architecture of Shucker is not convincing. Incorporating a database with a shopper ID and default destination within Shucker would only serve to provide additional data as part of Shucker’s machine readable code which already includes a delivery address and identifying information for a recipient. Shucker discloses the paperwork may be digital, a barcode, or other machine-readable code and can include a name, user address, sender name/address, and other identifying information for the recipient, sender, origin location and/or delivery location. Shucker further states that the delivery address may be from digital information associated with the package and that the delivery address is stored with identification of the package in the package delivery system . See paragraph [0043]. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would recognize that upon scanning a barcode or machine-readable code on a package, the server would “determine” both the recipient and the associated delivery address stored in association with the recipient. However, as noted above, although Shucker discloses electronically sending, by said shipper party, a recipient account identifier corresponding to a recipient party to said server such as via the barcode as well as determining the destination address associated with the recipient party, Hunt more clearly states that determining a destination address for said packaging is based on said recipient account identifier corresponding to a recipient party and a default destination previously received by said server from said recipient party. Specifically, Hunt discloses a shopper account database in which a shopper record maintains information including the shopper identifier uniquely identifying the shopper and the shopper account as well as a shipping address for the shopper. See paragraph [0090]. It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention to have incorporated Hunt’s shopper database with a shopper record including the recipient account id and default destination within Shucker’s system which also managed identifying information for a recipient and the results were predictable. Specifically, providing a default destination based on a recipient identification was an efficient way of determining where to ship a package and storing such information in a database such as Hunt’s would allow for quick and convenient access to this information when used in conjunction with Shucker’s shipping methods. While Applicant argues this would change the operation of Shucker, it is unclear how providing additional package data in a machine readable code that already includes package information would change the operation of Shucker.
Further, the claim does not recite unaddressed packing or a process in which destination computation occurs at the server. It merely states the server is configured to determine a destination address. Moreover, these claims have pending issues under 35 USC 112(a) as outlined above.
Applicant argues neither Hunt nor Hilbush disclose payment information sent by a shipper party or a payment flow in which a shipper has obtained packaging and a machine readable code transmits payment information to the server as part of the process in which the server computes a destination address. Again, Applicant argues adapting Hunt’s shopper payment routine and Hilbush’s customer payment routine to the shipper-party payment flow of Shucker/Hanks would require reconstruction of the roles and parties in Shucker and Hilbush, changing the structure of the system.
Examiner disagrees. Initially, it is noted, Applicant does not explain how or why it would require reconstruction of the parties. Next, the claim merely states sending payment information to the server, it does not state that a machine-readable code transmits payment information to the server as part of a computation of a destination address. Further, these claims currently are rejected under 35 USC 112(a) for lack of support of such features. Shucker discloses payment on delivery or payment of delivery costs at pickup was well known in the art (see paragraph [0003] as does Hank (see [0010]; however, Shucker does not disclose electronically sending, by said shipper party, payment information to said server. However, Hunt discloses providing payment information. See paragraph [0055]-[0056] and general disclosure. However, Hunt provides a payment from the shopper. Hilbush discloses an internet package shipping system and method in which a payment system is associated with the order receiving system for receiving payment information from a customer and processing a customer payment for shipment of the package via a payment interface on an Internet site which meets the limitation, electronically sending, by said shipper party, payment information to said server. See column 4, lines 4-17 and columns 33-34, “Payment Routine”. It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention to have incorporated Hilbush’s electronic payment for shipments within Shucker’s package delivery system and the results would have been predictable because it was desirable at the time of the invention to allow for electronic payment for shipping as opposed to traditional cash on delivery type methods in order to fully automate the shipment processing of packages including the payment portion.
With regard to the Applicant’s argument that Hilbush does not disclose payment information sent by a shipper party, Examiner disagrees as Hillbush very clearly states receiving electronic payments for shipments. The payment information is on file or from an account with the shipping service provider as indicated in column 4 and columns 33-34.
Applicant argues combining all four references would remove the core elements of Shucker and result in a different claim configuration. Again, broad assertions and generalizations without an explanation of how it would remove Shucker’s operation are not sufficient. Moreover, there are issues under 35 USC 112(a) with respect to the “server centric routing” premise that is argued. Finally, Examiner does not find that the combination of these references would remove core elements for reasons already outlined above and reasons provided for the combination.
Regarding claim 3, Applicant argues the proposed combination would alter the operation of Shucker. Applicant argues Shucker does not disclose any code applied to packaging or a packaging identifier. Applicant argues Shucker places a machine readable code at a property location associated with a recipient and uses the code for location verification. The QR code, Applicant argues, never functions as a package identifier. Applicant argues no packaging identifier is received from any party and the other references do not teach this either. Applicant argues Shucker requires sender supplied destination information in the form of paperwork accompanying the package but does not disclose server based account processing.
Examiner disagrees. Shucker discloses receiving a barcode or other machine-readable code including identifying information for the recipient on a package at a package delivery system which can be any system, company, organization, government service or individual that delivers packages from one location to another such as a courier, postal service, package delivery company, merchant system, retailer or other suitable system that delivers packages. See paragraph [0041] disclosing a package delivery system receives a package for delivery. The package for delivery arrives at the package delivery system with appropriate paperwork for delivery to a user 101. The paperwork may be digital, a barcode or other machine-readable code, a sticker, or any suitable paperwork. The paperwork may contain a user 101 name, a user address, a confirmation number, a sender name and address, and other identifying information for the recipient, sender, origin location, and/or delivery location. Shucker further states that the delivery address may be from digital information associated with the package and that the delivery address is stored with identification of the package in the package delivery system . See paragraph [0043]. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would recognize that upon scanning a barcode or machine-readable code on a package, the server would “determine” a recipient identifier. Thus, Examiner finds that the carrier party electronically determines a destination address for said packaging based on said recipient account identifier corresponding to a recipient party received from said shipper party. While Shucker also discloses another machine-readable code for display at the preferred delivery location (i.e. first code), this is not relied upon for the portion of the claim reciting a machine readable code on the packaging. Moreover, the rejections also reference a secondary reference for this feature stating that to the extent Shucker does not explicitly disclose that the machine-readable code comprises a package identifier, Hanks discloses processing parcels to be shipped where the parcels include scannable parcel identifiers. Machine-readable indica on a parcel comprises data indicative of an identifier for the parcel and a destination for the parcel. See paragraphs [0007] and [0010]. See also figure 1.
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention to include a parcel or package identifier as data represented by machine readable code, as suggested by Hanks, within Shucker’s system which also utilizes machine readable codes with package information and the results would have been predictable. Moreover, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention to include a package id in Shucker’s paperwork because Shucker discloses that the packaging with a machine-readable code and paperwork includes any suitable paperwork regarding the package and also indicates that the delivery address is associated with the package id as referenced in [0043]. Thus, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan that a package with a machine-readable code and all information regarding the package could include a package identifier as suggested by Hanks for the sake of associating the package identifier with all the other information regarding the package such as the sender, receiver, addresses, etc.
It is noted that while Applicant alleges the combination would render Shucker inoperable, there is no support provided for this argument. A broad, general statement without evidentiary support is not sufficient to overcome the rejection.
Applicant argues Hunt does not disclose any carrier side receipt of account identifiers in a shipping workflow or perform a look up of an address based on an account identifier much less one sent by a shipper and recipient. Even if Hunt did, Applicant argues such a system in Shucker would eliminate the sender supplied destination address required for Shucker’s mapping program and would eliminate the property-based location verification that forms the core of Shucker’s operation. Applicant argues Hank discloses applying a machine-readable object to a parcel that encodes both a parcel id and destination. Applicant argues this is a direct encoding of the destination and claim 3 requires the server determine the destination based on matching the recipient account with a recipient account identifier corresponding to a shipper party. Applicant argues this contradicts claim 3. Finally, Applicant argues claim 3 determines the destination for the packaging based on a match between the account id and the account id from a recipient and that Shucker discloses no such account matching or destination determination logic. Applicant states Shucker does not physically receive packaging from a shipper party and associate, by a carrier party, said packaging identifier with a destination address. Applicant states Hanks and Hunt do nothing to cure Shucker’s deficiencies.
Examiner disagrees.
First, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, Hunt was relied upon to disclose providing a recipient account identifier and a default destination by a recipient/shopper. As noted in the rejections, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention to have incorporated Hunt’s shopper database with a shopper record including the recipient account id and default destination within Shucker’s system which also managed identifying information for a recipient and the results were predictable. Specifically, providing a default destination based on a recipient identification was an efficient way of determining where to ship a package and storing such information in a database such as Hunt’s would allow for quick and convenient access to this information when used in conjunction with Shucker’s shipping methods.
The argument that this contradicts claim 3 because it is a direct encoding of the destination, it is noted the claim states receiving a recipient account identifier and a default destination from the recipient party and receiving a recipient account id from a shipper party. As outlined in the rejections above, Shucker discloses receiving recipient id information in the paperwork with the package.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that Shucker discloses no account matching or destination determination logic, does not physically receive packaging from a shipper party and associate, by a carrier party, said packaging identifier with a destination address and that Hanks and Hunt do nothing to cure Shucker’s deficiencies, Examiner disagrees. Shucker discloses receiving a barcode or other machine-readable code including identifying information for the recipient on a package at a package delivery system which can be any system, company, organization, government service or individual that delivers packages from one location to another such as a courier, postal service, package delivery company, merchant system, retailer or other suitable system that delivers packages. See paragraph [0041] disclosing a package delivery system receives a package for delivery. The package for delivery arrives at the package delivery system with appropriate paperwork for delivery to a user 101. The paperwork may be digital, a barcode or other machine-readable code, a sticker, or any suitable paperwork. The paperwork may contain a user 101 name, a user address, a confirmation number, a sender name and address, and other identifying information for the recipient, sender, origin location, and/or delivery location. Shucker further states that the delivery address may be from digital information associated with the package and that the delivery address is stored with identification of the package in the package delivery system . See paragraph [0043]. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would recognize that upon scanning a barcode or machine-readable code on a package, the server would “determine” a recipient identifier. Thus, Examiner finds that the carrier party electronically determines a destination address for said packaging based on said recipient account identifier corresponding to a recipient party received from said shipper party. Next, regarding the portion of the limitation reciting, “said recipient account identifier corresponding to a recipient party received from said recipient party”, as noted in the rejections above, Hunt discloses a shopper account database in which a shopper record maintains information including the shopper identifier uniquely identifying the shopper and the shopper account as well as a shipping address for the shopper. See paragraph [0090]. Hunt discloses that shoppers register with the system by providing basic user information. See paragraph [0113]. Paragraph [0150] further states the user account database stores a record for each user or shopper where each record includes a user name, address, and payment information for a user. The shopper registers this information with an e-commerce server by providing basic information such as a username, address, etc. See paragraph [0055]. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would recognize that a shopper’s registration includes a recipient account identifier (username) and the results would have been predictable to one skilled in the art. Thus, the registration by the recipient party including setting up basic user information such as a user name reads on the portion of the limitation reciting “said recipient account identifier corresponding to a recipient party received from said recipient party”. Thus, Shucker discloses electronically determining, by said carrier party, a destination address for said packaging. The package for delivery arrives at the package delivery system with appropriate paperwork for delivery to a user 101. The paperwork may be digital, a barcode or other machine-readable code, a sticker, or any suitable paperwork. The paperwork may contain a user 101 name, a user address, a confirmation number, a sender name and address, and other identifying information for the recipient, sender, origin location, and/or delivery location. However, to the extent Shucker alone does not disclose electronically determining, by said carrier party, a destination for said packaging based on matching said recipient account identifier corresponding to a recipient party received from said shipper party with said recipient account identifier corresponding to a recipient party received from said recipient party or electronically sending, by said carrier party, a confirmation message indicating that said recipient account identifier corresponding to a recipient party received from said shipper party matched a recipient account identifier corresponding to a recipient party received from a recipient party, the combination of Shucker and Hunt disclose this feature. As noted above, both the recipient party and the shipper party provide a recipient account identifier to the carrier party in Shucker. Moreover, Hunt discloses a shopper account database in which a shopper record maintains information including the shopper identifier uniquely identifying the shopper and the shopper account as well as a shipping address for the shopper. See paragraph [0090]. Thus, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention to have incorporated Hunt’s shopper registration including registering an account with an e-commerce server including the recipient account id and default destination within Shucker’s system which also managed identifying information for a recipient such as recipient identifying information and recipient address provided by the shipper for the sake of matching and sending a message indicating a match occurred with a destination address as it served to confirm a recipient’s address and the results were predictable. Specifically, providing a default destination based on a recipient identification was an efficient way of determining where to ship a package and storing such information in a database such as Hunt’s would allow for quick and convenient access to this information when used in conjunction with Shucker’s shipping methods and as a means for confirming a destination address of the recipient. Further, in a different context, Shucker discloses electronically sending, by said carrier party, a confirmation message indicating that said recipient account identifier corresponding to a recipient party received from said shipper party matched a recipient account identifier corresponding to a recipient party received from a recipient party. The package for delivery arrives at the package delivery system with appropriate paperwork for delivery to a user 101. The paperwork may be digital, a barcode or other machine-readable code, a sticker, or any suitable paperwork. The paperwork may contain a user 101 name, a user address, a confirmation number, a sender name and address, and other identifying information for the recipient, sender, origin location, and/or delivery location. Figure 4 discloses the method of identifying a delivery location. The aerial delivery device computing system is provided with information specifying that the QR code is located on a property associated with a destination address. Shucker discloses that the aerial delivery device transports the package to an address associated with a user 101. See paragraph [0055]. The aerial delivery device may navigate via a mapping program to an address to reach the address of the user. See page 5, paragraph [0063] disclosing that the aerial delivery device transmits the QR code to the package delivery system for confirmation of delivery location by the package delivery system. As an example, Shucker indicates that certain commercial locations may desire to receive different packages at different locations and more than one QR code may be employed. If there is a match to a location associated with a QR code, the delivery can be made. If there is not a match, the delivery may be aborted. In confirming a delivery location, Shucker is matching a recipient address received by the recipient party with that of the shipper party. A skilled artisan at the time of the invention would recognize that confirming a delivery location is inclusive of confirming a recipient’s id/address against that sent by the shipper.
As already noted directly above, both the recipient party and the shipper party provide a recipient account identifier to the carrier party. Shucker discloses receiving a barcode or other machine-readable code including identifying information for the recipient on a package at a package delivery system which can be any system, company, organization, government service or individual that delivers packages from one location to another such as a courier, postal service, package delivery company, merchant system, retailer or other suitable system that delivers packages. See paragraph [0041] disclosing a package delivery system receives a package for delivery. The package for delivery arrives at the package delivery system with appropriate paperwork for delivery to a user 101. The paperwork may be digital, a barcode or other machine-readable code, a sticker, or any suitable paperwork. The paperwork may contain a user 101 name, a user address, a confirmation number, a sender name and address, and other identifying information for the recipient, sender, origin location, and/or delivery location. Shucker further states that the delivery address may be from digital information associated with the package and that the delivery address is stored with identification of the package in the package delivery system . See paragraph [0043]. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would recognize that upon scanning a barcode or machine-readable code on a package, the server would “determine” a recipient identifier. Thus, Examiner finds that the carrier party electronically determines a destination address for said packaging based on said recipient account identifier corresponding to a recipient party received from said shipper party.
Next, regarding the portion of the limitation reciting, “said recipient account identifier corresponding to a recipient party received from said recipient party”, as noted in the rejections above, Hunt discloses a shopper account database in which a shopper record maintains information including the shopper identifier uniquely identifying the shopper and the shopper account as well as a shipping address for the shopper. See paragraph [0090]. Hunt discloses that shoppers register with the system by providing basic user information. See paragraph [0113]. Paragraph [0150] further states the user account database stores a record for each user or shopper where each record includes a user name, address, and payment information for a user. The shopper registers this information with an e-commerce server by providing basic information such as a username, address, etc. See paragraph [0055]. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would recognize that a shopper’s registration includes a recipient account identifier (username) and the results would have been predictable to one skilled in the art. Thus, the registration by the recipient party including setting up basic user information such as a user name reads on the portion of the limitation reciting “said recipient account identifier corresponding to a recipient party received from said recipient party”.
Thus, Shucker discloses electronically determining, by said carrier party, a destination address for said packaging. The package for delivery arrives at the package delivery system with appropriate paperwork for delivery to a user 101. The paperwork may be digital, a barcode or other machine-readable code, a sticker, or any suitable paperwork. The paperwork may contain a user 101 name, a user address, a confirmation number, a sender name and address, and other identifying information for the recipient, sender, origin location, and/or delivery location. However, to the extent Shucker alone does not disclose electronically determining, by said carrier party, a destination for said packaging based on matching said recipient account identifier corresponding to a recipient party received from said shipper party with said recipient account identifier corresponding to a recipient party received from said recipient party or electronically sending, by said carrier party, a confirmation message indicating that said recipient account identifier corresponding to a recipient party received from said shipper party matched a recipient account identifier corresponding to a recipient party received from a recipient party, the combination of Shucker and Hunt disclose this feature. As noted above, both the recipient party and the shipper party provide a recipient account identifier to the carrier party in Shucker. Moreover, Hunt discloses a shopper account database in which a shopper record maintains information including the shopper identifier uniquely identifying the shopper and the shopper account as well as a shipping address for the shopper. See paragraph [0090]. Thus, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention to have incorporated Hunt’s shopper registration including registering an account with an e-commerce server including the recipient account id and default destination within Shucker’s system which also managed identifying information for a recipient such as recipient identifying information and recipient address provided by the shipper for the sake of matching and sending a message indicating a match occurred with a destination address as it served to confirm a recipient’s address and the results were predictable. Specifically, providing a default destination based on a recipient identification was an efficient way of determining where to ship a package and storing such information in a database such as Hunt’s would allow for quick and convenient access to this information when used in conjunction with Shucker’s shipping methods and as a means for confirming a destination address of the recipient.
Further, in a different context, Shucker discloses electronically sending, by said carrier party, a confirmation message indicating that said recipient account identifier corresponding to a recipient party received from said shipper party matched a recipient account identifier corresponding to a recipient party received from a recipient party. The package for delivery arrives at the package delivery system with appropriate paperwork for delivery to a user 101. The paperwork may be digital, a barcode or other machine-readable code, a sticker, or any suitable paperwork. The paperwork may contain a user 101 name, a user address, a confirmation number, a sender name and address, and other identifying information for the recipient, sender, origin location, and/or delivery location. Figure 4 discloses the method of identifying a delivery location. The aerial delivery device computing system is provided with information specifying that the QR code is located on a property associated with a destination address. Shucker discloses that the aerial delivery device transports the package to an address associated with a user 101. See paragraph [0055]. The aerial delivery device may navigate via a mapping program to an address to reach the address of the user. See page 5, paragraph [0063] disclosing that the aerial delivery device transmits the QR code to the package delivery system for confirmation of delivery location by the package delivery system. As an example, Shucker indicates that certain commercial locations may desire to receive different packages at different locations and more than one QR code may be employed. If there is a match to a location associated with a QR code, the delivery can be made. If there is not a match, the delivery may be aborted. In confirming a delivery location, Shucker is matching a recipient address received by the recipient party with that of the shipper party. A skilled artisan at the time of the invention would recognize that confirming a delivery location is inclusive of confirming a recipient’s id/address against that sent by the shipper.
Regarding the argument that the shipper party is mapped to Shucker’s sender when it provides the paperwork, but in 3(b), the shipper party is Shucker’s “package delivery system” when the packaging is provided to it, Examiner disagrees. Initially, it is noted that the term “sender” does not appear in the claim, but a “distributor” is used. The distributor was mapped to a user who arranges for a delivery of a package. A shipper party is any party that ships a package. Barring a clear distinction in the ‘865 Specification of these terms (i.e. distributor, shipper, sender, carrier), Examiner finds that Shucker’s package delivery system described as any system, company, organization, government service or individual that delivers packages from one location to another such as a courier, postal service, package delivery company, merchant system, retailer or other suitable system that delivers packages can be interpreted as a carrier party or shipper party. Certainly, a skilled artisan would recognize that the terms are inclusive of parties that are both carrier/shipper or even distributor/shipper/carriers. There is no distinction provided by the Applicant on how each of these terms is different and/or non-overlapping in some contexts.
Regarding the argument that neither reference discloses a default destination, this argument has already been addressed above in claim 1.
Claim 14
Regarding claim 14, Applicant argues Henry discloses a conventional system using printed labels for both outbound and return workflows and is not creating a shipment record before physical receipt of packaging. Applicant argues there is no server-based computation of destination addresses for unaddressed packaging. Applicant argues Henry does not disclose a method in which an ecommerce account and recipient account are created for separate parties and does not disclose a method in which two destinations form two different parties feed into a shipment record created from a first transmission. Instead, Applicant argues Henry discloses account creation for users who track shipments and manage delivery preferences but does not disclose a distinct ecommerce account from a recipient account or a process where the ecommerce account supplies a first destination and the recipient account supplies a second destination. Applicant further argues Henry does not disclose dual-source account verification or server-side computation of a destination based on account identifiers, relying instead on traditional labels and sender-supplied addressing. Applicant argues Henry does not use package identifiers stored in a machine readable code or a process in which destination information is computed from account information and shipment records. Applicant argues Henry does not disclose code-based routing and requires conventional shipping labels.
Examiner disagrees.
Regarding the creation of a shipment record, Henry discloses creating a shipment record as in column 13, lines 46-column 14 and figure 2. The shipping management system obtains details regarding the shipment and creates a database record of the shipment. See also claim 1 of Henry. Henry states, “information regarding the shipping of an item is obtained. Such information may include information regarding the shipper, information regarding the recipient, information regarding the shipping service provider to provide the shipping services, information regarding the shipping services to be provided, information regarding the item to be shipped, information regarding a state of shipment processing by the shipper, and/or the like. Such information, or a portion thereof, may be obtained through shipper and/or recipient interaction with shipping management system 111, such as when a shipper processes an order including the item, generates a shipping label and/or postage indicia, etc. Additionally or alternatively, the foregoing information, or a portion thereof, may be obtained from various sources, such as order detail information, user account information, public databases (e.g., address databases, manufacturer datasheets or specifications, shipping service provider published services guides, etc.). Moreover, such information, or a portion thereof, may be generated by logic of shipping management system 111…”
Regarding the argument that there is no server-based computation of destination addresses for unaddressed packaging, Examiner notes first that the claim is subject to a 35 USC 112(a) rejection. Moreover, the claim recites several features but not a server-based computation for unaddressed packaging. Regarding the arguments that Henry does not disclose a method in which an ecommerce account and recipient account are created for separate parties or a method in which two destinations form two different parties feed into a shipment record created from a first transmission, Examiner disagrees. Regarding the argument that Henry discloses account creation for users who track shipments and manage delivery preferences but does not disclose a distinct ecommerce account from a recipient account or a process where the ecommerce account supplies a first destination and the recipient account supplies a second destination, Examiner disagrees.
As outlined in the rejections, it is the combination of multiple references relied upon to teach these features. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Henry discloses a shipper may utilize a user device comprising systems for shipping management in order to manage shipments, obtain information about shipments, and the like. A shipper may provide information to the shipping management system 111 as may be stored in database 113 such as in association with a user account for the shipper which meets the limitation, electronically receiving, from an ecommerce party, a request to open an ecommerce account; creating an ecommerce account corresponding to said ecommerce party. See column 22, lines 51-column 23, lines 18.
Henry discloses electronically receiving, from said ecommerce party, a first destination. See column 13, lines 48-67 disclosing providing shipping information including addresses.
Henry discloses electronically receiving, from said ecommerce party, payment information. See column 5, lines 42-50 and column 25, lines 39-50 disclosing pre-shipment status information includes payment information for the order.
Henry discloses electronically receiving, from a recipient party, a request to open a recipient account; creating a recipient account corresponding to said recipient party. See column 6, lines 11-15 and column 27 disclosing a recipient may also utilize the shipping management system to acquire status information about shipments. However, Hunt more clearly discloses receiving a request from a shopper or receiver to create an account. See paragraphs [0090], [0096] allowing a new shopper to register an account. It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention to have combined Hunt’s recipient account creation corresponding to a recipient party within Henry’s shipment management system for the purpose of providing shipment management for a recipient as suggested in column 6 of Henry and the results would have been predictable.
Henry discloses electronically receiving, from said recipient party, a second destination. See column 13, lines 43-65 disclosing a recipient may provide shipping information including alternate delivery instructions. See column 18, lines 19-25. However, Hanks more explicitly discloses receiving an additional destination from said recipient party. See paragraph [0046] disclosing a customer file may include a second destination address. Additionally, Hunt discloses a shopper may provide an address or multiple addresses. See paragraph [0090]. Hunt discloses a shopper account database in which a shopper record maintains information including the shopper identifier uniquely identifying the shopper and the shopper account as well as a shipping address for the shopper. See paragraph [0090]. The shopper registers this information with an e-commerce server by providing basic information such as a username, address, etc. See paragraph [0055]. Hunt discloses that shoppers register with the system by providing basic user information including a physical address. See paragraph [0113]. Paragraph [0150] further states the user account database stores a record for each user or shopper where each record includes a shipping address for the user. A user may also include multiple addresses (see figure 2B, 222 indicating multiple addresses supplied by the recipient). It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention to have incorporated Hank’s multiple destination addresses or Hunt’s shopper database with a shopper record including multiple addresses within Henry’s system which also managed identifying information for a recipient in order to determine and/or confirm the ideal or preferred destination associated with a recipient and the results were predictable. Specifically, providing a destination based on a recipient identification was an efficient way of determining where to ship a package and storing such information in a database such as Hunt’s would allow for quick and convenient access to this information when used in conjunction with Henry’s shipping methods.
Henry discloses creating a recipient account; however, Hunt more clearly discloses electronically receiving, from said recipient party, a recipient account identifier. See paragraph [0090] which provides a shopper id.
Henry discloses electronically receiving, from said ecommerce party, a first transmission comprising a request to create a shipment and said recipient account identifier. See column 13, lines 46-65 disclosing receiving a shipment of an item including a request to create a shipment and information about the recipient. As noted above, Hunt more explicitly discloses a recipient account identifier. Hank also discloses receiving a shipment request with a recipient account identifier. See paragraphs [0007], [0010], and [0046]-[0047] disclosing receiving a parcel with customer file which can include a recipients name or customer number.
Applicant further argues Henry does not disclose dual-source account verification or server-side computation of a destination based on account identifiers, relying instead on traditional labels and sender-supplied addressing. Applicant argues Henry does not use package identifiers stored in a machine readable code or a process in which destination information is computed from account information and shipment records. Applicant argues Henry does not disclose code-based routing and requires conventional shipping labels.
Examiner disagrees. Again, Applicant does not address specific limitations with respect to these arguments, except for arguing that Henry does not use package identifiers stored in a machine readable code or determining destination information from account information and shipment records. Again, as outlined in the rejections above, Henry in view of the other cited references disclose these features. For example, Shucker is relied upon to teach package identifiers stored in a machine readable code. Several references are utilized in the rejections to teach the claimed features including determining destination information. See the rejection for claim 14 above.
Applicant argues incorporating Hank into Henry would replace Henry’s principle operation by replacing a conventional address-based model with a code that encodes explicit destination information and incorporating Hunt would not supply the missing routing logic and discard sender-supplied addressing and conventional label use. Examiner disagrees that the combination of Hank and Hunt would change Henry’s operation. It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention to have incorporated Hank’s multiple destination addresses or Hunt’s shopper database with a shopper record including multiple addresses within Henry’s system which also managed identifying information for a recipient in order to determine and/or confirm the ideal or preferred destination associated with a recipient and the results were predictable. Specifically, providing a destination based on a recipient identification was an efficient way of determining where to ship a package and storing such information in a database such as Hunt’s would allow for quick and convenient access to this information when used in conjunction with Henry’s shipping methods. Further, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time of the invention to include a parcel or package identifier in the shipment records, as suggested by Hanks, within Henry/Shucker’s system which also utilizes machine readable codes with package information and the results would have been predictable. Adding such features isuch as Hunt’s destination information within Henry would not make it inoperable because Henry also discloses a recipient utilizing the shipping management system. See column 6, lines 11-15 and column 27 disclosing a recipient may also utilize the shipping management system to acquire status information about shipments. The addition of a preferred destination associated with a recipient using a shipping management system would not render it inoperable. Similarly, incorporating Hank’s multiple destination addresses within Henry’s system which also managed identifying information for a recipient in order to determine and/or confirm the ideal or preferred destination associated with a recipient would have been desirable to a skilled artisan and the results were predictable. Specifically, providing a destination based on a recipient identification was an efficient way of determining where to ship a package and storing such information in a database such as Hunt’s would allow for quick and convenient access to this information when used in conjunction with Henry’s shipping methods without changing its operation.
Applicant further argues Hentry does not disclose multi-input-return destination computation involving a package identifier, shipment record, ecommerce account or return request and that the combination does not teach such an architecture.
Examiner disagrees for reasons outlined above. Further, it is noted that the Applicant appears to address Henry singularly without addressing the rejections or application of the references in claim 14. Thus, Examiner refers to the rejections and response above with respect to these arguments.
Claim 1-20
31. Applicant provides a section on objective indica of non-obviousness. However, there is no evidence provided. See MPEP 716. Objective evidence must be factually supported by an appropriate affidavit or declaration to be of probative value. This includes evidence of unexpected results, commercial success, solution of a long-felt need, inoperability of the prior art, invention before the date of the reference, and allegations that the author(s) of the prior art derived the disclosed subject matter from the inventor or at least one joint inventor. See, for example, In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ("It is well settled that unexpected results must be established by factual evidence." "[A]ppellants have not presented any experimental data showing that prior heat-shrinkable articles split. Due to the absence of tests comparing appellant’s heat shrinkable articles with those of the closest prior art, we conclude that appellant’s assertions of unexpected results constitute mere argument."). See also In re Lindner, 457 F.2d 506, 508, 173 USPQ 356, 358 (CCPA 1972); Ex parte George, 21 USPQ2d 1058 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1991). Further, arguments presented by the applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965) and In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Examples of statements which are not evidence and which must be supported by an appropriate affidavit or declaration include statements regarding unexpected results, commercial success, solution of a long-felt need, inoperability of the prior art, invention before the date of the reference, and allegations that the author(s) of the prior art derived the disclosed subject matter from the inventor or at least one joint inventor.
In view of the above, the rejections are maintained.
Conclusion
32. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
33. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHNA SINGH DESAI whose telephone number is (571)272-4099. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4PM EST.
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, Alexander Kosowski can be reached at 571-272-3744. 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.
/RACHNA S DESAI/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3992
Conferees:
/William H. Wood/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3992
/ALEXANDER J KOSOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992