DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Status of Claims
This communication is responsive to the submission filed March 13, 2026.
Claims 21-23, 27-31, and 35-39 are amended.
Claims 1-20, 26, and 34 are canceled.
Claims 21-25, 27-33, and 35-39 are pending.
Response to Remarks
35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant contends that the claims are directed towards patent eligible subject matter as it includes subject matter that, during an interview, may overcome this ground of rejection. Examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons discussed below.
35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 21-25, 27-33, and 35-39 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 21-25, 27-33, and 35-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more. There are two criteria for subject matter eligibility. The first is that the claimed invention must be to one of the four statutory categories, i.e., a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. See MPEP 2106(I). Second, the claimed invention also must qualify as patent-eligible subject matter, i.e., the claim must not be directed to a judicial exception unless the claim as a whole includes additional limitations amounting to significantly more than the exception. See MPEP 2106(I). Here, claims 21-25, 27-29, and 39 are directed towards a process and claims 30-33 and 35-38 are directed towards a machine. Therefore, the analysis proceeds to determine whether the claims recite abstract ideas.
Per Claim 21: Claim 21, as a whole, is directed towards the abstract idea of tracking mail-in ballots. In particular, the claim recites receiving a voter list from an elections division. The claim then associates each voter on the voter list with a unique graphical representation. The system also receives a plurality of mail scanning records from a postal carrier, the records comprising transit data associated with envelopes with paper ballots. Each of the envelopes has one of the graphical representations. The method also receives data indicating that the voter has signed up to receive updates relating to changes of status of the envelope. The method then identifies, from the transit data, first transit data indicative of a scanning of the first graphical representation that was then converted into the first transit data. The claim assigns a new transit status to the first envelope based on the first transit data. The method then sends to the first voter the new transit status. The system then receives ballot status data from the elections division regarding whether the ballot was accepted or rejected. The method then generates a notification indicating whether the ballot was been accepted or rejected. In other words, the claim recites Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities recognized as reciting abstract ideas. More specifically, the following underlined claim elements recite abstract ideas while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
receiving, by a central computer system, a voter list comprising a first voter, the voter list received from a first computer system associated with an elections division;
associating each voter of at least a portion of the voter list, including the first voter, to a corresponding unique graphical representation of a plurality of unique graphical representations, wherein each unique graphical representation is configured in a computer-readable format;
receiving, by the central computer system, a plurality of mail scanning records from a second computer system associated with a postal carrier, the plurality of mail scanning records comprising transit data for a plurality of envelopes associated with paper ballots, each envelope of the plurality of envelopes having thereon a respective unique graphical representation of the plurality of unique graphical representations;
receiving, by the central computer system from a computing device associated with the first voter, data indicative of a sign-up by the first voter to receive updates related to a change in status of transit of a first envelope of the plurality of envelopes;
identifying, from the transit data, first transit data indicative of a scanning, by a scanner, of a first unique graphical representation associated with the first voter, the scanning of the first unique graphical representation further comprising converting the first unique graphical representation into the first transit data;
assigning a new transit status to the first envelope based on the first transit data;
automatically sending, by the central computer system, an electronic communication to the computing device associated with the first voter, the electronic communication comprising the new transit status of the first envelope, wherein the sending of the electronic communication occurs based on the receiving of the data indicative of the sign-up by the first voter to receive the updates related to the change in status of transit of the first envelope;
receiving, by the central computer system, ballot status data from the first computer system, the ballot status data indicating whether a paper ballot associated with the first voter has been accepted or rejected; and
in response to receiving the ballot status data, generating, by the central computer system, a notification to the computing device associated with the first voter indicating whether the paper ballot of the first voter has been accepted or rejected.
Because the claim recites abstract ideas, the analysis proceeds to determine whether the claim recites additional elements that recite a practical application of the abstract ideas. According to MPEP 2106.04(d), additional elements that recite an instruction to apply the abstract ideas using a computer, that recite insignificant extra-solution activities, or that generally link the use of the abstract ideas to a particular technological environment or field of use are not indicative of a practical application. Here, the claim recites the additional elements of a central computing system, a first computer associated with an elections division, a second computer associated with a postal carrier, and a computing device associated with the first voter. However, these additional elements are serving to perform the identified abstract ideas. In other words, they amount to an instruction to apply the abstract ideas using computers. Therefore, the claim as a whole fails to recite a practical application of the abstract ideas.
The analysis then proceeds to determine whether the additional elements, when considered individually and in combination, recite significantly more than the abstract ideas. According to MPEP 2106.05, additional elements that recite an instruction to apply the abstract ideas using a computer, that recite insignificant extra-solution activities, that generally link the use of the abstract ideas to a particular technological environment or field of use, or that recite well-understood, routine, and conventional activities are not indicative of reciting significantly more than the abstract ideas. Claim elements previously considered to recite insignificant extra-solution activities are reevaluated at this step to determine whether they recite well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. Such findings must be supported by the evidentiary requirements set forth in the Berkheimer Memo. Here, the claim recites the additional elements of a central computing system, a first computer associated with an elections division, a second computer associated with a postal carrier, and a computing device associated with the first voter. However, these additional elements are serving to perform the identified abstract ideas. In other words, they amount to an instruction to apply the abstract ideas using computers. Therefore, the additional claim elements, when considered individually and in combination, fail to recite significantly more than the abstract ideas.
Accordingly, claim 21 is rejected as being directed towards patent ineligible subject matter.
Per Claim 30: Claim 30 recites abstract ideas similar to that discussed above in connection with claim 21, and does so in the context of a system. However, claim 30 fails to recite any additional elements not already considered in connection with claim 21. Therefore, claim 30 also fails to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract ideas.
Accordingly, claim 30 is rejected as being directed towards patent ineligible subject matter.
Per Claim 39: Claim 39, as a whole, is directed towards the abstract idea of monitoring paper ballot materials during transit to a voter. More specifically, the claim recites receiving a voter list from an elections division. The method then associates each voter with a unique graphical representation. The method then labels paper ballot materials including envelopes so that each envelope corresponds to a unique graphical representation. The claim then mails the paper ballot to voters. After mailing, the system receives a plurality of mail scanning records from a postal carrier. The claim then determines a status of the envelopes based on identifying transit data events that are indicative of a scanning of the graphical representations. The method then reports the status of the envelopes to the voter. The claim also receives ballot status data indicating whether the ballot has been accepted or rejected. The method then sends a notification to the voter indicating whether the ballot has been accepted or rejected. In other words, the claim recites Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities recognized as reciting abstract ideas. More specifically, the following underlined claim elements recite abstract ideas while the non-underlined claim elements recite additional elements according to MPEP 2106.04(a).
receiving a voter list comprising a first voter, the voter list received from a first computer system associated with an elections division;
associating each voter of a plurality of voters, including the first voter, from the voter list to a corresponding unique graphical representation;
for the plurality of voters, labeling paper ballot materials comprising envelopes so that each of the envelopes comprise a corresponding unique graphical representation associated with a respective voter;
mailing at least some of the paper ballot materials to at least some of the voters;
subsequent to mailing, receive a plurality of mail scanning records from a second computer system associated with a postal carrier, the plurality of mail scanning records comprising transit data of the envelopes;
after the mailing, determining, by a central computer system, a status of at least some of the envelopes, wherein the determining comprises identifying, from the transit data, a plurality of transit data events indicative of scanning, by a scanner, of each corresponding unique graphical representations, the scanning of each corresponding unique graphical representation including converting each graphical representation into corresponding transit data to generate a plurality of transit data;
reporting, by the central computer system in response to the determining, the status of at least one of the envelopes to at least one computing device associated a voter, wherein the reporting of the status occurs based on the central computer system previously receiving, from the at least one computing device associated with the voter data indicative of a sign-up by the voter to receive updates related to the status of the at least one of the envelopes;
receiving, by the central computer system, ballot status data indicating whether a paper ballot associated with the voter has been accepted or rejected; and
sending, by the central computer system in response to receiving the ballot status data, a notification to an e-mail address associated with the voter or the computing device and associated with the voter, the notification indicating whether the paper ballot associated with the voter has been accepted or rejected.
Here, the claim recites the additional elements of the central computer system, a first computer associated with an elections division, a second computer associated with a postal carrier, and a computing device associated with a voter. However, these additional elements are serving to perform the identified abstract ideas. In other words, they amount to an instruction to apply the abstract ideas using computers. Therefore, the claim as a whole fails to recite a practical application of the abstract ideas or significantly more than the abstract ideas.
Accordingly, claim 39 is rejected as being directed towards patent eligible subject matter.
Per Claims 22-29 and 31-38: Claims 22-29 and 31-38 have also been analyzed for subject matter eligibility. However, these claims also fail to recite patent eligible subject matter for the following reasons:
Claim 22 recites the abstract idea of labelling the paper ballot with a tracking code, which is part of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities.
Claims 23 and 31 recite the abstract idea of the user registering to receive the status updates, which is a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities. The additional element of registering via a website fails to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract ideas as it recites an instruction to apply the abstract ideas using a computer.
Claims 24 and 32 recite the abstract idea that the status includes a date of delivery, which is a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities.
Claims 25 and 33 recite the abstract idea that the status includes data, which is a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities.
Claims 27 and 35 recite the abstract idea of determining a global status report for the voters and reporting the global status report, which is a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities.
Claims 28 and 36 recite the abstract idea of determining whether any of the paper ballots have been lost, which is both a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities and a Mental Process.
Claims 29 and 37 recite comparing an existing status with a goal and sending a reminder to the first user when the goal has not been met, which is a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities.
Claim 38 recites the additional element of a computer of an elections division. However, this additional element also fails to recite a practical application or significantly more than the abstract ideas as it recites an instruction to apply the abstract ideas using a computer.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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 negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claims 21-22, 30, and 38-39 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2006/0053085 to Guyett et al. in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2010/0140340 to Hoffman, and U.S. Patent No. 7,177,836 to German et al.
Per Claim 21: Guyett discloses:
A method comprising: (see Guyett at Abstract: A system and method for processing incoming mailed ballot packages having a voter ID code and a verification signature on the envelope and a ballot enclosed within the envelope.)
receiving, by a central computer system, a voter list comprising a first voter, the voter list received from a first computer system associated with an elections division; (see Guyett at ¶ 71: At step 140, the absentee voter (AV) file is imported from the voting authority for use with the automated system. At step 142 the AV file is processed with address cleansing software (CASS), move update software (Forward Track from Pitney Bowes), and mail presorting software (USPS certified PAVE software).)
associating each voter of at least a portion of the voter list, including the first voter, to a corresponding unique graphical representation of a plurality of unique graphical representations, wherein each unique graphical representation is configured in a computer-readable format; (see Guyett at ¶ 39: The PLANET code generator 27 is used to create one or more unique barcodes to be associated with the voter identification and the enhanced voter file 30. See also ¶ 49: The output device 43 further scans unique identification markings from the package and associates the unique identification markings with the voter's file.)
receiving, by the central computer system, ballot status data from the first computer system, the ballot status data indicating whether a paper ballot associated with the first voter has been accepted or rejected; and (see Guyett at ¶¶ 64-65: The captured images from the signature verification file 94 and a recorded image of the voters signature from the current voter signature file 95 are transmitted to a workstation 96 for validation. In the preferred embodiment, an operator compares the signature from the envelope with the signature from the voter's record. Alternatively, the signature from files 94 and 95 could be compared with known signature analysis software. The voter's electronically stored signature in file 95 is obtained at the time the voter registers to vote. Based on the comparison done at computer work station 96, a validation file 97 is generated. For each envelope 36 for which the signature was examined, the validation file 97 indicates whether the validation was successful or not. The validation file 97 is provided to sorter 91 which again processes the entire set of envelopes 90. Envelopes 90′ that were successfully validated are separated from unvalidated envelopes 98. Unvalidated envelopes 98 must be specially handled to determine if they should be counted.)
However, Guyett fails to disclose but Hoffman, an analogous art of tracking mail, discloses:
receiving, by the central computer system from a computing device associated with the first voter, data indicative of a sign-up by the first voter to receive updates related to a change in status of transit of a first envelope of the plurality of envelopes; (see Hoffman at ¶¶ 3-4: Use of USPS mail tracking services requires that an account with the USPS be arranged in advance, and a mailer must subscribe to the tracking service. Tracking codes and mailer identification codes are assigned to subscribers, and subscribers are required to inform the USPS when mail to be tracked is being inducted into the delivery system. Rather than dealing directly with the USPS, some mailers find it desirable to obtain tracking capabilities through a third party tracking service, such as those provided at the website www.trackmymail.com. The tracking service takes responsibility for interacting with the USPS in fulfilling the requirements to assign tracking numbers to mail pieces and to initiate tracking for particular mail pieces. Also, such third party services will process the raw, and difficult to interpret, USPS tracking data, and prepare a report for mailers that is more user friendly. Third party services achieve economies of scale by handling tracking codes for many different customers. Such services may be particularly attractive to mailers who only have an occasional need for tracking their mail, and who can benefit from the tracking services' quick access to tracking capabilities.)
receiving, by the central computer system, a plurality of mail scanning records from a second computer system associated with a postal carrier, the plurality of mail scanning records comprising transit data for a plurality of envelopes associated with paper ballots, each envelope of the plurality of envelopes having thereon a respective unique graphical representation of the plurality of unique graphical representations; (see Hoffman at ¶ 18: The tracking service 27 further stores the mail tracking data 23 received from the USPS (or other delivery service). Tracking data 23 is provided to the tracking service 27 because the tracking code identifies the tracking service 27 as the appropriate party to whom the information should be sent.)
identifying, from the transit data, first transit data indicative of a scanning, by a scanner, of a first unique graphical representation associated with the first voter, the scanning of the first unique graphical representation further comprising converting the first unique graphical representation into the first transit data; (see Hoffman at ¶ 26: As the mail is processed by the delivery service, the barcodes on the mail pieces are scanned. Tracking data relating to the identification codes is transmitted from the delivery service to the tracking service (step 40). As discussed above, the tracking numbers include a “mailer identification” portion that indicates the party to whom tracking data should be sent. In the preferred embodiment, the “mailer identification” field of the code identifies the mail tracking service. See also ¶ 15: During the course of delivery processing the tracking barcode 18 is scanned by the USPS sortation and delivery equipment. The delivery service 15 gathers information about the scanned codes, the time and location of the scanning, the type of processing, and sends (or otherwise makes available) the gathered tracking data 16 to the tracking service 12.)
assigning a new transit status to the first envelope based on the first transit data; (see Hoffman at ¶ 18: During the course of delivery processing the tracking barcode 18 is scanned by the USPS sortation and delivery equipment. The delivery service 15 gathers information about the scanned codes, the time and location of the scanning, the type of processing, and sends (or otherwise makes available) the gathered tracking data 16 to the tracking service 12.)
automatically sending, by the central computer system, an electronic communication to the computing device associated with the first voter, the electronic communication comprising the new transit status of the first envelope, wherein the sending of the electronic communication occurs based on the receiving of the data indicative of the sign-up by the first voter to receive the updates related to the change in status of transit of the first envelope; (see Hoffman at ¶ 18: The tracking service 27 further stores the mail tracking data 23 received from the USPS (or other delivery service). Tracking data 23 is provided to the tracking service 27 because the tracking code identifies the tracking service 27 as the appropriate party to whom the information should be sent. The tracking service 27 can then use the specific identification code to determine which of its customers the mail piece was sent by, and to compile and direct the results accordingly.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Guyett so that the ballots are tracked using the techniques disclosed in Hoffman. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to enable the voters to know the exact status of their ballots.
However, the combination of Guyett and Hoffman fails to disclose but German, an analogous art of tracking acceptance/rejection of physical packages, discloses:
in response to receiving the ballot status data, generating, by the central computer system, a notification to the computing device associated with the first voter indicating whether the paper ballot of the first voter has been accepted or rejected. (see German at 19:55-60: If acceptable goods have been delivered, then the “YES” branch is followed to step 670, in which the payment enabler 240 transfers the amount buyer 110 owes seller 130 from a bank account of the intermediary 120 to the seller through the disbursement instrument selected by the seller 130. See also 21:11-13: The routine 660 begins with step 810, in which the payment enabler 240 notifies the seller 130 that the buyer 110 has rejected the goods.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Guyett so that the voter is notified whether the ballot has been accepted using the techniques disclosed in German. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to enable voters to have confidence that their vote will be counted.
Per Claim 30: Claim 30 recites subject matter similar to that discussed above in connection with cl aim 1 and does so in the context of a system. Claim 30 further recites and Guyett further discloses:
A system comprising: a central computer system, wherein the central computer system is configured to: (see Guyett at Claim 1: A mail tracking server configured for a mail tracking service provider to manage mail tracking identification codes for a plurality of mailing customers receiving automated mail tracking services, the mail tracking server comprising a computer with a processor, a memory, and a communication port and configured to:)
Per Claim 39: Guyett discloses:
A method comprising: (see Guyett at Abstract: A system and method for processing incoming mailed ballot packages having a voter ID code and a verification signature on the envelope and a ballot enclosed within the envelope.)
receiving a voter list comprising a first voter, the voter list received from a first computer system associated with an elections division; (see Guyett at ¶ 71: At step 140, the absentee voter (AV) file is imported from the voting authority for use with the automated system. At step 142 the AV file is processed with address cleansing software (CASS), move update software (Forward Track from Pitney Bowes), and mail presorting software (USPS certified PAVE software).)
associating each voter of a plurality of voters, including the first voter, from the voter list to a corresponding unique graphical representation; (see Guyett at ¶ 39: The PLANET code generator 27 is used to create one or more unique barcodes to be associated with the voter identification and the enhanced voter file 30. See also ¶ 49: The output device 43 further scans unique identification markings from the package and associates the unique identification markings with the voter's file.)
for the plurality of voters, labeling paper ballot materials comprising envelopes so that each of the envelopes comprise a corresponding unique graphical representation associated with a respective voter; (see Guyett at ¶¶ 42-43: FIG. 3A depicts the components of a ballot mail piece that is formed in accordance with the present invention. A ballot 34, instructions 35, and a reply envelope 36 are inserted into carrier envelope 37. Preferably, the back of the reply envelope 36 is inserted so that an address region AR on the back of reply envelope 36 shows through front window FW of the carrier envelope 37. The ballot 34 is positioned next to the back side of the carrier envelope 37. As seen in view 34B in FIG. 3A, the back of the ballot 34B includes a barcode 38. Barcode 38 indicates the style of ballot 34. As mentioned previously, it is important that ballot 34 cannot have any marking on it that can associate the particular ballot with the voter to whom it is being sent. When the ballot 34 is folded and placed in its rear position within the carrier envelope 37, the style code 38 is visible through back window BW on the back side 37B of the carrier envelope. In FIG. 3B, a front view of reply envelope 36′ is shown along with a back view of carrier envelope of 37B′. FIG. 3B shows a mail piece arrangement that allows an enhanced tracking feature that is not include in FIG. 3A. In addition to a first back window BW, carrier envelope 37B′ further includes a second back window BW′. As in FIG. 3B, the first back window BW allows the style code 38 of the ballot 34 to show through. The second back window BW′ allows an additional barcode 39 on the front of the reply envelope 36′ to show through. For both barcodes 38 and 39 to show through their respective windows, the carrier envelope 37B′ must be wider than both the reply envelope 36′ and the ballot 34. As seen in FIG. 3B the reply envelope 36′ must be positioned to the far right side of envelope 37B′ while the ballot 34 must be positioned to the far left side, and the two envelope contents will only partially overlap each other.)
mailing at least some of the paper ballot materials to at least some of the voters; (see Guyett at ¶ 39: In another embodiment, discussed in connection with FIGS. 14-17, associated unique PLANET codes are applied to the mail piece for tracking the ballot on its outbound trip to the voter, and on the inbound return trip.)
receiving, by the central computer system, ballot status data indicating whether a paper ballot associated with the voter has been accepted or rejected; and (see Guyett at ¶¶ 64-65: The captured images from the signature verification file 94 and a recorded image of the voters signature from the current voter signature file 95 are transmitted to a workstation 96 for validation. In the preferred embodiment, an operator compares the signature from the envelope with the signature from the voter's record. Alternatively, the signature from files 94 and 95 could be compared with known signature analysis software. The voter's electronically stored signature in file 95 is obtained at the time the voter registers to vote. Based on the comparison done at computer work station 96, a validation file 97 is generated. For each envelope 36 for which the signature was examined, the validation file 97 indicates whether the validation was successful or not. The validation file 97 is provided to sorter 91 which again processes the entire set of envelopes 90. Envelopes 90′ that were successfully validated are separated from unvalidated envelopes 98. Unvalidated envelopes 98 must be specially handled to determine if they should be counted.)
However, Guyett fails to disclose but Hoffman discloses:
subsequent to mailing, receive a plurality of mail scanning records from a second computer system associated with a postal carrier, the plurality of mail scanning records comprising transit data of the envelopes; (see Hoffman at ¶ 18: The tracking service 27 further stores the mail tracking data 23 received from the USPS (or other delivery service). Tracking data 23 is provided to the tracking service 27 because the tracking code identifies the tracking service 27 as the appropriate party to whom the information should be sent.)
after the mailing, determining, by a central computer system, a status of at least some of the envelopes, wherein the determining comprises identifying, from the transit data, a plurality of transit data events indicative of scanning, by a scanner, of each corresponding unique graphical representations, the scanning of each corresponding unique graphical representation including converting each graphical representation into corresponding transit data to generate a plurality of transit data; (see Hoffman at ¶ 26: As the mail is processed by the delivery service, the barcodes on the mail pieces are scanned. Tracking data relating to the identification codes is transmitted from the delivery service to the tracking service (step 40). As discussed above, the tracking numbers include a “mailer identification” portion that indicates the party to whom tracking data should be sent. In the preferred embodiment, the “mailer identification” field of the code identifies the mail tracking service. See also ¶ 15: During the course of delivery processing the tracking barcode 18 is scanned by the USPS sortation and delivery equipment. The delivery service 15 gathers information about the scanned codes, the time and location of the scanning, the type of processing, and sends (or otherwise makes available) the gathered tracking data 16 to the tracking service 12.)
reporting, by the central computer system in response to the determining, the status of at least one of the envelopes to at least one computing device associated a voter, wherein the reporting of the status occurs based on the central computer system previously receiving, from the at least one computing device associated with the voter data indicative of a sign-up by the voter to receive updates related to the status of the at least one of the envelopes; (see Hoffman at ¶ 18: The tracking service 27 further stores the mail tracking data 23 received from the USPS (or other delivery service). Tracking data 23 is provided to the tracking service 27 because the tracking code identifies the tracking service 27 as the appropriate party to whom the information should be sent. The tracking service 27 can then use the specific identification code to determine which of its customers the mail piece was sent by, and to compile and direct the results accordingly.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Guyett so that the ballots are tracked using the techniques disclosed in Hoffman. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to enable the voters to know the exact status of their ballots.
However, the combination of Guyett and Hoffman fails to disclose but German discloses:
sending, by the central computer system in response to receiving the ballot status data, a notification to an e-mail address associated with the voter or the computing device and associated with the voter, the notification indicating whether the paper ballot associated with the voter has been accepted or rejected. (see German at 19:55-60: If acceptable goods have been delivered, then the “YES” branch is followed to step 670, in which the payment enabler 240 transfers the amount buyer 110 owes seller 130 from a bank account of the intermediary 120 to the seller through the disbursement instrument selected by the seller 130. See also 21:11-13: The routine 660 begins with step 810, in which the payment enabler 240 notifies the seller 130 that the buyer 110 has rejected the goods.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Guyett so that the voter is notified whether the ballot has been accepted using the techniques disclosed in German. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to enable voters to have confidence that their vote will be counted.
Per Claim 22: The combination of Guyett, Hoffman, and German discloses the subject matter of claim 21, from which claim 22 depends. Guyett further discloses:
labeling an outside of a first envelope with a bar code that corresponds to the first unique graphical representation. (see Guyett at ¶¶ 42-43: FIG. 3A depicts the components of a ballot mail piece that is formed in accordance with the present invention. A ballot 34, instructions 35, and a reply envelope 36 are inserted into carrier envelope 37. Preferably, the back of the reply envelope 36 is inserted so that an address region AR on the back of reply envelope 36 shows through front window FW of the carrier envelope 37. The ballot 34 is positioned next to the back side of the carrier envelope 37. As seen in view 34B in FIG. 3A, the back of the ballot 34B includes a barcode 38. Barcode 38 indicates the style of ballot 34. As mentioned previously, it is important that ballot 34 cannot have any marking on it that can associate the particular ballot with the voter to whom it is being sent. When the ballot 34 is folded and placed in its rear position within the carrier envelope 37, the style code 38 is visible through back window BW on the back side 37B of the carrier envelope. In FIG. 3B, a front view of reply envelope 36′ is shown along with a back view of carrier envelope of 37B′. FIG. 3B shows a mail piece arrangement that allows an enhanced tracking feature that is not include in FIG. 3A. In addition to a first back window BW, carrier envelope 37B′ further includes a second back window BW′. As in FIG. 3B, the first back window BW allows the style code 38 of the ballot 34 to show through. The second back window BW′ allows an additional barcode 39 on the front of the reply envelope 36′ to show through. For both barcodes 38 and 39 to show through their respective windows, the carrier envelope 37B′ must be wider than both the reply envelope 36′ and the ballot 34. As seen in FIG. 3B the reply envelope 36′ must be positioned to the far right side of envelope 37B′ while the ballot 34 must be positioned to the far left side, and the two envelope contents will only partially overlap each other.)
Per Claim 38: The combination of Guyett, Hoffman, and German discloses the subject matter of claim 30, from which claim 38 depends. Guyett further discloses:
the first computer system associated with the elections division. (see Guyett at ¶ 54: The captured image can then be associated with the output file 59 so that an operator at a workstation 60 can view the integrity status information from output file 59 along with an image of the ballot package.)
Claims 23-25, 27, 31-33, and 35 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Guyett, Hoffman, and German as applied to claims 21 and 30 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,772,130 to Karbowski et al.
Per Claims 23 and 31: The combination of Guyett, Hoffman, and German discloses the subject matter of claims 21 and 30, from which claims 23 and 31 depend, respectively. However, the combination of Guyett and Hoffman fails to disclose but German discloses:
the at least one status indicative of delivered comprising an accepted status or a rejected status. (see German at 19:52-55: In step 640, the payment enabler 240 verifies delivery of acceptable goods to the buyer 110. In step 650, the payment enabler 240 determines if the seller has delivered acceptable goods to the buyer 110. See also 20:48-60: When using the consumer-to-consumer service of the payment enabler 240, the buyer 110 is informed that he should inform the payment enabler of his acceptance or rejection of the goods upon delivery. The buyer 110 is also warned that the goods will be deemed acceptable if the buyer 110 registers neither an acceptance nor a rejection of the goods within a predetermined amount of time of the delivery date. In step 760, the payment enabler 240 determines if the buyer 110 has notified the payment enabler 240 of rejection of the goods within a predetermined amount of time of the delivery date. If so, the “YES” branch is followed to step 770, in which the payment enabler 240 determines that acceptable goods have not been delivered.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Guyett so that the system tracks whether the package has been accepted or not using the techniques disclosed in German. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to enable the system to know whether the recipient determines the package to be acceptable or not.
However, the combination of Guyett, Hoffman, and German fails to disclose but Karbowski, an analogous art of tracking mail, discloses:
receiving, via a website, a registration by the first voter to receive automatic reports regarding transit of the first envelope of the plurality of envelopes, wherein the first voter configures sending of the automatic reports based on at least one status selected by the first voter on the website, and wherein the at least one status comprises not printed, printed, in-transit, or delivered (see Karbowski at 4:1-2: In this alternate embodiment, web page 100 is provided for receiving a tracking request. See also 5:62-6:6: Now turning to FIG. 3, there is shown an alternate embodiment of the present invention. In this embodiment, the user may not have opted for parcel tracking at the time of initial entry of the parcel into the mail stream, but now desires to be notified of the ongoing delivery status. The user directly requests updates of the tracking system and identifies a specified address for receiving messages and the specific parcel tracking number to be tracked. The method is initiated at step 400 by directly logging onto the system's web page 100. The method proceeds to step 410 where the user is queried as to whether or not the user knows the parcel tracking number of the mail piece status he/she is checking.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Guyett so that the user uses a website to register for ballot tracking using the techniques disclosed in Karbowski. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to easily enable voters to register for ballot status updates.
Per Claims 24 and 32: The combination of Guyett, Hoffman, German, and Karbowski discloses the subject matter of claims 23 and 31, from which claims 24 and 32 depend, respectively. However, the combination of Guyett and Hoffman fails to disclose but German discloses:
wherein the at least one status comprises an estimated date of delivery. (see German at 20:40-47: In step 750, the payment enabler 240 periodically queries the shipping service tracking database 250 until the database indicates a date of delivery of the goods to the buyer 110. Alternatively, the payment enabler 240 could register with the shipping service tracking database 250 so that the shipping service tracking database 250 can automatically notify the payment enabler 240 when the goods have been delivered to the buyer 110.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Guyett so that the date of delivery is estimated/tracked using the techniques disclosed in German. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to provide the recipient knowledge of when to expect the package.
Per Claims 25 and 33: The combination of Guyett, Hoffman, German, and Karbowski discloses the subject matter of claims 23 and 31, from which claims 25 and 33 depend, respectively. However, the combination of Guyett and Hoffman fails to disclose but German discloses:
wherein each of the at least one status comprises dates associated therewith. (see German at 20:40-47: In step 750, the payment enabler 240 periodically queries the shipping service tracking database 250 until the database indicates a date of delivery of the goods to the buyer 110. Alternatively, the payment enabler 240 could register with the shipping service tracking database 250 so that the shipping service tracking database 250 can automatically notify the payment enabler 240 when the goods have been delivered to the buyer 110.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Guyett so that the date of delivery is estimated/tracked using the techniques disclosed in German. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to provide the recipient knowledge of when to expect the package.
Per Claims 27 and 35: The combination of Guyett, Hoffman, German, and Karbowski discloses the subject matter of claims 23 and 31, from which claims 27 and 35 depend, respectively. However, Guyett fails to disclose but Hoffman discloses:
generating, by the central computer system, a global ballot status report prepared by determining a respective status of paper ballot materials including a status of each envelope of the plurality of envelopes; and (see Hoffman at ¶ 15: Finally, the tracking service 12 processes the raw tracking data 16 into a tracking report 17 that is provided to the mailer 10.)
reporting, by the central computer system, based on the global ballot status report, a global status of the paper ballot materials, the global status including a respective aggregate by status category. (see Hoffman at ¶ 5: The tracking data is consolidated and provided in a report to the customer.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Guyett so that a voter may sign up for package notifications using the techniques disclosed in Hoffman. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so easily enable voters to check the status of their ballot.
Claims 28 and 36 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Guyett, Hoffman, German, and Karbowski as applied to claims 27 and 35 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2007/0188324 to Ballin et al.
Per Claims 28 and 36: The combination of Guyett, Hoffman, German, and Karbowski discloses the subject matter of claims 27 and 35, from which claims 28 and 36 depend, respectively. However, the combination of Guyett, Hoffman, German, and Karbowski fails to disclose but Ballin, an analogous art of tracking packages, discloses:
determining, based on transit data, whether a particular envelope of the plurality of envelopes has been lost. (see Ballin at ¶ 73: For instance, a delivery company may report a lost object or package to a customer, a manufacturer, a mail-order house, a bank, a credit card company, or a retail establishment.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Guyett so that the tracking system keeps track of whether a package has been lost using the techniques disclosed in Ballin. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to provide more detailed tracking information to a user.
Claims 29 and 37 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Guyett, Hoffman, and German as applied to claims 21 and 30 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2005/0055264 to Gallick et al.
Per Claims 29 and 37: The combination of Guyett, Hoffman, and German discloses the subject matter of claims 21 and 30, from which claims 29 and 37 depend, respectively. However, the combination of Guyett, Hoffman, and German fails to disclose but Gallick, an analogous art of tracking goal statuses, discloses:
comparing, by the central computer system, an existing status with a goal criteria; and (see Gallick at ¶ 70: The invention sends email reminders to the responsible manager if tasks remain uncompleted past a predetermined date, and notifies the Program Manager if the task remains uncompleted at a further predetermined time.)
in response to determining the goal criteria has not been met, automatically sending, by the central computer system to the computing device of the first voter, an electronic reminder communication including a reminder. (see Gallick at ¶ 70: The invention sends email reminders to the responsible manager if tasks remain uncompleted past a predetermined date, and notifies the Program Manager if the task remains uncompleted at a further predetermined time.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Guyett so that a goal is tracked using the techniques disclosed in Gallick. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to make sure packages are timely delivered.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2009/0089331 discloses a real-time, instantaneous method and system for tracking mail. The system utilizes an intelligent, hand-held, portable data entry and data processing device to collect information regarding a mailpiece delivered to a mail distribution facility. The device is linked via the internet to a globally accessible relational database that permanently stores and efficiently and continuously tracks the mailpiece from receipt of the mailpiece in the mail distribution facility until delivery to its final destination. The system effectively utilizes signature capture and location codes to track the mailpiece at all times until final delivery.
U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2003/0204452 discloses a system and method for tracking an item being shipped from a sender to a recipient. The item traverses a shipping route that includes at least one tracking point facility. The method includes affixing a machine-readable identifier on the item at a first location. The machine-readable identifier encodes data corresponding to the sender's e-mail address, the recipient's e-mail address, and an item description. The machine-readable identifier is read at the at least one tracking point facility. A tracking status e-mail is automatically transmitted in response to the step of reading. The e-mail is transmitted to at least one of the sender and the recipient, or both.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NILESH B KHATRI whose telephone number is (571)270-7083. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM - 5:30 PM Monday-Friday, alternating Fridays off.
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, Neha Patel can be reached at (571) 270-1492. 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.
/NILESH B KHATRI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699
Prosecution Insights