DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 were previously pending and subject to a final office action mailed 04/10/2025. Claims 1, 10 and 19 were amended; claims 2 and 11 were cancelled, and no claim was added in a reply filed 09/10/2025. Therefore claims 1, 3-10 and 12-19 are currently pending and subject to the non-final office action below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/10/2025 in regards to section 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “The Office Action rejects independent claims 1, 10 and 19 and dependent claims 2-9 and 11-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. As mentioned above, independent claim 1 has been amended to recite the subject matter of dependent claim 2 and independent claims 10 and 19 have been amended to recite the subject matter of dependent claim 11. For the reasons set forth below, Applicant respectfully submits that the claims are patentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
The claims provide for improvements in computer functionality or improvements to other technologies at least because the present disclosure describes that, e.g., information systems, and their related various components, may be improved or enhanced with the disclosed dynamic system features and methods that provide more efficient working conditions for workers and improved monitoring and management of logistics operations for system administrators. That is, the present disclosure describes improvements in the functioning of an operational system itself or "any other technology or technical field" (e.g., the field of distributed/commercial/industrial information systems). For example, the disclosed dynamic system features and methods improve and enhance the identification of items across packaging levels thereof, the tracking of at least one1
attribute of transaction information (e.g., a contract or agreement) associated with the at least one item, and the sharing of detailed item handling data associated with the transaction information during logistics operations with respective logistics supply chain parties (e.g., a manufacturer, a distributor and/or at least one transportation company or transporter) to mitigate (if not eliminate) worker error, facilitate logistics supply chain workflows, and eliminate inefficiencies (e.g., tampered or damaged items) typically experienced over time by systems lacking such features and methods. This improves the state of the art at least because such previous systems are inefficient as they lack the ability to automatically and dynamically identify items across packaging levels of an item, track at least one attribute of transaction information (e.g., a contract or agreement) associated with the at least one item, and share detailed item handling data associated with the transaction information during logistics operations with respective logistics supply chain parties (e.g., a manufacturer, a distributor and/or at least one transportation company).
In addition, the claims apply various features and functionality, with, or by use of, a particular machine, e.g., a processor, a mobile device, a receiver or transceiver device (e.g., a radio frequency identification (RFID) reader or a Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) gateway), a scanner, and/or other hardware components. Moreover, the claims recite specific features other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or adding unconventional steps that demonstrate, in various embodiments, particular useful applications, e.g., utilizing and/or controlling signal processing protocols (e.g., authentication, association, etc.) of a receiver or transceiver device (e.g., an RFID reader or a BLE gateway) in connection with and/or a state of transaction information associated with at least one item.” (remarks p. 1-2).
Applicant asserts that the claims are directed to “improvements in computer functionality” and “distributed logistics systems”. However, when the claim is read as a whole, its focus remains on managing and processing return transaction information, including identifying order data, receiving identification data, generating shipment and transaction data, and tracking item attributes.
Such operations are fundamental commercial practices that constitute a method of organizing human activity because they allow for these commercial interactions and managing the interactions between the parties concerned.
The steps of identifying information, generating data records, and associating identifiers describe what is accomplished rather than how any technological improvement is achieved. Therefore, the claims are directed towards an abstract idea.
Applicant’s argument that the claims are tied to “particular machines” is not persuasive. The recited hardware merely performs generic computer functions (i.e. capturing, transmitting, storing and processing information) without improving their underlying operation or configuration. The claims do not specify any particular image processing technique for authentication, any technical improvement to RFID or BLE communication, or any new control mechanism for the claimed hardware. Instead, the devices are invoked merely as tools to execute abstract concepts for the data processing.
Applicant’s argument that the claims “facilitate logistics supply chain workflows” and “eliminate inefficiencies” describes a business benefit, not a technical improvement to computer operation. Improving efficiency in a business environment does not constitute a technological improvement (please see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Under step 2B, the additional claim elements, individually and in combination, do not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself. The processor, mobile device, transceiver, and scanner are well understood, routine, and conventional components used as intended. Operations such as identifying items, capturing images, authenticating data, and generating shipment information are standard data processing activities performed by generic computer systems in the field of logistics and e-commerce. In addition, the specification does not describe these components as being technically modified or configured in an unconventional way to perform any claimed function. Therefore, the claims are directed towards an abstract idea without being integrated into a practical application or providing significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim “identifying, by an end user, order information of at least one item designated for return; receiving return identification information of the at least one item based on the identified order information of the at least one item; receiving at least one captured image of the at least one item authenticating the return identification information based on the captured at least one image, the return identification information being indicative of a condition of the at least one item and a justification for the return; generating return shipment information in response to the received return identification information of the at least one item; generating return transaction information associated with the at least one item based on the order information, the return identification information, and the return shipment information; generating a return identifier indicative of the return transaction information associated with the at least item to be applied by the end user to a return package comprising the at least one item; and tracking at least one attribute of the return transaction information associated with the at least one item via the return identifier; determining the order information of the at least one item by processing the return identifier, and obtaining transaction information associated with the at least one item based on the determined order information, the transaction information being indicative of handling data of the at least one item prior to the designation to return, wherein the transaction information comprises an association of a first identifier of a first package comprising the at least one item and a second identifier of a second package comprising the first package where the association is indicative of a nested relationship; packaging information of the at least one item; and shipment information of the at least one item.”
The limitations above, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers returning a product which is a method of organizing a human activity. That is, the method allows for fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites an end user device. The additional limitation is recited at a high level of generality which amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element, alone or in combination, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element, alone or in combination, is nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception on a general computer.
Dependent claims 3-6 are also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because they further narrow the abstract idea described in relation to claim 1 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application (capturing an image of claim 2, a second device of claim 3, a third device of claim 4 are all recited at a high level of recitation which amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception in a computer environment) or providing significantly more limitations.
Dependent claim 7 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because it further narrows the abstract idea described in relation to claim 1 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application (a machine readable symbol, a label, a temperature sensitive marker, a barcode, a radio frequency identification (RFID) tag, a quick response (QR) and a Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) beacon are all recited at a high level of recitation which amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception in a computer environment) or providing significantly more limitations.
Dependent claim 8 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because it further narrows the abstract idea described in relation to claim 1 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application (blockchain is recited at a high level of recitation which amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception in a computer environment) or providing significantly more limitations.
Dependent claim 9 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because it further narrows the abstract idea described in relation to claim 1 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application (“an alert and notification to an authenticated external system or database via at least one application programming interface in response to an event associated with the return transaction information” is recited at a high level of recitation which amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception in a computer environment) or providing significantly more limitations.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim “receive, from the end user, order information of at least one item designated for return; receive return identification information of the at least one item based on the received order information associated with the at least one item; receive at least one captured image of the at least one item; authenticate the return identification information based on the captured at least one image, the return identification information being indicative of a condition of the at least one item and a justification for the return; generate return shipment information in response to the received return identification information of the at least one item; generate return transaction information associated with the at least one item based on the order information, the return identification information, and the return shipment information; generate a return identifier indicative of the return transaction information associated with the at least item to be applied to a return package comprising the at least one item; and track at least one attribute of the return transaction information associated with the at least one item via the return identifier; determine the order information of the at least one item by processing the return identifier, and obtain transaction information associated with the at least one item based on the determined order information, the transaction information being indicative of handling data of the at least one item prior to the designation to return, wherein the transaction information comprises an association of a first identifier of a first package comprising the at least one item and a second identifier of a second package comprising the first package where the association is indicative of a nested relationship; packaging information of the at least one item; and shipment information of the at least one item.”
The limitations above, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers returning a product which is a method of organizing a human activity. That is, the method allows for fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites “a device of an end user; one or more processors; and a non-transitory computer-readable memory coupled to the end user device, and the one or more processors”. The additional limitations are recited at a high level of generality which amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements, alone or in combination, are nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception on a general computer.
Dependent claims 12-15 are also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because they further narrow the abstract idea described in relation to claim 10 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application (capturing an image of claim 11, a second device of claim 12, a third device of claim 13 are all recited at a high level of recitation which amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception in a computer environment) or providing significantly more limitations.
Dependent claim 16 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because it further narrows the abstract idea described in relation to claim 10 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application (a machine readable symbol, a label, a temperature sensitive marker, a barcode, a radio frequency identification (RFID) tag, a quick response (QR) and a Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) beacon are all recited at a high level of recitation which amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception in a computer environment) or providing significantly more limitations.
Dependent claim 17 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because it further narrows the abstract idea described in relation to claim 10 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application (blockchain is recited at a high level of recitation which amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception in a computer environment) or providing significantly more limitations.
Dependent claim 18 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because it further narrows the abstract idea described in relation to claim 10 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application (“an alert and notification to an authenticated external system or database via at least one application programming interface in response to an event associated with the return transaction information” is recited at a high level of recitation which amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception in a computer environment) or providing significantly more limitations.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim “receive, from the end user, order information of at least one item designated for return; receive return identification information of the at least one item based on the received order information associated with the at least one item; generate return shipment information in response to the received return identification information of the at least one item; receive at least one captured image of the at least one item; authenticate the return identification information based on the captured at least one image, the return identification information being indicative of a condition of the at least one item and a justification for the return; generate return transaction information associated with the at least one item based on the order information, the return identification information, and the return shipment information; generate a return identifier indicative of the return transaction information associated with the at least item to be applied to a return package comprising the at least one item; and track at least one attribute of the return transaction information associated with the at least one item via the return identifier; determine the order information of the at least one item by processing the return identifier, and obtain transaction information associated with the at least one item based on the determined order information, the transaction information being indicative of handling data of the at least one item prior to the designation to return, wherein the transaction information comprises an association of a first identifier of a first package comprising the at least one item and a second identifier of a second package comprising the first package where the association is indicative of a nested relationship; packaging information of the at least one item; and shipment information of the at least one item.”
The limitations above, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers returning a product which is a method of organizing a human activity. That is, the method allows for fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites “A tangible machine-readable medium”, “a machine” and end user device”. The additional limitations are recited at a high level of generality which amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements, alone or in combination, are nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception on a general computer.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 10 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walters (US 2005/0114221) in view of Williams (WO 0172109) and Gillen (US 20150088781) and Kentris (US 2020/0402001).
As per claim 1, Walters discloses a method for tracking item handling data, comprising:
identifying, by an end user via an end user device, order information of at least one item designated for return (paragraph 48-49, fig. 4a, the user identifies the product they would like to return);
receiving return identification information of the at least one item based on the identified order information of the at least one item (paragraph 49, 4b, the system receives the product information that the user would like to return);
generating return shipment information in response to the received return identification information of the at least one item (paragraph 50, fig. 4c-f, the system generates the return information the user needs to select in order to return the item);
generating return transaction information associated with the at least one item based on the order information, the return identification information, and the return shipment information (paragraph 48-55, fig. 4c-f, the system generates the return transaction information including the shipment and RMA information);
generating a return identifier indicative of the return transaction information associated with the at least item to be applied by the end user to a return package comprising the at least one item (fig. 6, paragraph 48-51, 58-60, the system generates the RMA and tracking identifier for the label to be placed on the return package) ; and
tracking at least one attribute of the return transaction information associated with the at least one item via the return identifier (paragraph 48-55, fig. 4., the return is tracked and the information is stored in a tracking database).
However, Walters does not disclose but Williams discloses
determining the order information of the at least one item by processing a return identifier (page 31-33, 53-56, fig. 46-48, the returns are tracked via tracking number and information is displayed based on the tracking), and
obtaining transaction information associated with the at least one item based on the determined order information, the transaction information being indicative of handling data of the at least one item prior to the designation to return (page 31-33, 53-56, fig. 46-48, the inbound returns screen shows details on the information of the return);
wherein the transaction information comprises an association of a first identifier of a first package comprising the at least one item and a second identifier of a second package comprising the first package where the association is indicative of a nested relationship; packaging information of the at least one item; and shipment information of the at least one item (page 31-33, 53-56, fig. 46-48, the inbound returns screens shows a tracking number which is an identifier associated with the shipping label (outside packaging) and SKU/UPC barcode number which is associated with the inside packaging of the item.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitations above as taught by Williams in the teaching of Walters, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
However, Walters in view of Williams do not explicitly disclose that the generated return identifier (return authorization number) is associated with the return identifier (tracking number) used to determine the order information, but, Gillen discloses that the two return identifiers are linked with each other (paragraph 98, “operation 1010, an apparatus (e.g., carrier system 100) may generate a return authorization number or an indicator (e.g., a designated number(s), a designated symbol(s), a designated code(s), etc.) for the item and may link the return authorization number or the indicator to the shipment identifier (e.g., a tracking number, a smart code (e.g., MaxiCode)) in response to verifying that the customer is registered in the returns program and that the item qualifies for return to the shipper”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitations above as taught by Gillen in the teaching of Walters and Williams, in order to facilitate label-less returns (Gillen, abstract).
However, Walters does not disclose but Kentris discloses receiving at least one captured image of the at least one item authenticating the return identification information based on the captured at least one image, the return identification information being indicative of a condition of the at least one item and a justification for the return (fig. 10, paragraph 107-115, 186, 203, 207, the customer starts a return process where they take an image of the return, state the condition of the item and reason for return. The return is then checked by the merchant and approved).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitations above as taught by Kentris in the teaching of Walters, in order to facilitate a shipment of the item from the first customer directly to the second customer (Kentris, abstract).
As per claim 10/19, Walters discloses a system for tracking item handling data, comprising, a device of an end user (paragraph 33); one or more processors (paragraph 33); and a non-transitory computer-readable memory coupled to the end user device, and the one or more processors, the memory storing instructions thereon that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to (paragraph 33, fig. 1):
receive, from the end user device, order information of at least one item designated for return (paragraph 48-49, fig. 4a, the user identifies the product they would like to return);
receive return identification information of the at least one item based on the received order information associated with the at least one item (paragraph 49, 4b, the system receives the product information that the user would like to return);
generate return shipment information in response to the received return identification information of the at least one item (paragraph 50, fig. 4c-f, the system generates the return information the user needs to select in order to return the item);
generate return transaction information associated with the at least one item based on the order information, the return identification information, and the return shipment information (paragraph 48-55, fig. 4c-f, the system generates the return transaction information including the shipment and RMA information);
generate a return identifier indicative of the return transaction information associated with the at least item to be applied to a return package comprising the at least one item (fig. 6, paragraph 48-51, 58-60, the system generates the RMA and tracking identifier for the label to be placed on the return package) ; and
track at least one attribute of the return transaction information associated with the at least one item via the return identifier (paragraph 48-55, fig. 4., the return is tracked and the information is stored in a tracking database).
However, Walters does not disclose but Williams discloses
determining the order information of the at least one item by processing a return identifier (page 31-33, 53-56, fig. 46-48, the returns are tracked via tracking number and information is displayed based on the tracking), and
obtaining transaction information associated with the at least one item based on the determined order information, the transaction information being indicative of handling data of the at least one item prior to the designation to return (page 31-33, 53-56, fig. 46-48, the inbound returns screen shows details on the information of the return);
wherein the transaction information comprises an association of a first identifier of a first package comprising the at least one item and a second identifier of a second package comprising the first package where the association is indicative of a nested relationship; packaging information of the at least one item; and shipment information of the at least one item (page 31-33, 53-56, fig. 46-48, the inbound returns screens shows a tracking number which is an identifier associated with the shipping label (outside packaging) and SKU/UPC barcode number which is associated with the inside packaging of the item.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitations above as taught by Williams in the teaching of Walters, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
However, Walters in view of Williams do not explicitly disclose that the generated return identifier (return authorization number) is associated with the return identifier (tracking number) used to determine the order information, but, Gillen discloses that the two return identifiers are linked with each other (paragraph 98, “t operation 1010, an apparatus (e.g., carrier system 100) may generate a return authorization number or an indicator (e.g., a designated number(s), a designated symbol(s), a designated code(s), etc.) for the item and may link the return authorization number or the indicator to the shipment identifier (e.g., a tracking number, a smart code (e.g., MaxiCode)) in response to verifying that the customer is registered in the returns program and that the item qualifies for return to the shipper”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitations above as taught by Gillen in the teaching of Walters and Williams, in order to facilitate label-less returns (Gillen, abstract).
However, Walters does not disclose but Kentris discloses receiving at least one captured image of the at least one item authenticating the return identification information based on the captured at least one image, the return identification information being indicative of a condition of the at least one item and a justification for the return (fig. 10, paragraph 107-115, 186, 203, 207, the customer starts a return process where they take an image of the return, state the condition of the item and reason for return. The return is then checked by the merchant and approved).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitations above as taught by Kentris in the teaching of Walters, in order to facilitate a shipment of the item from the first customer directly to the second customer (Kentris, abstract).
Claim(s) 3-7 and 12-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walters, Williams, Gillen and Kentris, as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1/10, in view of Bloom (US 2002/0130065).
As per claim 3/12, Walters does not disclose but Bloom discloses authenticating a second user via a second device; associating the return package with the second user and adding the association of the return package with the second user to the return transaction information by processing the return identifier via the second device; associating the return package with a third user and adding the association of the return package with the third user to the return transaction information by processing the return identifier via the second device; and adding a receiving event to the return transaction information based on the association of the return package with the third user (fig. 9a-g, paragraphs 110-112, 299-301, 314, when the return package is received at one or more of the locations along the return logistics chain, the worker scans the package after first scanning his employee ID (which Examiner interprets as “authentication”), the scan of the package associates the package with the location and the worker).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitations above as taught by Bloom in the teaching of Walters, in order for sorted and grouped created returns packages can be delivered in bulk to returns facility of the associated retailer (please see Bloom, paragraph 14).
As per claim 4/13, Walters in view of Williams, Gillen, Kentris and Bloom disclose all the limitation of claim 3. Walters does not disclose but Williams further discloses authenticating the third user via a third device, wherein the return identifier is processed via the third device and the transaction information is obtained from the database of the third user (page 31-33, 53-56, fig. 46-48, the merchant is able to track the returns and the information is obtained via the merchant system)(please see claim 1 rejection for combination rationale).
As per claim 5/14, Walters in view of Williams, Gillen, Kentris and Bloom disclose all the limitation of claim 4. Walters does not disclose but Bloom further discloses determining the associated first identifier of the first package and the second identifier of the second package based on the transaction information; associating the return identification information of the at least one item with the associated first identifier of the first package and the second identifier of the second package; and storing the associated return identification information, the first identifier of the first package and the second identifier of the second package in the database of the third user (fig. 9F-G, paragraph 285, 297-299, 301-303, 308, 315, when the package is scanned the package is associated with the location where it is scanned and the employee who scanned it and it is stored in the database)(please see claim 3 rejection for combination rationale).
As per claim 6/15, Walters in view of Williams, Gillen, Kentris and Bloom disclose all the limitation of claim 3. Walters discloses wherein the end user is a consumer (paragraph 47), the second user is a transporter (paragraph 86). However, Walters does not disclose but Bloom further discloses the third user is a distributor (paragraph 308-315) (please see claim 3 rejection for combination rationale).
As per claim 7/16, Walters in view of Williams, Gillen, Kentris and Bloom disclose all the limitation of claim 4. Walters discloses wherein the return identifier, the first identifier and the second identifier are one or more of a machine-readable symbol, a label, a temperature sensitive marker, a barcode, a radio frequency identification (RFID) tag, a quick response (QR) and a Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) beacon. (paragraph 22, fig. 6)(please see claim 3 rejection for combination rationale).
Claim(s) 8 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walters, William, Gillen and Kentris, as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1/10, in view of Vargas (US 2020/0265446).
As per claim 8/17, Walters does not disclose but Vargas discloses wherein the return transaction information is one of a contract and an agreement, and is encrypted or added to a blockchain (paragraph 14-16, 27 and 39, the location and possession of the item is tracked throughout its life cycle and added to the blockchain).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitation above as taught by Vargas in the teaching of Walters, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable in order to trace the product throughout its useful life while enabling a clear transfer of ownership to take place at each stage of the product's lifecycle (please see Vargas paragraph 14).
Claim(s) 9 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walters, Williams, Gillen and Kentris, as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1/10, in view of Wier (US 11,010,706).
As per claim 9/18, Walters does not disclose but Wier discloses transmitting at least one of an alert and notification to an authenticated external system or database via at least one application programming interface in response to an event associated with the return transaction information (col. 5:44-65, col. 22:50-65 and col. 23:1-21, “For example, the return shipment management provided at block 211 of embodiments may provide monitoring with respect to generated postage indicia, or other return shipment documents, to confirm their use by a return shipper. In operation according to embodiments, shipping management system may interact with shipping service provider system 113 to determine if a return shipment document for a particular return has been initially scanned or has otherwise been introduced into the services of the shipping service provider (e.g., introduction into the mail stream), and thus the return shipment document is or has been utilized. If it is determined that the return shipment documents have not been utilized, such as within some return shipping window of time (e.g., return expiration time), shipping management system 111 of embodiments may initiate one or more action, such as to notify the return shipper and/or merchant, cancel any prepaid postage indicia (e.g., perform refund processing to allow the merchant/return recipient to recover the otherwise unused postage value), etc. Additionally or alternatively, such monitoring may be provided by shipping management system 111 of embodiments to enable the merchant to monitor the extent of return shipping postage value authorized and/or actually generated, to monitor the items designated for return, to track return shipments while in route by the shipping service providers, to monitor receipt of return items”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitation above as taught by Wier in the teaching of Walters, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR ZEROUAL whose telephone number is (571)272-7255. The examiner can normally be reached Flex schedule.
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, Resha Desai can be reached at (571) 270-7792. 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.
OMAR . ZEROUAL
Examiner
Art Unit 3628
/OMAR ZEROUAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628