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, 6, and 20 are amended. Claims 2, 3, 7, 8, 11, and 12 are canceled. Claims 13 and 14 are added as new claims. Claims 1, 4-6, 9, 10, 13, and 14 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/13/2026 regarding 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims are no longer considered certain methods or organizing human activity or mental processes because the amended limitation recites a method that remotely verifies delivery by confirming that the delivery agent is in proximity to the customer. Examiner disagrees. The claims are drawn towards a delivery system used to track the delivery of goods from a merchant to a customer by a delivery agent (using wireless beacons), and recite limitations that correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal interactions, relationships, or behavior; commercial interactions; business relations), as evidenced by limitations detailing receiving a customer order and transmitting the order to a merchant, associating the [wireless beacons] of the delivery agent with the order, receiving and transmitting customer location, etc. The claims also recite limitations that correspond to mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), as evidenced by limitations such as receiving a first indication from the [merchant device] that a [first signal] from a [wireless beacon] of the delivery agent has been received; associating the [wireless beacon] of the delivery agent with the received order; receiving a second indication from the [customer device] that a [second signal] from the [wireless beacon] of the delivery agent has been received; receiving and transmitting customer location information to the delivery agent; and in response to receiving the second indication from the [customer device], determining that the order has been delivered; (claims 1 and 6) the [merchant device] stores a plurality of unique identifiers corresponding to a plurality of delivery agents in [a memory], and (claim 10): associating one of unique identifiers stored in [a memory] with the received order. A judgment (that the order has been delivered, or that the order has been picked up and is in custody of the delivery agent) is determined by the observed or evaluated data (receiving the indication from the customer or delivery agent). The claims recite an abstract idea. Further, indicating that the second signal indicates proximity of the delivery agent to the customer, via short-range communication, when short-range communication in itself indicates that the devices are within a shorter range of distance (or within a closer proximity), will not take the claims out of the judicial exception groupings. The amended limitation at best represents an improvement in the judicial exception itself, not an improvement in computers or technology since the alleged improvement is found in the value or convenience that the delivery process/steps provide to an end-user (e.g., indication that the delivery agent and customer devices are within proximity of each other). It is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the judicial exception itself is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG LLC, the court determined that the claim simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology. Similarly, the Applicant’s claim recitations are an improvement in the judicial exception, not an improvement in technology.
Lastly, applicant’s argument that the receipt of the second signal from the wireless beacon of the delivery agent by the customer device indicates proximity of the wireless beacon of the delivery agent to the customer device was an unconventional computer operation on the effective filing date of the invention and recites an unconventional technological solution is unpersuasive. Examiner notes that the alleged improvement is stated in a conclusory manner without providing sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology (MPEP 2106.04(d)(1)). While the applicant cites to [0062] of the specification which provides support for the amended limitation, there is no indication in the specification that the alleged improvement or “unconventional technological solution” is described such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Additionally, a previous prior art reference on the record Todasco (2016/0048796) discloses in ¶0022 “In various embodiments, check-in application 112 may receive short range wireless communications from wireless beacon 132 when package 130 is in proximity to user device 110 and transmit information to wireless beacon 132, including identification information and/or check-in information (e.g., an identifier for user 102 and/or user device 110) for a check-in process that associates user 102 with wireless beacon 132. Wireless beacon 132 may be range limited to connect only with devices (e.g., user device 110) within a specified area, such as a radius around wireless beacon 132. In various embodiments, wireless beacon 132 may be place inside, on, or connected to package 130, as will be explained in more detail herein. Thus, user device 110 may connect to wireless beacon 132 when user device 110 is within a distance or radius around package 130. Based on the proximity for connection to wireless beacon 132, check-in application 112 may transmit information to wireless beacon 132 when user 102 is nearby wireless beacon 132, enabling delivery person device 140 to determine that user 102 is located in proximity to wireless beacon 132 (and thus may determine if user 102 holding user device 110 is eligible to receive package 130)”. The above reference and citation appear to be contrary to applicant’s position that receipt of the second signal from the wireless beacon of the delivery agent by the customer device indicates proximity of the wireless beacon of the delivery agent to the customer device was an unconventional computer operation on the effective filing date of the invention.
Applicant makes a similar argument for claims 13 and 14, and the response above is also applicable to these arguments.
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is maintained.
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, 4-6, 9, 10, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 13, and 14 recite a method (i.e. process), claims 6 and 9 recite an apparatus (i.e. machine), and claim 10 recites a non-transitory storage medium (i.e. machine or article of manufacture). Therefore claims 1, 4-6, 9, 10, 13, and 14 fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Independent 1, 6, and 10 recite the limitations of receiving an order for goods and/or services from a customer device for delivery; transmitting the order to [a merchant device], [the merchant device] having a pool of [wireless beacons] for use with the delivery and from which one of[ the wireless beacons] is to be pulled by a delivery agent; receiving a first indication from [the merchant device] that [a first signal from a wireless beacon] of the delivery agent has been received; associating [the wireless beacon] of the delivery agent with the received order; receiving current location information from [the customer device]; transmitting the received current customer location information to the delivery agent; receiving a second indication from [the customer device] that [a second signal from the wireless beacon] of the delivery agent has been received, wherein receipt of the second signal from the wireless beacon of the delivery agent by the customer device indicates proximity of the wireless beacon of the delivery agent to the customer device; and in response to receiving the second indication from [the customer device] determining that the order has been delivered and returning [the wireless beacon] of the delivery agent back to the pool for a subsequent order from the merchant, thereby allowing the returned [wireless beacon] to be available for use by another delivery agent; wherein [the merchant device] stores a plurality of unique identifiers corresponding to a plurality of delivery agents in [a memory]; and wherein each unique identifier associated with [the wireless beacons] from the pool is stored in [the memory], each unique identifier corresponding to a different delivery agent, and the first and second indications include the unique identifier. The claims are drawn towards a delivery system used to track the delivery of goods from a merchant to a customer by a delivery agent (using wireless beacons), and recite limitations that correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal interactions, relationships, or behavior; commercial interactions; business relations), as evidenced by limitations detailing receiving a customer order and transmitting the order to a merchant, associating the [wireless beacons] of the delivery agent with the order, receiving and transmitting customer location, etc. The claims recite limitations that correspond to mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), as evidenced by limitations such as receiving a first indication from the [merchant device] that a [first signal] from a [wireless beacon] of the delivery agent has been received; associating the [wireless beacon] of the delivery agent with the received order; receiving a second indication from the [customer device] that a [second signal] from the [wireless beacon] of the delivery agent has been received; receiving and transmitting customer location information to the delivery agent; and in response to receiving the second indication from the [customer device], determining that the order has been delivered; (claims 1 and 6) the [merchant device] stores a plurality of unique identifiers corresponding to a plurality of delivery agents in [a memory], and (claim 10): associating one of unique identifiers stored in [a memory] with the received order. A judgment (that the order has been delivered, or that the order has been picked up and is in custody of the delivery agent) is determined by the observed or evaluated data (receiving the indication from the customer or delivery agent). The claims recite an abstract idea.
Note: The features or elements in brackets in the above section are inserted for reading clarity, but are analyzed as “additional elements” under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application simply because the claims recite the additional elements of: at least one processor, a customer device, a merchant device, wireless beacons, a first and second signal of the wireless beacon, and non-transitory storage medium (claim 10). The additional elements of the processor, customer device, wireless beacons (and the signals of the beacons being transmitted/received), non-transitory storage medium, and merchant device are computer components recited at a high-level of generality performing the above-mentioned limitations. The combination of the additional elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. Further, the additional elements of the wireless beacons and first and second signals amount to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use (the delivery of goods to customers). Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do 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 amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 4, 5, 9, 13, and 14 recite additional limitations that are further directed to the abstract idea analyzed in the rejected claims above. The claims also recite additional elements that have been analyzed in the rejected claims above. Thus, claims 4, 5, 9, 13, and 14 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1, 4-6, 9, 10, 13, and 14 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
The closest U.S. patent/patent application reference found is the Gishen (2015/0081581) reference. The applicant’s invention is directed towards a method of tracking and enhancing delivery service with the use of wireless beacons as described by receiving by a processor an order for goods or services from a first (customer) device transmitting the order to the second (merchant) device. Gishen discloses a method for facilitating secure ordering and delivery of good or services including transmitting the order to the merchant device, associating the wireless indication of the delivery agent with the received order, and a second indication from the customer device that the order has been delivered. The applicant’s invention also discloses receiving an indication from the second (merchant) computing device that a signal from a third (delivery agent) computing device has been detected by the second (merchant) computing device. Gishen reference discloses this limitation as well. The reference lacks the limitation that each unique identifier associated with the wireless beacons from the pool is stored in memory, and each unique identifier corresponds to a different delivery agent.
The closest non-patent literature reference found is the article “Automatically tracking engineered components through shipping and receiving processes with passive identification technologies” (Grau, et. al., 2012). The reference discloses RFID technologies, both active and passive tags, used in a delivery and/or shipping environment to tack the flow of engineered components during shipment and receipt processes. The article does not explicitly disclose, however, the limitation that each unique identifier associated with the wireless beacons from the pool is stored in memory, and each unique identifier corresponds to a different delivery agent.
Conclusion
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 DIONE N SIMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5513. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 7:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m..
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.
DIONE N. SIMPSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3628
/DIONE N. SIMPSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628