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 Claims
This action is a non-final, first office action in response to the claims filed 03/17/2023.
Claims 1 – 20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/17/2023 was filed before the mailing date of the first office action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1 – 7 are directed to a method (i.e., a process). Claims 8 – 14 are directed to a product (i.e., a manufacture). Claims 15 – 20 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claims 1 – 20 all fall within the one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One
Independent claims 1, 8, & 15 substantially recite: “receiving, from… an observer, a notice that an item has been delivered to an incorrect location; responsive to validating that the item has been delivered to the incorrect location, determining a plurality of available remediation actions for the item that has been delivered to the incorrect location; sending, to a… recipient of the item, the plurality of available remediation actions, wherein each of the plurality of available remediation actions is selectable by the recipient of the item; and responsive to receiving, from… the recipient of the item, a remediation action selection from the available remediation actions, performing the remediation action selection.”
The limitations stated above are processes that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in a commercial interaction. That is, the functions in the context of the claims encompass managing a delivery anomaly. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in a commercial interaction, or while managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, then it falls within the "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" grouping of abstract ideas e.g., “commercial or legal interactions (including marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)” as well as “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).” Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1, as a whole, amounts to merely invoking generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (or an equivalent).
Claim 1 recites the additional generic computer elements of “computer-implemented,” “first device associated with an observer,” and “second device associated with a recipient.”
Claim 8 recites the additional generic computer elements of “computer program product,” “one or more computer-readable storage media,” “program instructions, stored on at least one of the one or more storage media, to,” “first device associated with an observer,” and “second device associated with the recipient.”
Claim 15 recites the additional generic computer elements of “computer system comprising: one or more processors, one or more computer-readable memories and one or more computer-readable storage media; program instructions, stored on at least one of the one or more storage media for execution by at least one of the one or more processors via at least one of the one or more memories, to,” “first device associated with an observer,” and “second device associated with a recipient.”
The additional elements in claims 1, 8, & 15 of “computer-implemented,” “first device associated with an observer,” “second device associated with a recipient,” “computer program product,” “one or more computer-readable storage media,” “program instructions, stored on at least one of the one or more storage media, to,” and “computer system comprising: one or more processors, one or more computer-readable memories and one or more computer-readable storage media; program instructions, stored on at least one of the one or more storage media for execution by at least one of the one or more processors via at least one of the one or more memories, to” are recited at a high-level of generality, such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements amount to no more than: merely invoking generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (or an equivalent), and do not provide integration of the recited abstract ideas into a practical application. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., merely invoking the generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional generic computer elements in claims 1, 8, & 15 of “computer-implemented,” “first device associated with an observer,” “second device associated with a recipient,” “computer program product,” “one or more computer-readable storage media,” “program instructions, stored on at least one of the one or more storage media, to,” and “computer system comprising: one or more processors, one or more computer-readable memories and one or more computer-readable storage media; program instructions, stored on at least one of the one or more storage media for execution by at least one of the one or more processors via at least one of the one or more memories, to” fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in the claims adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. There is no indication that the combination of elements, taken both individually and as an ordered combination, improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Furthermore, dependent claims 2 – 7, 9 – 14, & 16 – 20 are merely directed to the particulars of the abstract idea and likewise do not add significantly more to the above-identified judicial exception. The limitations of the claims, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, do not transform the abstract idea that they recite into patent-eligible subject matter because the claims simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea with generic computer components that conduct generic computer functions within a certain field of use, and thus are ineligible.
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 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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1 – 3, 6 – 10, 13 – 17, & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US 20210406823 A1) in view of Ladden et al. (US 20160171439 A1).
As per Claim 1, Lin discloses a computer-implemented method (para. 13, 93, & claim 10) comprising:
• receiving, from a first device associated with an observer, a notice that an item has been delivered to an incorrect location (paras. 94 – 95, receiving device “scan data” indicating “that the item may not have been properly delivered to an intended recipient.”);
• responsive to validating that the item has been delivered to the incorrect location, determining a plurality of available remediation actions for the item that has been delivered to the incorrect location (paras. 95 – 97, validating that the item has been delivered to the incorrect location when “it is determined in state 540 that the delivery scan location is over a predetermined distance away from the actual destination coordinates of the item.” Subsequently, as per paras. 99 & 118 – 119, a plurality of available remediation actions are determined, including picking up the item “from the incorrect point” for delivery “to the correct delivery point,” notifying the intended recipient of the incorrect delivery point e.g., “on the same street, in the same neighborhood, in the same building, etc,” sending “notification of delay or an updated delivery time,” providing a “refund of payment” for the item, or determining “other incentives.”);
Regarding the following limitations,
• sending, to a second device associated with a recipient of the item, the plurality of available remediation actions, wherein each of the plurality of available remediation actions is selectable by the recipient of the item; and responsive to receiving, from the second device associated with the recipient of the item, a remediation action selection from the available remediation actions, performing the remediation action selection,
Lin, in paras. 99 & 118 – 119, discloses sending a notification to the intended recipient of determined remediation actions, including picking up the item “from the incorrect point” for delivery “to the correct delivery point,” notifying the intended recipient of the incorrect delivery point e.g., “on the same street, in the same neighborhood, in the same building, etc,” sending “notification of delay or an updated delivery time,” providing a “refund of payment” for the item or “other incentives.”
To the extent to which Lin does not appear to explicitly disclose “wherein each of the plurality of available remediation actions is selectable by the recipient of the item; and responsive to receiving, from the second device associated with the recipient of the item, a remediation action selection from the available remediation actions, performing the remediation action selection,” Ladden teaches this functionality. For example, Ladden, in paras. 24, 26, 218, & 229 teaches wherein a plurality or remediation actions are sent to a customer for display, and that the particular “user-selected option” is subsequently executed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the aforementioned teachings of Ladden in the invention of Lin with the motivation to “ensure quality and manage connections between distributors and manufacturers by incorporating required checks through each step of a delivery (e.g., pick up, freight aggregation, line shipping, local shipping, etc.) as evidenced by Ladden (para. 3).
As per claim 8, see the above relevant rejection of claim 1. In addition, Lin discloses a computer program product comprising: one or more computer-readable storage media; program instructions, stored on at least one of the one or more storage media to perform the steps (paras. 121 & 124).
As per claim 15, see the above relevant rejection of claim 1. In addition, Lin discloses a computer system comprising: one or more processors, one or more computer-readable memories and one or more computer-readable storage media; program instructions, stored on at least one of the one or more storage media for execution by at least one of the one or more processors via at least one of the one or more memories, to perform the steps (paras. 68, 74 – 75, 94, 121 & 123 – 124).
As per claims 2, 9, & 16, Lin in view of Ladden discloses the limitations of claims 1, 8, & 15. Lin further discloses:
• comparing a geolocation for the first device associated with the observer to a recipient's address for the item; and responsive to determining a distance limit threshold is exceeded between the geolocation for the first device associated with the observer and the recipient's address for the item, validating that the item has been delivered to the incorrect location (paras. 95 – 97, validating that the item has been delivered to the incorrect location upon determining that the “scan location is over a predetermined distance away from the actual destination coordinates.”).
As per claims 3, 10, & 17, Lin in view of Ladden discloses the limitations of claims 1, 8, & 15. Lin further discloses:
• comparing a geolocation for the first device associated with the observer to a recipient's address for the item; determining whether a distance limit threshold is exceeded between the geolocation for the first device associated with the observer and the recipient's address for the item (paras. 95 – 97, comparing the “scan location” to the “actual destination coordinates” to determine whether the distance exceeds a threshold.)
• and responsive to not being able to determine that the distance limit threshold is exceeded between the geolocation for the first device associated with the observer and the recipient's address for the item, sending, to the second device associated with the recipient of the item, a notification regarding a potential misdelivery of the item, wherein the notification includes the notice from the observer (paras. 96 – 97, determining that “the delivery scan location is not over a predetermined distance away” and “the processor 242 may determine that there is a delivery issue, when the delivery scan location and the actual destination coordinates do not exactly match, even though the delivery scan location is within a predetermined distance from the actual destination coordinates of the item.” As per paras. 91, 99, 103 – 104, & 118 – 119, when there is a delivery issue the intended recipient is notified, necessarily indicating (i.e., including) the indication from the initial scan as per paras. 94 – 95.).
As per claims 6, 13, & 20, Lin in view of Ladden discloses the limitations of claims 1, 8, & 15. Lin further discloses:
• wherein the notice includes identifying details selected from the group consisting of: a geolocation for the first device associated with the observer, a photo of the item, a photo of the incorrect location, and additional comments from the observer regarding delivery of the item to the incorrect location (paras. 94 – 95, receiving scan data which includes the location where the item “scan was made” i.e., a geolocation for the first device associated with the observer.).
As per claims 7 & 14, Lin in view of Ladden discloses the limitations of claims 1 & 8. Lin further discloses:
• wherein the notice includes identifying information selected from the group consisting of: a first name of the observer, a last name of the observer, an address of the observer, an email address of the observer, and a unique username of the observer (para. 94, a notice from an observer can comprise “scan data” including a “delivery location (e.g., address), etc.” where the scan took place i.e., an address of the observer.).
Claims 4, 11, & 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US 20210406823 A1), in view of Ladden et al. (US 20160171439 A1), in view of Zeng et al. (US 12159256 B1).
As per claims 4, 11, & 18, Lin in view of Ladden discloses the limitations of claims 1, 8, & 15. To the extent to which Lin / Ladden does not appear to explicitly disclose the following limitations, Zeng teaches:
• sending, to the first device associated with the observer, a first request to redeliver the item to a recipient's address (C 24, L 5 – 31; C 25, L 45 – 55; C 27, L 1 – 11; C 28, L 48 – 63; claim 19, sending the deliverer device instructions to relocate the item to the actual destination address.);
• and a second request to provide at least one confirmation detail, wherein the at least one confirmation detail is selected from the group consisting of: a geolocation for the first device associated with the observer within a distance threshold limit of the recipient's address, a photo of a house number for the recipient's address, a photo of an apartment number for the recipient's address, and a photo of the item at the recipient's address near an object identifiable by the recipient (C 25, L 45 – 55; C 29, L 25 – 40, “the deliverer device can prompt the deliverer to capture an image of the delivered packages at the approved drop-off location” i.e., a photo of the item at the recipient's address near an object identifiable by the recipient.);
• and responsive to receiving, from the first device associated with the observer, the at least one confirmation detail, sending, to the second device associated with the recipient of the item, a confirmation of a successful redelivery of the item to the recipient's address (C 19, L 1 – 11, “a notification can be provided to the customer based on the delivery being completed.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the aforementioned teachings of Zeng in the invention of Lin / Ladden with the motivation “to confirm successful delivery,” as evidenced by Zeng (C 29, L 30).
Claims 5, 12, & 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US 20210406823 A1), in view of Ladden et al. (US 20160171439 A1), in view of Misra et al. (US 10040628 B1).
As per claims 5, 12, & 19, Lin in view of Ladden discloses the limitations of claims 1, 8, & 15. To the extent to which Lin / Ladden does not appear to explicitly disclose the following limitations, Misra teaches:
• sending an award to the observer for the successful redelivery of the item to the recipient's address, wherein the award is selected from the group consisting of: a credit towards a purchase from a seller of the item and a designated sum of money (C 17, L 65 – C 18, L 19, sending a credit towards a purchase of an item to a user who relocated the item.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the aforementioned teachings of Misra in the invention of Lin / Ladden with the motivation “to encourage a user to relocate and/or properly position items,” as evidenced by Misra (C 29, L 30).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN J KIRK whose telephone number is (571)272-6447. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 9:00-5:00.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571)272-5587. 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.
/BRYAN J KIRK/Examiner, Art Unit 3628 543
Prosecution Insights