DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
This Office Action is in response to Application Serial 18/439,165. In response to Examiner’s action, mail dated January 25,2026, Applicant submitted amendments to the claims and arguments, that are mail dated April 23, 2025. An After final interview was conducted on March 26, 2026. Applicant amended claims 1, 3, 7, 9, 11,16, and 18. Applicant canceled claim 20. Applicant added new claim 21. The claims 1-19, 21 are pending.
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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 23, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendments
Claims 1-19, 21 are pending in this application. The claims 1-19, 21 are amended. Claim 20 is cancelled.
Applicant’s amendments are not sufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection set forth in the previous action. The claims 1-19, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, see below.
Regarding prior art, the claims 1-19, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103. See below.
Applicant is encouraged to request an interview to discuss the pending 35 U.S.C. 101.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed April 23, 2026 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 8-13 of the Applicant’s 35 U.S.C. 101 arguments, Applicant traverses, Examiner’s rejection. Applicant has amended claims 1-19, 21.
Applicant submits the amended claims are not directed to an abstract idea and are directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Applicant submits the amended independent claims 1, 9, and 16 do not recite an abstract idea according to the analysis of abstract ideas under Step 2A Prong One. Applicant traverses the claims are not directed to the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity. Applicant submits the claims recite specific technical operations, including obtaining home automation system data from a home automation application that indicates respective statuses of two or more components of the home automation system over a time period, and then, determining, based on the respective statuses of the two or more components, an availability status of a recipient to receive a package delivery. Applicant submits the claims are directed to specific technical data processing an home automation monitoring operations and are not fundamental economic practices or commercial interaction. The claims do not merely recite the abstract concept of scheduling deliveries or managing personal behavior. The pending claims do not recite a judicial exception.
Applicant submits the claims as a whole integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application, and therefore, are patent eligible under Prong Two of Step 2A. Applicant references the Finjan, Core Wireless, Enfish, and McRo, are software-based innovations that are not directed to an abstract idea. Applicant submits, determining recipient availability for package delivery by leveraging home automation system data, is improving the efficiency of package delivery scheduling and reducing failed delivery attempts, and thus, provides a technical solution. Applicant submits the features of amended independent claims 1, 9 and 16 recite technical solution involving specific integration with home automation systems that improves the functioning of a component and the technical field of package delivery scheduling. Applicant submits the claim limitations recite an improvement to the functioning of a computing system by providing a specific technical approach of recipient availability determination that involves integration with and processing of data from home automation systems.
Applicant traverses the amended independent claims 1, 9, and 16 include features that improve the functioning of a computing system and the technical field of package delivery scheduling through integration with home automation systems, so any alleged judicial exception included in amended independent claims 1, 9, and 16 are therefore integrated into a practical application, and satisfies the analysis of Step 2A, Prong Two. Accordingly, based on the analysis of Step 2A, Prong Two, amended independent claims 1, 9, and 16 are not directed to a judicial exception, and therefore qualify as eligible subject matter under § 101.
At Step 2B, Applicant references MPEP 2106.05(II)(A)(2) and MPEP 2106.05(I) when determining patent eligibility. Applicant submits that the features of the amended claims he additional features of amended independent claims 1, 9, and 16 provide an inventive concept that amounts to significantly more than any alleged abstract idea. Applicant submits, for example, the home automation application that monitors a plurality of components and provides home automation system data indicating respective statuses of two or more components is more than a general hardware component recited at a high level of generality. Instead, the integration with a home automation application to obtain status data from multiple components is a technical operation involving particular data acquisition and processing that is not well-understood, routine, or conventional. Applicant submits the additional features of amended independent claims 1, 9, and 16 provide an inventive concept that amounts to significantly more than any alleged abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-8, 10-15, and 17-19 depend from one of independent claims 1, 9, or 16 and are therefore patent eligible for at least the same reasons. Dependent claims 2-8, 10-15, and 17-19 are also patent eligible for their own recited features.
Applicant traverses, amended dependent claim 3 recites a specific technical process, including using specific types of home automation components and respective statuses to determine recipient availability. The technical process of analyzing multiple component statuses improves the functioning of a package delivery scheduling system by providing more accurate recipient availability determinations based on multiple data sources.
Applicant traverses dependent claim 7 has been amended to recite, in part, "the home automation system data includes at least one of a date range or a time range associated with the respective statuses of the two or more components, and "the availability status is based on the date range or the time range." Amended dependent claim 7 recites a specific technical process, including using temporal data associated with component statuses to determine availability. The technical process improves the efficiency and accuracy of a package delivery scheduling system by incorporating time-based information from home automation systems to predict recipient availability during specific time periods.
Applicant request withdrawal of the § 101 rejection for at least this reason is respectfully requested.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s 35 U.S.C. 101 arguments. Examiner submits the claims are directed to a judicial exception, are not integrated into a practical application, and do not amount to significantly more.
At Step 2A prong one, the claims recite an abstract idea. The claims recite the abstract concept of using data to figure out when that person will be home or otherwise able to accept a package. Determining a delivery time and a person’s availability is an observation and evaluation. Determining delivery times and recipient availability to receive the package is an abstract concept that can be done in the human mind, and thus, is a mental concept – evaluation and observation.
Furthermore, at Step 2A prong one, the claims are related to scheduling a delivery which is a commercial activity. Scheduling and delivery are certain methods of organizing human activity – commercial activity and managing personal behavior.
The claims recite an abstract concept that is grouped as a mental concept and certain methods of organizing human activity. The claims recite an abstract concept, and therefore, are directed to a judicial exception at Step 2A prong one.
At Step 2A prong two, the claims are not integrated into a practical application. When examined under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims (1, 9, and 16) recite a plurality of components of a home automation system as an additional element. The dependent claims recite a user interface, then reference calendar information. The additional elements (a plurality of components of a home automation system and a user interface), as recited, are computer elements/components that are merely performing computer functions. The limitation feature of calendar information are abstract data. The claims are using the computer elements/components to perform the abstract concept. See MPEP 2106.05 (f). Applicant is pointed to the instant specification [012]-[013] & [017]-[018]. The claims are using a computer to improve the abstract concepts. The abstract concept is not integrated into a practical application.
At Step 2B, the claims do not amount to significantly more. For example, the claims recite obtain … a status …, determine, based on the respective statuses …, an availability status of a recipient to receive a package delivery during the time period..; and transmit, … a schedule for the package delivery at the second time based on the availability…, in claim 1; and … determine that the recipient is available to receive the package delivery prior to the second time; and establish an updated schedule for the package delivery based on the availability status of the recipient…, in claim 4. As stated above that claims are using components to perform the abstract concept which is “apply it. See MPEP 2106.05 (f). The claims are receiving or transmitting data over a network. MPEP 2106.05 (d). The claims are improving the determination of the availability for the purposes of delivery which is not an improvement that is rooted in computer technology. The claims when examined as whole, using the broadest reasonable interpretation, do not amount to significantly more at Step 2B. The claims do not amount to significantly more, so the claims are not patent eligible.
The claims do not amount to significantly more; therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
(Applicant is encouraged to review the Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.)
Prior Art Claim Rejections
On pages 14-17 of the Applicant’s 35 U.S.C. 103 arguments, Applicant traverses, the combination of the cited prior art should be withdrawn. Applicant amended the claims and added a new claim. Applicant arguments include:
Independent claim 1, 9 and 10 are allowable.
Applicant submits Yamaguchi is generally directed to a delivery information sharing system that is different from “a home automation application that monitors a plurality of components of a home automation system”. Applicant traverses a user providing an at-home schedule is different from a first device obtaining “home automation system data that indicates respective status of two or more components of the plurality of components over a time period”. Yamaguchi does not teach or suggest all of the features of amended independent claim 1.
Applicant submits Bousnasser does not overcome the deficiencies of Yamaguchi. Applicant traverses calendar data or weather data is different from “home automation system data,” as recited in amended independent claim 1. Bousnasser makes no mention of a home automation application that monitors a plurality of component of a home automation system.
Claims 2-8, 10-15, and 17-19 each dependent on independent claims 1, 9, and 16, and are therefore allowable for at least the same reasons that independent claims 1, 9, and 16 are allowable.
Amended claim 3 is allowable. Applicant traverses Yamaguchi and Bousnasser do not teach or suggest, "the plurality of components includes one or more of a temperature control, a security system, or a lighting system," and the respective statuses of the two or more components … ".
Dependent claim 7 is allowable over any combination of Yamaguchi and Bousnasser. Yamaguchi and Bousnasser do not teach or suggest "home automation system data that indicates respective statuses of two or more components of the plurality of components over a time period," as recited in amended independent claim 1, Yamaguchi and Bousnasser also do not teach or suggest, "the home automation system data includes at least one of a date range or a time range associated with the respective statuses of the two or more components," and "the availability status is based on the date range or the time range," as recited in amended dependent claim 7.
Applicant respectfully requests that the rejection of claims 2-8, 10-15, and 17-19 under § 103 be withdrawn. Claim 21 is new.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s 35 U.S.C. 101 arguments. The Applicant amendments necessitate grounds for a new rejection. The relationship of the components that are recited in claim 1 and the additional elements recited in claim 3 should be clarified. Additionally, claim 3 is a Markush. Examiner encourages the Applicant to clarify the claimed embodiments and the components used in the embodiment within the independent claim limitations.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 21 are machine.
Claim(s) 9-15 are process.
Claim (s) 16-19 are machine.
Claim 20 is cancelled.
Claims 1-19, 21 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, … data that indicates respective statuses … over a time period; determine, based on the respective statuses …, an availability status of a recipient to receive a 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 transmit …, a schedule for the package delivery at the second time based on the availability status of the recipient. …”. Claim 16 recites, “… display an availability status of a recipient to receive a package delivery during a time period; … obtain, … data that indicates respective statuses … over the time period, determine, based on the respective statuses…, 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 a schedule for the package delivery at the second time based on the availability status of the recipient…”. Claims 1-19, & 21 in view of the claim limitations recite the abstract concept of scheduling a delivery. Using data to figure out when a person will be home, hence scheduling a delivery, is a mental concept – evaluation and observation.
Furthermore, scheduling a delivery is certain methods of organizing human activity – commercial activities and managing personal behavior. The claims recite a judicial exception at Step 2A.
The claims recite an abstract concept that is grouped as a mental concept and certain methods of organizing human activity. The claims recite an abstract concept, and therefore, are directed to a judicial exception at Step 2A prong one.
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”, “from a home automation application that monitors a plurality of components of a home automation system, home automation system”, “of two or more components of the plurality of components”, “at least one second device”, in claim 1; “A mobile device, comprising: at least one processor coupled with at least one memory; a display device to display an availability status of a recipient to receive a package delivery during a time period; and a package delivery manager configured to”, “a package delivery manager configured to”, “a home automation application that monitors a plurality of components of a home automation system”, “two or more components of the plurality of components,” 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 3: “one or more of a temperature control”, “a security system”, “a lighting system”;
Claim 6, 10, 14: “a user interface of the first device”, “via the user interface”;
(Claim 7 states component status, which is data. Claim 1 broadly recites the use of components and the claim does not recite the type of components. Claim 3 recites types of components. As claimed, the components are not integrated into the judicial exception. The claims are apply it – MPEP 2106.05(f).)
Here, the claims are improving the abstract concept of determining availability for a delivery, which is scheduling a delivery. 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 fail 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 two.
At Step 2B, the claims when considered as a whole, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claims are applying computer components to perform the abstract concept. When considered both individually and as an ordered combination, the claims do not amount to significantly more. (See MPEP 2106.05 (f) – mere instructions to Apply an Exception).
Furthermore, 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, & 21 further narrow the abstract idea of independent claim 1. Dependent claims 10-15 further narrow the abstract idea of independent claim 9. Dependent claims 17-19 further narrow the abstract idea of independent claim 16. The claims 1-19, & 21 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) 1,2, 4-6, 8-10,12-17,19, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YAMAGUCHI (JP 2023142925 A) in view of Bousnasser (US 2018/0,349,844 A1) and Rodden (US 2019/0,334,907 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, from a home automation application that monitors a plurality of components of a home automation system, home automation system data that indicates respective statuses of two or more components of the plurality of components over a time period; determine, based on the respective statuses of the two or more components, an availability status of a recipient to receive a 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 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.
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.
Bousnasser teaches:
…. 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 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.
Bousnasser [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.; Bousnasser [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., Bousnasser [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].
Applicant amended the claims to recite:
… a home automation application that monitors a plurality of components of …. home automation system data that indicates respective statuses of two or more components of the plurality of components …. determine, based on the respective statuses of the two or more components
Rodden teaches:
from a home automation application that monitors a plurality of components of a home automation system, a status of the home automation system home automation system data that indicates respective statuses of two or more components of the plurality of components over a time period, wherein the status corresponds to; determine, based on the respective statuses of the two or more components
Rodden teaches monitoring activities in a home environment and user habits. Rodden [Figure 1A. Figure 13]. Rodden teaches “smart communication devices”. Rodden [0100]. Rodden teaches complex multifactor presences including scheduling. Rodden [0198].
Rodden teaches if the system recognizes that a user routinely works out every Tuesday and Thursday evening, the system may automatically generate data specifying a preference for Tuesday and Thursday evening workouts. As another instance, if the system recognizes that a user is routinely unable to focus in morning meetings after the user stays up past midnight during prior evenings, the system may automatically generate data specifying a preference for the user to either go to bed prior to midnight or to avoid morning meetings when the user is up past midnight., Rodden [0185] –[0186].
Rodden teaches system activity level adjustment may be set in the database for different times of different days during a user's week so that system activity level can be automatically changed on a time basis only. Rodden [0201].
Rodden teaches monitoring e-mails and focus states. Rodden [0211].
YAMAGUCHI improves convenience of receiving packages. Rodden teaches maintaining a schedule database of users habits. It would be obvious to combine before the effective filing date, using home automation information, as taught by YAMAGUCHI, with recognizing a user’s routine, as taught by Rodden, to specify a preference for the user. Rodden [0185].
Applicant is encouraged to request an examiner interview to discuss the instant specification [018]-[021], [024], [034].
Regarding Claim 2, (Previously Presented) [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 Bousnasser [0106]-[0110] and [Figure 7A], [Figure 7B].
Regarding Claim 4, (Previously Presented)
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 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 Bousnasser [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].
Bousnasser [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., Bousnasser [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, (Previously Presented)
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 YAMAGUCHI (p.3 - p.4)., YAMAGUCHI (Figure 1 S101, S103) and Bousnasser [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, (Previously Presented)
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 Bousnasser [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 8, (Previously Presented)
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, Bousnasser discloses calendar data and text of a message, and thus, Bousnasser 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 12, (Previously Presented)
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 Bousnasser [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, (Previously Presented)
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 Bousnasser [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, (Previously Presented)
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 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) , Bousnasser [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, (Previously Presented)
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 Bousnasser [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, Bousnasser discloses calendar data and text of a message, and thus, Bousnasser 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 at least one memory; a display device to display an availability status of a recipient to receive a package delivery during a time period; and a package delivery manager configured to: obtain, from a home automation application that monitors a plurality of components of a home automation system, home automation system data that indicates respective statuses of two or more components of the plurality of components over the time period; determine, based on the respective statuses of the two or more components, the availability status of a recipient to receive the package delivery during the time period, 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 a schedule for the package delivery at the second time based on the availability status of the recipient.
Similar to claim 1 – See claim 1 YAMAGUCHI (p.3 - p.4), YAMAGUCHI (Figure 1 S101, S103) and Bousnasser [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].
(Examiner encourages Applicant to review limitations claim 11 and 18 with consideration of the independent claims.)
Regarding Claim 17, (Previously Presented)
The mobile device of claim 16, wherein: the display device is further configured to display the schedule for the package delivery; and the package delivery manager is further configured to receive confirmation of the package delivery according to the schedule. See claim 1 YAMAGUCHI (p.3 - p.4), YAMAGUCHI (Figure 1 S101, S103) and Bousnasser [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 19, (Previously Presented)
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 Bousnasser [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, (Cancelled)
Regarding Claim 21, (New)
The first device of claim 1, wherein the availability status of the recipient is determined based on the home automation system data indicating that the two or more components change status within a threshold duration.
See Rodden in claim 1. Rodden teaches system activity level adjustment may be set in the database for different times of different days during a user's week so that system activity level can be automatically changed on a time basis only. Rodden [0201], [0185] –[0186], [0211].
Claim(s) 3, 7, 11, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YAMAGUCHI (JP 2023142925 A) in view of Bousnasser (US 2018/0,349,844 A1) and Rodden (US 2019/0,334,907 A1) and in further view of AICH (US 2016/0193895 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, (Currently Amended)
The first device of claim 1, wherein: the home automation system data includes at least one of date range or a time range associated with the respective statuses of the two or more components; and the availability status is based on the date range or the time range.
The system of claim 1 – see YAMAGUCHI (p.3 - p.4), YAMAGUCHI (Figure 1 S101, S103) and Bousnasser [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].
AICH further teaches:
… includes at least one of date range or a time range associated with the respective statuses of the two or more components; and the availability status …
AICH teaches home automation systems enable control of various home systems, such as lighting, heating and air conditioning. Some home automation systems may be integrated with home security systems such that when an alarm is raised, lights may be activated, or the homeowner may be notified. AICH [002].
AICH discloses a user's home temperature settings may be used to inform how the user’s vehicle setting should be set. AICH [014].
YAMAGUCHI improves convenience of receiving packages. In AICH a system may learn a detailed user profile by combining historical usage and environmental information collected from both the home and the vehicle. It would be obvious to combine before the effective filing date, using home automation information, as taught by YAMAGUCHI, with user information collected in one context may be used to inform decision-making in another context, as taught by AICH, to make context-aware decisions. AICH [012].
Within claim 7, Bousnasser discloses available to receive package and date unavailable to receive package, and thus, Bousnasser 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.
(Furthermore, Examiner points the Applicant to the Rodden prior art, that describes sensors used in home automation to detect habits. See claim 1 rejection above.)
Regarding Claim 11, [and similarly claim 3 and claim 18] (Currently Amended)
The method of claim 9, wherein a plurality of components includes one or more of a temperature control, a security system, or a lighting system: and the respective statuses of the two or more components include one or more of an away status indicating the recipient is away from a location associated with the home automation system, an eco-status indicating a reduced energy consumption mode, a security system status, an armed or disarmed state, or a temperature status indicating a temperature setting.
The system of claim 1 – YAMAGUCHI (p.3 - p.4), YAMAGUCHI (Figure 1 S101, S103) and Bousnasser [0106]-[0110] and [Figure 7A], [Figure 7B], & [Figure 7C] and Rodden [Figure 1 and the associated text] . See claim 5 also.
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].
AICH further teaches:
a plurality of components includes one or more of a temperature control, a security system, or a lighting system: and the respective statuses of the two or more components include one or more of an away status indicating the recipient is away from a location associated with the home automation system, an eco-status indicating a reduced energy consumption mode, a security system status,
AICH teaches home automation systems enable control of various home systems, such as lighting, heating and air conditioning. Some home automation systems may be integrated with home security systems such that when an alarm is raised, lights may be activated, or the homeowner may be notified. AICH [002].
AICH discloses a user's home temperature settings may be used to inform how the user’s vehicle setting should be set. AICH [014].
YAMAGUCHI improves convenience of receiving packages. In AICH a system may learn a detailed user profile by combining historical usage and environmental information collected from both the home and the vehicle. It would be obvious to combine before the effective filing date, using home automation information, as taught by YAMAGUCHI, with user information collected in one context may be used to inform decision-making in another context, as taught by AICH, to make context-aware decisions. AICH [012].
Within claim 3, Bousnasser illustrates the delivery is scheduled for the 14th, and Bousnasser illustrates the packaged is rescheduled for the 15th, and thus, Bousnasser 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.
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.
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
Prosecution Insights