DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
This Final Office Action is in response to Application Serial 18/439,165. In response to Examiner’s action mail dated July 17, 2025, Applicant amended the claims and submitted arguments. The claims 1-20 are examined below and are pending in this application.
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 . 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.
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant did not submit an information disclosure for consideration.
Response to Amendments
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application. The claims 1 -20 are amended.
Applicant’s amendments are not sufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection set forth in the previous action. The claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, see below.
The amendments to the claims 9-15 overcome the signal per se. The signal per se is withdrawn.
Regarding prior art, the claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103. See below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed October 17, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and/or moot in view of the revised rejections. Applicant’s argument will be considered herein below.
Rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101
On pages 8-12 of the Applicant’s 35 U.S.C. 101 arguments, Applicant traverses, Examiner’s rejection. Applicant has amended claims 1-20.
On pages 8-9 of the Applicant’s arguments, regarding the signal per se rejection used to reject claims 9-15 as statutory subject matter, Applicant has amended the independent claims 1, 9 and 16. The Applicant amended the claims to conclude “a status of the home automation system over a time period” and “transmit a schedule for the package delivery to at least one second device”. Thus, claims 9-15 fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Examiner acknowledges the Applicant’s amendments to overcome the pending 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection for claims 9-15 considered as non-statutory matter. Examiner acknowledges the Applicant amended the claims to include additional elements. The claims are amended to included additional elements, and thus, the Applicant’s amendments are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 101 for non-statutory matter is persuasive.
On pages 9-10 of the Applicant’s arguments, the Applicant traverses the Step 2A, Prong One arguments. Applicant argues the subject matter provides a technical solution for reducing usage of computational resources at a device related to processing of additional package delivery attempts. Further, the subject matter provides a technical solution for reducing or avoiding a package delivery manager. Applicant cites to the specification [004], [0021] and support the arguments.
Applicant traverses the rejection citing DDR, noting the claims at issue here specify how interaction with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result – a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequent of events. Applicant traverses like DDR, the amended independent claims 1, 9, and 16 specify “how” related to scheduling the package delivery” and are not abstract.
Applicant cites the MPEP provides that an “important consideration in determining whether a claim is directed to an improvement in technology is the extent to which there is a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome”. (MPEP 2106.05(a)). Applicant traversed the amended independent claims 1, 9, and 16 are directed to the particular solution to a particular technical problem noting an increased usage of computational resources due to processing of additional package delivery attempts. (See Application [004] and [0021]). Applicant explained there is a need for reducing usage of computational resources for packages deliveries by utilizing application data from multiple components of a home automations system to determine when a recipient is available to receive a package delivery and transmitting a schedule for the package delivery when the recipient is available. (See e.g., id, [020]-[022], [024]). Applicant concludes like the claims in DDR, amended claim 1, 9, and 16 are directed to a technical, computer-centric problem rather than an abstract idea, as alleged in the Office Action.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s Step 2A prong One arguments. Although DDR is a business method decision the instant application is not rooted in web pages offering commercial opportunities. The claims are scheduling a delivery using status information, and thus the scheduling is a commercial activity, and therefore the claims recite a certain method of organizing human activity so the claims are directed to an abstract concept at Step 2A prong one.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments regarding improvement – reducing usage of computational resources for package deliveries cited in Applicant’s specification at [020]-[022], [024]. The Applicant’s claims are absent of the claiming or describing reduce usage of computational resources for package deliveries. The Applicant supports the improvement argument with specification [020]-[022], [024] which describe reduced energy usage (at the location the home automation is interfacing), turn off lights, enables a security system. Examiner submits, although the measurement of reduced use of energy resources at the location that the home automation is interfacing are stated in the specification and this availability status is introduced in the dependent claim 7, the claims are using status data gathered from monitoring energy components such as thermostats and lights. The monitoring of the data status of components within a home is not improving the computational resources of home automations system communicating delivery times. The monitoring of the data components within a home is a system output, which is data, and therefore can be accomplished using mental concepts – evaluation, observation, judgement. The status of the components interfacing with the home automation system are mental concepts at step 2A prong one.
Regarding Applicant’s DDR arguments, the improvements are evaluated at Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B. See 35 U.S.C. 101 Rejection Below.
On pages 10-12 of the Applicant’s 35 U.S.C. 101 arguments, the Applicant traverse’s Examiner’s Step 2A Prong two arguments. Applicant submits that the claims as a whole integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application and are therefore patent eligible under Prong Two of Step 2A. Applicant references MPEP 2106.04(d) and Visual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA Corp (Fed. Cir. 2017) to explain integration is when the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field. Applicant traverses the independent claims 1, 9, and 16 integrate any alleged judicial exception into a practical application for at least the reason that they include features that improve the functioning of a computer system.
On pages 11-12 of the Step 2A prong two arguments, Applicant traverses amended independent claims 1, 9 and 16 are directed to an improvement of computer functionality, namely, by utilizing application data from multiple (e.g., a plurality of) component of a home automation system to transmit a schedule for a package delivery when a recipient is available to receive the package delivery. The Applicant submits obtaining status, and transmitting availability status information/data improve computer functionality at the first device and points to Application specification [021]. Applicant submits, that amended independent claims 1, 9, and 16 include features that improve the functioning of a computing system, any alleged judicial exception included in amended independent claims 1, 9, and 16 is therefore integrated into a practical application, and satisfies the analysis of Step 2A, Prong Two. Accordingly, Applicant is requesting withdrawal of the 101 rejections.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s Step 2A prong two arguments. Examiner acknowledges that the Applicant amendments to the claims include additional elements (e.g., a home automation system) that is/are receiving data availability status from a computer component (e.g., a first device, a second device, and a home automation system). These additional elements are broadly reciting computer components that are transmitting and obtaining status/availability data. The claims are merely applying a computer to monitor availability status data. -See M.P.E.P. 2106.05 (f).
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s improvement of computer functionality arguments at Step 2A prong 2. Examiner acknowledges that the Applicant amendments to the claims include additional elements (e.g., a home automation system) that is/are receiving data availability status from a computer component (e.g., a first device, a second device, and a home automation system). The gathering of information/data which is an output of the computer conducting computer functions is not an improvement to the additional element. As claimed the gathering and transmitting of status data is not an improving the functioning of a computing system. The claims are not patent eligible at Step 2A Prong 2.
On pages 11-12 of the Applicant’s 35 U.S.C. 101 arguments, the Applicant traverse’s amended independent claims 1, 9, and 16 are directed to an improvement of computer functionality, namely, by utilizing applications data from multiple components (e.g., plurality of components of a home automation system) to transmit a schedule for a package delivery.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s improvement arguments. Examiner submits, the home automation is interfacing with components that are monitoring energy usage e.g., reduced thermostat temperature and on/off lights usage, this data is not a technical improvement. The usage of the thermostat and light being on or off is not improving the computer functionality. Examiner submits, the Applicant’s invention, as claimed, is not an improvement of computer functionality at Step 2A prong two nor Step 2B. The claims are not patent eligible.
The claims 1-20 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, see rejection below.
Prior Art Claim Rejections
On pages 12-14 of the Applicant’s 35 U.S.C. prior art arguments, Applicant traverses, Examiner’s rejection. Applicant amended claims 1, 9, and 16 to include features supported by the specification [020]-[022], [024], and [025].
On pages 12-13 of the claim rejections arguments, the Applicant submits, Bounasser is processing calendar data or weather data to identify a date for delivery of an item. Applicant traverses Bounasser makes no mention of a home automation system, corresponding to an availability status of a recipient to receive a package delivery during the time period. Thus, Bousnasser does not disclose all of the features of amended independent claim 1. Therefore, Bounasser does not disclose all of the features of amended independent claim 1. Applicant submits amended independent claim is allowable. Amended independent claims 9 and 16 are likewise allowable for a least similar reason. Accordingly, Applicant requests that the rejection of independent claims 1, 9, and 10 under 102 be withdrawn.
Applicant submits, dependent claims 2-8, 10-15, and 17-20 also recite allowable features that the Office has not shown that Bounasser discloses. Dependent claim 3 has been amended, Bounasser also does not disclose home automation that includes a plurality of components, let alone respective status of the plurality of components. Accordingly, for at least these reasons, Applicant requests that the rejection of dependent claims 2-8, 10-15, and 17-20 under 102 be withdrawn.
Examiner respectfully acknowledges Applicant’s request for Examiner to withdraw the prior art rejections for independent claims 1, 9 and 10 and the respective dependent claims 2-8, 10-15, and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102. Examiner submits the Applicant’s amendments to the claims necessitate grounds for a new rejection. See prior art rejection below.
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. The claims (claim 1 and similarly claim 9) recite, “… obtain application data corresponding, … a status … over a time period, wherein the status corresponds to an availability status of a recipient to receive a package delivery according to a delivery schedule during the time period, and wherein the availability status indicating indicates that the recipient is unavailable to receive the package delivery according to the delivery schedule at a first time and is available to receive the package delivery at a second time after the first time; and establish an updated transmit, … a schedule for the package delivery at the second time based on the availability status of the recipient indicating availability to receive the package delivery according to the updated schedule …”. Claim 16 recites, “… an availability status of a recipient to receive a package delivery according to a delivery schedule, the availability status indicating that a recipient is unavailable to receive the package delivery according to the delivery schedule during a time period; … obtain …, a status … over the time period, wherein the status corresponds to the availability status of a recipient to receive the package delivery during the time period, and wherein the availability status indicates that the recipient is unavailable to receive the package delivery at a first time and is available to receive the package delivery at a second time after the first time; and establish an updated a schedule for the package delivery at the second time based on the availability status of the recipient to receive the package delivery according to updated schedule…”. Claims 1-20 in view of the claim limitations, scheduling a package delivery …, and thus, the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activity – managing personal behavior. The claims recite a judicial exception at Step 2A Prong One.
Furthermore, the claims are obtaining a status of availability, and thus, the claims are performing mental concepts- observation, evaluation, The claims recite a judicial exception at Step 2A.
This judicial exception are not integrated into a practical application under the second prong of Step 2A. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea of, “A first device, comprising: at least one processor coupled with a memory; and a package delivery manager configured to cause the first device to”, “a home automation system,” “at least one second device”, in claim 1; “A method performed by a first device, the method comprising …”, “… from a home automation system …”, in claim 9; “A mobile device, comprising: at least one processor coupled with [[a]] at least one memory; a display device to display”, “a package delivery manager”, “… from a home automation system …” in claim 16; however, when viewed as an ordered combination, and pursuant to the broadest reasonable interpretation, each of the additional elements are computing elements recite adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05 (f)
Regarding the dependent claims, the additional elements recited in the dependent claims are not recited in the independent claims include:
Claim 2: “a user interface of the first device”;
Claim 6, 10, 14: “a user interface of the first device”, “via the user interface”;
Claim 7, 11, 18: “a plurality of components”.
Claim 7 states the component status. The claims 1-6 do not positively recite the components in the claims, so the components are not integrated into the judicial exception. The claims are apply it – MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims also fails to recite any improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, use of a particular machine, effecting transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and/or an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception at Step 2A Prong 2.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more. (See MPEP 2106.05 f – mere instructions to Apply an Exception).
At step 2B, it is MPEP 2106.05 (d) – Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information).
Examiner concludes that the additional elements in combination fail to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea based on findings that each element merely performs the same function (s) in combination as each element performs separately. The claim is not patent eligible. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitation as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
Dependent claims 2-8 further narrow the abstract idea of independent claim 1. Dependent claims 10-15 further narrow the abstract idea of independent claim 9. Dependent claims 17-20 further narrow the abstract idea of independent claim 16. The claims 1-20 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YAMAGUCHI (JP 2023142925 A) in view of Bounasser (US 2018/0,349,844 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, (Currently Amended) [and similarly claim 9]
A first device, comprising: at least one processor coupled with a memory; and a package delivery manager configured to cause the first device to: obtain application data corresponding, from a home automation system, a status of the home automation system over a time period, wherein the status corresponds to an availability status of a recipient to receive a package delivery according to a delivery schedule during the time period, and wherein the availability status indicating indicates that the recipient is unavailable to receive the package delivery according to the delivery schedule at a first time and is available to receive the package delivery at a second time after the first time; and establish an updated transmit, to at least one second device, a schedule for the package delivery at the second time based on the availability status of the recipient indicating availability to receive the package delivery according to the updated schedule.
In YAMAGUCHI, the delivery information sharing system 1 includes a delivery information sharing device 10, a management device T installed at a plurality of delivery companies, and a terminal device U (home automation) used by a user who is a recipient of a package. The delivery information sharing device 10, the management device T, and the terminal device U can communicate information via a network., YAMAGUCHI (p.3).
In YAMAGUCHI, the first communication unit 11 (first device) receives at-home information indicating an at-home schedule transmitted from the user. The first communication unit 11 transmits the delivery time determined by the delivery time determination unit 23 (second device) to the user. YAMAGUCHI (p.3).
In YAMAGUCHI, the at-home information is information indicating the time when the user is at home. The at-home information may be information indicating the time when the user is at home and can receive the package. The at-home information may be set for each day of the week or for each date, for example. At-home information is set in advance by the user. YAMAGUCHI (p.3).
In YAMAGUCHI, the first communication control unit 21 controls the first communication unit 11 to control communication with the terminal device U used by the user. More specifically, the first communication control unit 21 controls to receive the at-home information indicating the at-home schedule transmitted from the user. The first communication control unit 21 may transmit the delivery times of the plurality of packages determined by the delivery time determination unit 23 to the user. YAMAGUCHI (p.3).
YAMAGUCHI teaches the first communication unit 21, which Examiner considers the at-home automation system. YAMAGUCHI teaches a first communication unit 11 to acquire at home information, and thus, YAMAGUCHI teaches a first device communicating with a home automation system. , YAMAGUCHI (p.3), [Figure 1 S101]
In YAMAGUCHI, the delivery time determination unit 23 determines delivery times to deliver a plurality of packages in accordance with the user's at-home schedule from the at-home information stored in the storage unit 13. YAMAGUCHI (p.3 - p.4).
In YAMAGUCHI, the control unit 20 determines the delivery time (step S103). The control unit 20 uses the delivery information acquired by the second communication control unit 22 (unit 22 interfaces with deliver companies) by the delivery time determination unit 23 to determine whether the delivery time of the multiple delivery companies is correct when the package is to be delivered., YAMAGUCHI (p.4).
A first communication unit 11 = first device
Delivery time determination unit 23 = second device
Terminal U = home automation system
Although highly suggested YAMAGUCHI does not explicitly teach:
… wherein the availability status indicating indicates that the recipient is unavailable to receive the package delivery according to the delivery schedule at a first time and is available to receive the package delivery at a second time after the first time; and establish an updated transmit, to at least one second device, a schedule for the package delivery at the second time based on the availability status of the recipient indicating availability to receive the package delivery according to the updated schedule.
Bounasser teaches:
…. a delivery schedule during the time period, and wherein the availability status indicating indicates that the recipient is unavailable to receive the package delivery according to the delivery schedule at a first time and is available to receive the package delivery at a second time after the first time; and establish an updated transmit, to at least one second device, a schedule for the package delivery at the second time based on the availability status of the recipient indicating availability to receive the package delivery according to the updated schedule.
Bounasser [0106] As shown by reference number 710, delivery system 230 may provide a message to client device 210 requesting confirmation of a recommended date for delivery of an item and/or service (e.g., the 14.sup.th of the month). For example, delivery system 230 may have processed second data (e.g., calendar data or weather data) to identify the 14.sup.th as a day when a user of client device 210 is available to receive the delivery, as a day when inclement weather is not forecasted, and/or the like.; Bounasser [0109] As shown by reference number 725, after confirming the date of delivery, the user of client device 210 may send a message to delivery system 230 requesting to reschedule the delivery. For example, the message may include the text “Can I reschedule my delivery for the 15.sup.th?” In some implementations, delivery system 230 may process the text of the message using natural language processing to determine that the user of client device 210 is requesting to reschedule the delivery from the 14.sup.th to the 15.sup.th., Bounasser [0106]-[0110] and [Figure 7A], [Figure 7B].
Bousnasser teaches a delivery system 230, and thus, Bousanner teaches a package manager.
Bousnasser teaches a client device 210, and thus, Bousanner teaches a second device.
PNG
media_image1.png
587
791
media_image1.png
Greyscale
YAMAGUCHI improves convenience of receiving packages. In Bousnasser, a device may process the first data and the second data using a processing technique to identify information related to scheduling the delivery. It would be obvious to combine before the effective filing date, using home automation information, as taught by YAMAGUCHI, with modifying delivery based on first data and second data, as taught by Bousnasser, to reduce or eliminate a need for a delivery to be scheduled and/or attempted multiple times., Bousnasser [014].
Regarding Claim 2, (Currently Amended) [and similarly claim 10]
The first device of claim 1, wherein to establish the updated schedule for the package delivery, the package delivery manager is further configured to: display, on a user interface of the first device, the updated schedule and an indication that the package delivery is scheduled to occur when the availability status of the recipient is unavailable; and receive confirmation to reschedule, via the user interface, a confirmation of the package delivery according to the updated schedule.
The system of claim 1 – see YAMAGUCHI (p.3 - p.4)., YAMAGUCHI (Figure 1 S101, S103) and Bounasser [0106]-[0110] and [Figure 7A], [Figure 7B].
Regarding Claim 3, (Currently Amended)
The first device of claim 1, wherein to establish the updated schedule for the package delivery, the package delivery manager is configured to analyze the application data to determine the recipient is available to receive the package delivery according to the updated schedule wherein: the home automation system includes a plurality of components; and the availability status is based on two or more respective statuses of the plurality of components corresponding to the recipient being available to receive the package delivery or unavailable to receive the package delivery.
The system of claim 1 – YAMAGUCHI (p.3 - p.4), YAMAGUCHI (Figure 1 S101, S103)and and Bounasser [0106]-[0110] and [Figure 7A], [Figure 7B]
YAMAGUCHI improves convenience of receiving packages. In Bousnasser, a device may process the first data and the second data using a processing technique to identify information related to scheduling the delivery. It would be obvious to combine before the effective filing date, using home automation information, as taught by YAMAGUCHI, with modifying delivery based on first data and second data, as taught by Bousnasser, to reduce or eliminate a need for a delivery to be scheduled and/or attempted multiple times., Bousnasser [014].
Within claim 3, Bounasser illustrates the delivery is scheduled for the 14th, and Bounasser illustrates the packaged is rescheduled for the 15th, and thus, Bounasser discloses of scheduling unavailable on the 14th and rescheduled to available time on the 15th. Claim 3 a "Markush" claim recites a list of alternatively useable members. In re Harnisch, 631 F.2d 716, 719-20, 206 USPQ 300, 303 (CCPA 1980); Ex parte Markush, 1925 Dec. Comm'r Pat. 126, 127 (1924). The listing of specified alternatives within a Markush claim is referred to as a Markush group or a Markush grouping. Abbott Labs v. Baxter Pharmaceutical Products, Inc., 334 F.3d 1274, 1280-81, 67 USPQ2d 1191, 1196 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citing to several sources that describe Markush groups)- See MPEP 706.03.
Regarding Claim 4, (Currently Amended)
The first device of claim 1, wherein the package delivery manager is configured to: determine that the recipient is available to receive the package delivery prior to the delivery schedule second time; and establish [[the]] an updated schedule for the package delivery based on the availability status of the recipient indicating availability to receive the package delivery prior to the delivery schedule second time.
The system of claim 1 – see YAMAGUCHI (p.3 - p.4), YAMAGUCHI (Figure 1 S101, S103)and and Bounasser [0106]-[0110] and [Figure 7A].
Bousanner discloses in some implementations, delivery system 230 may process the text of the response message to determine that the user of client device 210 does not want to reschedule the delivery from the 15.sup.th. In this way, delivery system 230 may monitor second data and intelligently notify a user of client device 210 when a calendar appointment conflicts with a scheduled delivery., Bousanner, [0112], [Figure 7B].
Bounasser [0116] discloses as shown in FIG. 7C, and by reference number 760, on the day of delivery, delivery system 230 may provide a message to client device 210 to inform a user of client device 210 that traffic may delay delivery by a threshold amount of time (e.g., by monitoring second data, such as traffic data). For example, the message may include the text “Traffic is predicted to delay delivery by 15 minutes. Do you want to reschedule?” to determine whether a user of client device 210 wants to reschedule the delivery based on the delay., Bounasser [056], [0116], [Figure 7C]
Rescheduling is a second time.
PNG
media_image2.png
609
787
media_image2.png
Greyscale
YAMAGUCHI improves convenience of receiving packages. In Bousnasser, a device may process the first data and the second data using a processing technique to identify information related to scheduling the delivery. It would be obvious to combine before the effective filing date, using home automation information, as taught by YAMAGUCHI, with modifying delivery based on first data and second data, as taught by Bousnasser, to reduce or eliminate a need for a delivery to be scheduled and/or attempted multiple times., Bousnasser [014].
Regarding Claim 5, (Currently Amended)
The first device of claim 1, wherein the package delivery manager is configured to monitor additional application data until the package delivery occurs according to the updated schedule.
The system of claim 1 – see see YAMAGUCHI (p.3 - p.4)., YAMAGUCHI (Figure 1 S101, S103)and and Bounasser [0106]-[0110] and [Figure 7A], [Figure 7B] & [Figure 7C].
YAMAGUCHI improves convenience of receiving packages. In Bousnasser, a device may process the first data and the second data using a processing technique to identify information related to scheduling the delivery. It would be obvious to combine before the effective filing date, using home automation information, as taught by YAMAGUCHI, with modifying delivery based on first data and second data, as taught by Bousnasser, to reduce or eliminate a need for a delivery to be scheduled and/or attempted multiple times., Bousnasser [014].
Regarding Claim 6, (Currently Amended)
The first device of claim 1, wherein the package delivery manager is further configured to: determine the recipient is unavailable to receive the package delivery according to the delivery schedule at the first time prior to an order being placed for an item associated with the package delivery; display, on a user interface of the first device, the updated schedule and an indication for the recipient to select a different delivery [[date]] time; and receive confirmation to reschedule, via the user interface, a confirmation of the package delivery according to the updated schedule.
The system of claim 1 – see YAMAGUCHI (p.3 - p.4)., YAMAGUCHI (Figure 1 S101, S103)and and Bounasser [0106]-[0110] and [Figure 7A], [Figure 7B], [0112], & [Figure 7C].
YAMAGUCHI improves convenience of receiving packages. In Bousnasser, a device may process the first data and the second data using a processing technique to identify information related to scheduling the delivery. It would be obvious to combine before the effective filing date, using home automation information, as taught by YAMAGUCHI, with modifying delivery based on first data and second data, as taught by Bousnasser, to reduce or eliminate a need for a delivery to be scheduled and/or attempted multiple times., Bousnasser [014].
Regarding Claim 7, (Currently Amended)
The first device of claim 1, wherein the application data includes at least one of a first duration for which the recipient is available to receive the package delivery or a second duration for which the recipient is unavailable to receive the package delivery wherein: the home automation system includes a plurality of components; and the availability status is based on two or more respective statuses of the plurality of components, the respective statuses comprising one or more of an away status, an eco- status, a security system status, or a temperature status.
The system of claim 1 – see YAMAGUCHI (p.3 - p.4), YAMAGUCHI (Figure 1 S101, S103) and Bounasser [0106]-[0110] and [Figure 7A], [Figure 7B].
Bousanner teaches second data may include weather data that identifies weather conditions at a location, calendar data that identifies a set of available and/or unavailable times for an individual, traffic data that identifies traffic conditions at a location or on a route to the location, text of a message (e.g., a short message service (SMS) message or an email from client device 210), and/or the like.
YAMAGUCHI improves convenience of receiving packages. In Bousnasser, a device may process the first data and the second data using a processing technique to identify information related to scheduling the delivery. It would be obvious to combine before the effective filing date, using home automation information, as taught by YAMAGUCHI, with modifying delivery based on first data and second data, as taught by Bousnasser, to reduce or eliminate a need for a delivery to be scheduled and/or attempted multiple times., Bousnasser [014].
Within claim 7, Bounasser discloses available to receive package and date unavailable to receive package, and thus, Bounasser discloses a first duration for which the recipient is available to receive the package delivery or a second duration for which the recipient is unavailable to receive the package delivery. Claim 7 a "Markush" claim recites a list of alternatively useable members. In re Harnisch, 631 F.2d 716, 719-20, 206 USPQ 300, 303 (CCPA 1980); Ex parte Markush, 1925 Dec. Comm'r Pat. 126, 127 (1924). The listing of specified alternatives within a Markush claim is referred to as a Markush group or a Markush grouping. Abbott Labs v. Baxter Pharmaceutical Products, Inc., 334 F.3d 1274, 1280-81, 67 USPQ2d 1191, 1196 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citing to several sources that describe Markush groups)- See MPEP 706.03.
Regarding Claim 8, (Currently Amended)
The first device of claim 1, wherein the package delivery manager is further configured to obtain application data includes at least including one or more of calendar information of the recipient, travel information of the recipient, correspondence information of the recipient, home automation system information associated with the recipient, or location information of the recipient, wherein the availability status of the recipient to receive the package delivery during the time period is based on the application data.
The system of claim 1 – see YAMAGUCHI (p.3 - p.4), YAMAGUCHI (Figure 1 S101, S103) and
Bousanner [0112] teaches as shown in FIG. 7B, and by reference number 735, after rescheduling the delivery, delivery system 230 may determine that the user has added a calendar appointment that conflicts with the rescheduled delivery, and may provide a message to client device 210 that indicates the conflict. For example, the message may include the text “I see you have a calendar conflict with a delivery on the 15.sup.th. Reschedule?”
YAMAGUCHI improves convenience of receiving packages. In Bousnasser, a device may process the first data and the second data using a processing technique to identify information related to scheduling the delivery. It would be obvious to combine before the effective filing date, using home automation information, as taught by YAMAGUCHI, with modifying delivery based on first data and second data, as taught by Bousnasser, to reduce or eliminate a need for a delivery to be scheduled and/or attempted multiple times., Bousnasser [014].
Within claim 8, Bounasser discloses calendar data and text of a message, and thus, Bounasser discloses of calendar information of the recipient and correspondence information of the recipient. Claim 8 a "Markush" claim recites a list of alternatively useable members. In re Harnisch, 631 F.2d 716, 719-20, 206 USPQ 300, 303 (CCPA 1980); Ex parte Markush, 1925 Dec. Comm'r Pat. 126, 127 (1924). The listing of specified alternatives within a Markush claim is referred to as a Markush group or a Markush grouping. Abbott Labs v. Baxter Pharmaceutical Products, Inc., 334 F.3d 1274, 1280-81, 67 USPQ2d 1191, 1196 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citing to several sources that describe Markush groups)- See MPEP 706.03.
Regarding Claim 11, (Currently Amended)
The method of claim 9, wherein establishing the updated schedule for the package delivery comprises analyzing the application data to determine the recipient is available to receive the package delivery according to the updated schedule wherein: the home automation system includes a plurality of components; and the availability status is based on two or more respective statuses of the plurality of components corresponding to the recipient being available to receive the package delivery or unavailable to receive the package delivery.
See Claim 5 - The system of claim 1 – YAMAGUCHI (p.3 - p.4), YAMAGUCHI (Figure 1 S101, S103)and and Bounasser [0106]-[0110] and [Figure 7A], [Figure 7B] & [Figure 7C].
YAMAGUCHI improves convenience of receiving packages. In Bousnasser, a device may process the first data and the second data using a processing technique to identify information related to scheduling the delivery. It would be obvious to combine before the effective filing date, using home automation information, as taught by YAMAGUCHI, with modifying delivery based on first data and second data, as taught by Bousnasser, to reduce or eliminate a need for a delivery to be scheduled and/or attempted multiple times., Bousnasser [014].
Regarding Claim 12, (Currently Amended)
The method of claim 9, further comprising: determining that the recipient is available to receive the package delivery prior to the delivery schedule second time; and establishing [[the]] an updated schedule for the package delivery based on the availability status of the recipient indicating availability to receive the package delivery prior to the delivery schedule second time.
Similar to claim 4, YAMAGUCHI (p.3 - p.4), YAMAGUCHI (Figure 1 S101, S103) and Bounasser [0106]-[0110] and [Figure 7A], [0112], [Figure 7B], [056], [0116] , [Figure 7C].
YAMAGUCHI improves convenience of receiving packages. In Bousnasser, a device may process the first data and the second data using a processing technique to identify information related to scheduling the delivery. It would be obvious to combine before the effective filing date, using home automation information, as taught by YAMAGUCHI, with modifying delivery based on first data and second data, as taught by Bousnasser, to reduce or eliminate a need for a delivery to be scheduled and/or attempted multiple times., Bousnasser [014].
Regarding Claim 13, (Currently Amended)
The method of claim 9, further comprising monitoring additional application data until the package delivery occurs according to the updated schedule.
See claim 1 YAMAGUCHI (p.3 - p.4), YAMAGUCHI (Figure 1 S101, S103) and Bounasser [0116], [Figure 7C].
YAMAGUCHI improves convenience of receiving packages. In Bousnasser, a device may process the first data and the second data using a processing technique to identify information related to scheduling the delivery. It would be obvious to combine before the effective filing date, using home automation information, as taught by YAMAGUCHI, with modifying delivery based on first data and second data, as taught by Bousnasser, to reduce or eliminate a need for a delivery to be scheduled and/or attempted multiple times., Bousnasser [014].
Regarding Claim 14, (Currently Amended)
The method of claim 9, further comprising: determining the recipient is unavailable to receive the package delivery according to the delivery schedule at the first time prior to an order being placed for an item associated with the package delivery; displaying, on a user interface of the first device, the updated schedule and an indication for the recipient to select a different delivery [[date]] time; and receiving confirmation to reschedule, via the user interface, a confirmation of the package delivery according to the updated schedule.
See claim 1 YAMAGUCHI (p.3 - p.4), YAMAGUCHI (Figure 1 S101, S103) , Bounasser [0106]-[0110] and [Figure 7A], [Figure 7B]
YAMAGUCHI improves convenience of receiving packages. In Bousnasser, a device may process the first data and the second data using a processing technique to identify information related to scheduling the delivery. It would be obvious to combine before the effective filing date, using home automation information, as taught by YAMAGUCHI, with modifying delivery based on first data and second data, as taught by Bousnasser, to reduce or eliminate a need for a delivery to be scheduled and/or attempted multiple times., Bousnasser [014].
Regarding Claim 15, (Currently Amended)
The method of claim 9, wherein the further comprising obtaining application data includes at least including one or more of calendar information of the recipient, travel information of the recipient, correspondence information of the recipient, home automation system information associated with the recipient, or location information of the recipient, wherein the availability status of the recipient to receive the package delivery during the time period is based on the application data.
Similar to claim 8.
See claim 1 YAMAGUCHI (p.3 - p.4), YAMAGUCHI (Figure 1 S101, S103) and Bounasser [0054] discloses … data may include …, calendar data that identifies a set of available and/or unavailable times for an individual, traffic data that identifies traffic conditions at a location or on a route to the location, text of a message (e.g., a short message service (SMS) message or an email from client device 210), and/or the like.
YAMAGUCHI improves convenience of receiving packages. In Bousnasser, a device may process the first data and the second data using a processing technique to identify information related to scheduling the delivery. It would be obvious to combine before the effective filing date, using home automation information, as taught by YAMAGUCHI, with modifying delivery based on first data and second data, as taught by Bousnasser, to reduce or eliminate a need for a delivery to be scheduled and/or attempted multiple times., Bousnasser [014].
Within claim 15, Bounasser discloses calendar data and text of a message, and thus, Bounasser discloses of calendar information of the recipient and correspondence information of the recipient. Claim 15 a "Markush" claim recites a list of alternatively useable members. In re Harnisch, 631 F.2d 716, 719-20, 206 USPQ 300, 303 (CCPA 1980); Ex parte Markush, 1925 Dec. Comm'r Pat. 126, 127 (1924). The listing of specified alternatives within a Markush claim is referred to as a Markush group or a Markush grouping. Abbott Labs v. Baxter Pharmaceutical Products, Inc., 334 F.3d 1274, 1280-81, 67 USPQ2d 1191, 1196 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citing to several sources that describe Markush groups)- See MPEP 706.03.
Regarding Claim 16, (Currently Amended)
A mobile device, comprising:at least one processor coupled with [[a]] at least one memory; a display device to display an availability status of a recipient to receive a package delivery according to a delivery schedule, the availability status indicating that a recipient is unavailable to receive the package delivery according to the delivery schedule during a time period; and a package delivery manager configured to [[to]] obtain, from a home automation system, a status of the home automation system over the time period, wherein the status corresponds to the availability status of a recipient to receive the package delivery during the time period, and wherein the availability status indicates that the recipient is unavailable to receive the package delivery at a first time and is available to receive the package delivery at a second time after the first time; and establish an updated a schedule for the package delivery at the second time based on the availability status of the recipient to receive the package delivery according to updated schedule.
Similar to claim 1 – See claim 1 YAMAGUCHI (p.3 - p.4), YAMAGUCHI (Figure 1 S101, S103) and Bounasser [Figure 7A and the associated text], [061], [0106] As shown by reference number 710, delivery system 230 may provide a message to client device 210 requesting confirmation of a recommended date for delivery of an item and/or service (e.g., the 14.sup.th of the month). For example, delivery system 230 may have processed second data (e.g., calendar data or weather data) to identify the 14.sup.th as a day when a user of client device 210 is available to receive the delivery, as a day when inclement weather is not forecasted, and/or the like.
YAMAGUCHI improves convenience of receiving packages. In Bousnasser, a device may process the first data and the second data using a processing technique to identify information related to scheduling the delivery. It would be obvious to combine before the effective filing date, using home automation information, as taught by YAMAGUCHI, with modifying delivery based on first data and second data, as taught by Bousnasser, to reduce or eliminate a need for a delivery to be scheduled and/or attempted multiple times., Bousnasser [014].
Regarding Claim 17, (Currently Amended)
The mobile device of claim 16, wherein: the display device is further configured to display the updated schedule for the package delivery based on the availability status of the recipient; and the package delivery manager is further configured to receive confirmation te reschedule of the package delivery according to the updated schedule.
See claim 1 YAMAGUCHI (p.3 - p.4), YAMAGUCHI (Figure 1 S101, S103) and Bounasser [Figure 7A], [Figure 7B] ,[Figure 7C], [0106]-[0110], [0116]-[0117]
YAMAGUCHI improves convenience of receiving packages. In Bousnasser, a device may process the first data and the second data using a processing technique to identify information related to scheduling the delivery. It would be obvious to combine before the effective filing date, using home automation information, as taught by YAMAGUCHI, with modifying delivery based on first data and second data, as taught by Bousnasser, to reduce or eliminate a need for a delivery to be scheduled and/or attempted multiple times., Bousnasser [014].
Regarding Claim 18, (Currently Amended)
The mobile device of claim 16, wherein the package delivery manager is configured to analyze application data to determine the recipient is available to receive the package delivery according to the updated schedule wherein: the home automation system includes a plurality of components; and the availability status is based on two or more respective statuses of the plurality of components corresponding to the recipient being available to receive the package delivery or unavailable to receive the package delivery.
Similar to claim 3 – See YAMAGUCHI (p.3 - p.4), YAMAGUCHI (Figure 1 S101, S103) and Bounasser [0106]-[0110] and [Figure 7A], [Figure 7B].
YAMAGUCHI improves convenience of receiving packages. In Bousnasser, a device may process the first data and the second data using a processing technique to identify information related to scheduling the delivery. It would be obvious to combine before the effective filing date, using home automation information, as taught by YAMAGUCHI, with modifying delivery based on first data and second data, as taught by Bousnasser, to reduce or eliminate a need for a delivery to be scheduled and/or attempted multiple times., Bousnasser [014].
Regarding Claim 19, (Currently Amended)
The mobile device of claim 18, wherein the package delivery manager is configured to obtain application data includes at least including one or more of calendar information, travel information, correspondence information, home automation system information, or location information, wherein the availability status of the recipient to receive the package delivery during the time period is based on the application data.
Similar to claim 8.
See claim 1 YAMAGUCHI (p.3 - p.4), YAMAGUCHI (Figure 1 S101, S103) and Bounasser [0054] discloses … data may include …, calendar data that identifies a set of available and/or unavailable times for an individual, traffic data that identifies traffic conditions at a location or on a route to the location, text of a message (e.g., a short message service (SMS) message or an email from client device 210), and/or the like.
YAMAGUCHI improves convenience of receiving packages. In Bousnasser, a device may process the first data and the second data using a processing technique to identify information related to scheduling the delivery. It would be obvious to combine before the effective filing date, using home automation information, as taught by YAMAGUCHI, with modifying delivery based on first data and second data, as taught by Bousnasser, to reduce or eliminate a need for a delivery to be scheduled and/or attempted multiple times., Bousnasser [014].
Regarding Claim 20, (Currently Amended)
The mobile device of claim 16, wherein the package delivery manager is configured to: determine that the recipient is available to receive the package delivery prior to the delivery schedule second time; and establish [[the]] an updated schedule for the package delivery based on the availability status of the recipient indicating availability to receive the package delivery prior to the delivery schedule second time.
See Above. Similar to claim 4. YAMAGUCHI (p.3 - p.4), YAMAGUCHI (Figure 1 S101, S103) and Bounasser [Figure 7A], [Figure 7B], [Figure 7C], [0106]-[0110], [0116]-[0117]
YAMAGUCHI improves convenience of receiving packages. In Bousnasser, a device may process the first data and the second data using a processing technique to identify information related to scheduling the delivery. It would be obvious to combine before the effective filing date, using home automation information, as taught by YAMAGUCHI, with modifying delivery based on first data and second data, as taught by Bousnasser, to reduce or eliminate a need for a delivery to be scheduled and/or attempted multiple times., Bousnasser [014].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
JP 2023142952 A discloses a first communication control unit 21 that controls a first communication unit 11 to acquire stay-at-home information indicating a stay-at-home schedule transmitted from a recipient of packages.
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 THEA LABOGIN whose telephone number is (571)272-9149. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday, 8am-5pm.
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, Patricia Munson can be reached at 571-270- 5396. 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.
/THEA LABOGIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3624 /PATRICIA H MUNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3624