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. Specification The use of the trademark BLUETOOTH [paragraphs 0013, 0026] , has been noted in this application. It should be capitalized wherever it appears and be accompanied by the generic terminology. Although the use of trademarks is permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as trademarks. 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. 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. Claims 1-4, 8-11, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diem (US 20150169920 A1) hereinafter referred to as Diem in view of Wilkinson (WO 2017030670 A1) hereinafter referred to as Wilkinson and further in view of King et al., (US 20110029443 A1) hereinafter referred to as King. Regarding Claims 1, 8, and 15, Diem discloses A system for digitally transferring a signature constrained by proximity to accept delivery for a parcel, the system comprising: a memory; and a processor in communication with the memory, the processor being configured to perform operations comprising: identifying that a parcel is within a predetermined proximity of a location; [paragraph 0005, he invention requires defining a zone by the one or more users. An event is also defined in terms of a condition related to a relationship between an object location and the zone. The condition can relates to entry by the object into the zone, exit by the object from the zone, or proximity of the object to the zone] [paragraph 0002, Various sources of information are available for determining the location of an object. Such location information sources include Global Positioning System (GPS) receivers, radars, radio frequency identification (RFID) tags, and variety of other technologies that can be used to determine location information pertaining to an object, which might be moving or stationary. Such location information has been used to track vehicles, packages] Diem does not explicitly teach triggering, remotely by the processor, a transfer of signature data associated with the signature, the signature , and allowing release of the parcel. Wilkinson teaches triggering, remotely by the processor, a transfer of signature data associated with the signature, the signature [page 2, lines 3-7, receiving a request for signature for a delivery at the delivery management server; receiving a delivery notification at the delivery management server from a smart crate in response to delivery of a package for the recipient to the smart crate; sending the stored authorized signature for the recipient from the delivery management server to a delivery service organization in response to receiving the delivery notification] and allowing release of the parcel. [page 2, lines 3-7, receiving a request for signature for a delivery at the delivery management server; receiving a delivery notification at the delivery management server from a smart crate in response to delivery of a package for the recipient to the smart crate; sending the stored authorized signature for the recipient from the delivery management server to a delivery service organization in response to receiving the delivery notification] Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Wilkinson with the disclosure of Diem. The motivation or suggestion would have been “for automatic signature for receipt verification.” (Abstract) The combination of Diem and Wilkinson does not explicitly teach wherein the transfer of…data is from a camera via proximity-based device, wherein the proximity-based device is programmed with the predetermined proximity . King teaches wherein the transfer of…data is from a camera via proximity-based device, wherein the proximity-based device is programmed with the predetermined proximity; [paragraph 0080, The system may include a component for determining that a capture device is proximate to information, such as a rendered document, and changing the operation of the capture device based on the determination. In some examples, the capture device includes a camera that captures images of rendered documents or other displays of information, and a proximity component that detects a proximity to rendered documents or the other displays of information. The proximity component may be or utilize an optical component within the camera, or may be a stand-alone component, such as a proximity sensor. The system, upon determining the capture device is proximate to information, may cause the capture device to change modes to one that is aware of and interacts with text, documents, and/or other displays of information, such as objects that display text. For example, in a document aware mode, the system, via the capture device, may initiate one or more processes that capture images of rendered documents or displays of information and perform actions based on such captures] [paragraph 0493, For example, a user wishing to identify themselves securely to a public computer terminal may use the capture facilities of the device to capture a code or symbol displayed on a particular area of the terminal's screen and so effect a key transfer] Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of King with the disclosures of Diem and Wilkinson. The motivation or suggestion would have been “for determining that a capture device is proximate to information.” (paragraph 0080) Regarding Claims 2, 9, and 16, The combination of Diem and King does not explicitly teach wherein the processor is further configured to perform operations comprising: generating a notification, wherein the generation of the notification is in response to the triggering of the transfer of the signature data; and pushing the notification to a device associated with a user. Wilkinson teaches wherein the processor is further configured to perform operations comprising: generating a notification, wherein the generation of the notification is in response to the triggering of the transfer of the signature data; and pushing the notification to a device associated with a user. [page 5, lines 22-25, The delivery management server then processes the notification and automatically and immediately sends a digital copy of the signature for the authorized recipient 26 to the delivery service 22, who in turn provides the signature to the sender] Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Wilkinson with the disclosures of Diem and King. The motivation or suggestion would have been “for automatic signature for receipt verification.” (Abstract) Regarding Claims 3, 10, and 17, the combination of Diem and King does not explicitly teach wherein the processor is further configured to perform operations comprising: receiving, from the user, an authorization, wherein the authorization allows release of the signature data . Wilkinson teaches wherein the processor is further configured to perform operations comprising: receiving, from the user, an authorization, wherein the authorization allows release of the signature data [page 2, lines 3-7, receiving a request for signature for a delivery at the delivery management server; receiving a delivery notification at the delivery management server from a smart crate in response to delivery of a package for the recipient to the smart crate; sending the stored authorized signature for the recipient from the delivery management server to a delivery service organization in response to receiving the delivery notification] Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Wilkinson with the disclosures of Diem and King. The motivation or suggestion would have been “for automatic signature for receipt verification.” (Abstract) The combination of Diem and Wilkinson does not explicitly teach over Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol (TCP/IP); and releasing the signature data over TCP/IP. King teaches over Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol (TCP/IP); and releasing the signature data over TCP/IP. [paragraph 0064, Regardless of the manner by which the devices and components are coupled to each other, they may all may be operable in accordance with well-known commercial transaction and communication protocols (e.g., Transmission Control Protocol (TCP), Internet Protocol (IP))] Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of King with the disclosures of Diem and Wilkinson. The motivation or suggestion would have been “for determining that a capture device is proximate to information.” (paragraph 0080) Regarding Claims 4, 11, and 18, the combination of Diem and King does not explicitly teach wherein release of the signature data includes: verifying the authorization based on one or more security procedures. Wilkinson teaches wherein release of the signature data includes: verifying the authorization based on one or more security procedures. [page 4, lines 8-11, The delivery smart crate 16 may be an unattended secure delivery crate. The delivery smart crate 16 may only be accessed by delivery service personnel 26 or by an authorized recipient 24. The delivery smart crate 16 includes a locking device that prevents access to all except the delivery service personnel 26 and the authorized recipient 24] Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Wilkinson with the disclosures of Diem and King. The motivation or suggestion would have been “for automatic signature for receipt verification.” (Abstract) Claims 5-6, 12-13, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diem in view of Wilkinson in view of King, as applied to Claims 1, 8, and 15, respectively, above, and further in view of Palappetty et al., (US 10979848 B1) hereinafter referred to as Palappetty. Regarding Claims 5, 12, and 19, the combination of Diem, Wilkinson, and King does not explicitly teach herein one of the one or more security procedures is a cryptographically verifiable signature data linked to the user on a distributed database. Palappetty teaches wherein one of the one or more security procedures is a cryptographically verifiable signature data linked to the user on a distributed database. [Abstract, A method for identifying an entity device using device signature of the entity device and location signature of a location. The method includes generating device signature for the entity device based on device and connection attributes and user agent strings obtained from independently controlled data sources] Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Palappetty with the disclosures of Diem, Wilkinson, and King. The motivation or suggestion would have been for “an automatic system and method for identifying a device using attributes and location signatures from the device.” (Column 1, lines 10-12) Regarding Claims 6, 13, and 20, the combination of Diem, Wilkinson, and King does not explicitly teach wherein one of the one or more security procedures is unique identifiable data associated with the device associated with the user. Palappetty teaches wherein one of the one or more security procedures is unique identifiable data associated with the device associated with the user. [Abstract, A method for identifying an entity device using device signature of the entity device and location signature of a location. The method includes generating device signature for the entity device based on device and connection attributes and user agent strings obtained from independently controlled data sources] Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Palappetty with the disclosures of Diem, Wilkinson, and King. The motivation or suggestion would have been for “an automatic system and method for identifying a device using attributes and location signatures from the device.” (Column 1, lines 10-12) Allowable Subject Matter Claims 7 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Regarding Claims 7 and 14 , the closest prior art of record, Diem (US 20150169920 A1) , Wilkinson (WO 2017030670 A1) , King et al., (US 20110029443 A1) , and Palappetty et al., (US 10979848 B1) teaches wherein the processor is further configured to perform operations comprising: capturing a snapshot of the parcel . However, the references do not explicitly teach nor suggest in detail, identifying, from the snapshot, metrics of the parcel; validating the parcel; and storing event data associated with the parcel in view of other limitations of the intervening claims . Thus the prior arts of record taking singly or in combination do not teach or suggest the above-stated limitations taking wholly in combination with all the elements of each independent claim. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ANDREW J STEINLE whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-9923 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 10am-6pm CT . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Eleni Shiferaw can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-3867 . 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. /ANDREW J STEINLE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2497