DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The following is a Non-Final Office Action in response to Election/Restriction filed on April 8, 2026.
Claims 1-7 and 13-21 are elected; Claims 8-12 are canceled; Claims 22-26 are added.
Priority
The present application claims priority to Provisional Application 63/622,857, filed on Jan 19, 2024.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7 and 13-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the terms “the displayed interface” and “the interface” which lack antecedent basis. In step 3 recites “causing a visual interface to be presented…”; step 4 recites “added to the displayed interface;” lacks antecedent basis. It is unclear if this refers to the previously recited “a visual interface” or a new interface. In step 5 recites “using the interface…” becomes unclear which interface is being referenced. Does “the interface” refer to “a visual interface” or “the displayed interface”? In step 5 further recites… sequentially displayed using an interface displayed…” Is this the same interface as previously introduced or a new/second interface? For the purpose of expediting compact prosecution, the Examiner will interpret claim 1 as follows: “…causing a first interface to be presented…” “causing an indication of compliance to be added to the first interface;” “…the courier agent using the first interface, causing the sequence of courier service steps to be sequentially displayed using a second interface displayed on the device of the courier agent;” Similar issue is recited in the corresponding dependent claims.
Claims 13 and 22 recite the terms “the displayed interface” and “the interface” which lack antecedent basis. In step 3 recites “causing an indication of compliance to be added to a displayed interface;” step 4 recites “in response to receiving, by the interface,” lacks antecedent basis. It is unclear if this refers to the previously recited “a displayed interface” or a new interface. In step 4 further recites “sequentially displayed on an interface displayed on the device of the courier agent;” Is this the same interface as previously introduced or a new/second interface? For the purpose of expediting compact prosecution, the Examiner will interpret claims 13 and 22 as follows: “causing an indication of compliance to be added to a first interface;” “in response to receiving, by the first interface,” and “sequentially displayed on a second interface displayed on the device of the courier agent;” Similar issue is recited in the corresponding dependent claims.
Claims 1, 13, and 22 recite “…causing an indication of compliance to be added to the displayed interface;” “…creating an indication of compliance that reflects the preliminary compliance evidence and the execution compliance evidence;” and “causing the indication of compliance to be accessible to the customer.” which is found to be indefinite. The phrase “an indication of compliance” is introduced twice, it becomes unclear which indication of compliance is being reference in the final step by the phrase “the indication of compliance.” It is unclear if the system is creating a new indication or updating the first indication.
Claims 2-7, 14-21, and 23-26 depend from claims 1, 13, and 22 above and therefore inherit the 35 U.S.C. 112 deficiencies of their parent claim.
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 1-7 and 13-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? (MPEP 2106.03)
In the present application, claims 1-7 are directed to a method (i.e., a process), claims 13-21 are directed to a computer product (i.e. an article of manufacture), and claims 22-26 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine). Thus, the eligibility analysis proceeds to Step 2A. prong one.
Step 2A. prong one: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? (MPEP 2106.04)
While claims 1, 13, and 22, are directed to different categories, the language and scope are substantially the same and have been addressed together below.
The abstract idea recited in claims 1, 13, and 22, is
receiving courier service requirements defining for a courier service order one or more preliminary requirements and a sequence of courier service steps;
providing the one or more preliminary requirements to a courier agent;
causing a visual to be presented that corresponds to a contracting entity of the courier agent, and contains an indication of each courier agent of the contracting entity that meets the one or more preliminary requirements;
in response to receiving preliminary compliance evidence for a preliminary requirement, causing an indication of compliance to be added to the displayed;
in response to receiving a selection by a customer of the courier agent, causing the sequence of courier service steps to be sequentially displayed;
in response to receiving execution compliance evidence for a step in the sequence of courier service steps, creating an indication of compliance that reflects the preliminary compliance evidence and the execution compliance evidence; and
causing the indication of compliance to be accessible to the customer.
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of managing compliance with courier service requirements.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, without the recitation of additional elements, the claims recite steps of receiving courier service requirements, providing requirements to a courier agent, presenting indication of courier agents meeting the requirements, receiving compliance evidence, and creating an indication of compliance. Theses steps describe the concepts of evaluating qualifications, assigning tasks, and organizing compliance records, which falls under abstract ideas groupings of “certain methods of organizing human activity” (managing human behavior and commercial interactions) and “mental processes” (evaluating evidence against a set of requirements to determine a compliance status).
Accordingly, the above-mentioned limitations are considered as a single abstract idea, therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea and the analysis proceeds to Step 2A. prong two.
Step 2A. prong two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? (MPEP 2106.04)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely add instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer.
The additional elements considered include:
Claim 1: “a device,” “visual interface,” “displayed interface,” “using the interface”; “using an interface displayed on the device of the courier agent;”
Claim 13: “One or more memories collectively storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors in a computing system, cause the one or more processors to perform a method;” “a device of a courier agent;” “interface;”
Claim 22: “A system, comprising: one or more memories configured to collectively store computer instructions; and one or more processors configured to collectively execute the stored computer instructions to perform a method;” “a device of a courier agent;” “interface;”
In particular, the claim only recites the above-mentioned additional elements to receive, present, select, create, and display information. The computer in the steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing a generic computer function; See Applicant’s Specification at least at pages 2-3 and Fig. 1) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
That is, the function of limitations [A]-[G] are steps of 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 as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional element(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not improve a computer or other technology, do not transform a particular article, do not recite more than a general link to a computer, and do not invoke the computer in any meaningful way; the general computer is effectively part of the preamble instruction to “apply” the exception by the computer. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea and the analysis proceeds to Step 2B.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? (MPEP 2106.05)
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the bold portions of the limitations recited above, were all considered to be an abstract idea in Step2A-Prong Two. The additional elements and analysis of Step2A-Prong two is carried over. For the same reason, these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. Applicant has merely recited elements that instruct the user to apply the abstract idea to a computer or other machinery. When considered individually and in combination the conclusion, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer to perform the above-mentioned limitations [A]-[G] amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the function of the limitations to the exception using generic computer component, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept for managing compliance with courier service requirements. Thus, viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. For these reasons there is no inventive concept in the claims and thus are ineligible.
As for dependent claims 2-7, 14-21, and 23-26, these claims recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in independent claims 1, 13, and 22. The claims further recite additional abstract steps and description of adding and displaying information, which do not change the abstract idea of the independent claim. The claims recite the additional element of computer components at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic computer system performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are ineligible.
In summary, the dependent claims considered both individually and as ordered combination do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claims 1-7 and 13-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7 and 13-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Roth et al (US 11367038 B1, hereinafter, “Roth”).
Claims 1, 13, and 22, Roth discloses a method, one or more memories collectively storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors in a computing system, cause the one or more processors to perform the method, and a system, comprising: one or more memories configured to collectively store computer instructions; and one or more processors configured to collectively execute the stored computer instructions to perform a method, the method comprising (Abstract and Col. 5 lines 31-62):
receiving courier service requirements defining for a courier service order one or more preliminary requirements and a sequence of courier service steps (Roth, Col. 3 line 58 - Col. 4 line 46, discloses receiving order information including protocols that specify a sequence of steps, as well as preliminary requirements (e.g., training, certifications, and equipment) required to be assigned the order, further see, Col. 8 line 57 - Col. 9 line 14);
providing the one or more preliminary requirements to a device of a courier agent (Col. 9 lines 40-47, discloses providing the preliminary requirements to the agent’s mobile device to solicit confirmation and evidence of matching information, such as certification documents);
causing a visual interface to be presented that corresponds to a contracting entity of the courier agent, and contains an indication of each courier agent of the contracting entity that meets the one or more preliminary requirements (Col. 12 lines 19-31, Col. 105 Lines 45-48; discloses a reviewer/dispatcher interface that corresponds to a specific contracting entity (courier service or dispatcher) and displays agents who meet the requirements for the orders);
in response to receiving preliminary compliance evidence for a preliminary requirement, causing an indication of compliance to be added to the displayed interface (Col. 9 lines 48-53, discloses the receiving the preliminary evidence (certification documents) from the agent and displaying the agent’s compliance/assignment status on the interface);
in response to receiving a selection by a customer of the courier agent using the interface, causing the sequence of courier service steps to be sequentially displayed using an interface displayed on the device of the courier agent (Col. 12 Lines 19-34; Col. 10 lines 45-65; discloses customer reviewer using the interface to select and view orders/agents, and subsequently guiding the selected agent through the steps sequentially on the mobile app);
in response to receiving execution compliance evidence for a step in the sequence of courier service steps (Col. 10 lines 33-44, Roth discloses collecting execution evidence (photos, scans, barcodes) during the performance of the steps), creating an indication of compliance that reflects the preliminary compliance evidence and the execution compliance evidence; and causing the indication of compliance to be accessible to the customer (Col. 12 lines 9-17 and lines 50-54, Roth discloses all compliance evidence of agent’s preliminary qualifications/profile and the execution photos are accessible to the customer/reviewer via the interface. Roth discloses the collecting of both preliminary compliance evidence (e.g., HIPPA certifications, training documents) and execution compliance evidence (e.g., photos of a delivered package, barcode scans), and displaying both set of data to a customer/reviewer via dashboard, see Fig. 22).
Claims 2, 14, and 23, Roth discloses the method of claim 1, the one or more memories of claim 13, and the system of claim 22, further comprising:
causing an indication of compliance with a preliminary requirement to be added to the displayed interface (Col. 8 lines 56 - Col. 9 line 3; Col. 9 lines 48-53; discloses the system evaluates whether an agent meets preliminary requirement (certification/training) and collects evidence of the compliance. In Col. 12 lines 9-12 and Col. 12 lines 43-45 corresponding Fig. 22 photo 2241 and list 2214, discloses the compliance information is verified and uploaded to the server and made available to the customer/reviewer on display interface (dashboard)).
Claims 3, 15, and 24, Roth discloses the method of claim 1, the one or more memories of claim 13, and the system of claim 22, further comprising:
causing the received preliminary compliance evidence to be accessible to the customer using the displayed interface (Col. 9 lines 48-53; discloses soliciting evidence of this matching information, such as a certification document. Col. 12 lines 9-12 discloses that compliance information is available to reviewers (customers) authorized to access the order via a reviewer user interface. The compliance information made available to the customer includes the certification document (preliminary compliance evidence) collected by the system and accessible to the customer using the display interface (dashboard)).
Claims 4, 16, and 25, Roth discloses the method of claim 1, the one or more memories of claim 13, and the system of claim 22, further comprising:
causing a plurality of indications of interfaces corresponding to a plurality of contracting entities to be added to the displayed interface (Col. 4 lines 17-29, “the facility operates in conjunction with a third-party courier dispatch software product. In such embodiments, the facility defines courier protocols, and provides information about them to the dispatch software. The dispatch software creates orders each specifying one or more of the protocols. The dispatch software manages the orders and tasks assigned to each courier agent, and calls on the facility to guide the courier agent's performance of his or her tasks. This modular approach permits the facility to be used in connection with an unlimited number of third-party dispatch software products, which in some cases in turn permits the facility to be used with any delivery network, including both its infrastructure and its staff.” discloses manage multiple different third-party courier dispatch systems (i.e., plurality of contracting entities) and delivery networks. Col. 12, lines 20-33, “The user interface display 2200 identifies its user as a dispatcher named Karen Donovan 2231. The display also includes a set of filters 2210 that the reviewer can specify in order to select different subsets of the orders accessible to him or her. For example, all orders may be accessible to a reviewer who is a dispatcher, or all orders for the dispatcher's courier service, or, where a courier service has multiple dispatchers, only those orders assigned to a particular dispatcher. For a customer reviewer, the facility may provide access to all orders for that customer, or some subset of those orders based upon permissions specified by the customer placing the order. In some embodiments, the level of access accorded to each person is configurable by operators of the facility.” discloses reviewer user interface that includes controls and filters allowing the user to select and view data corresponding to different dispatchers or courier services.
Claim 5, Roth discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
causing a plurality of indications of interfaces corresponding to a plurality of courier agent contracting entities to be added to the displayed interface (Col. 4 lines 17-29; Col. 12, lines 20-33, “The user interface display 2200 identifies its user as a dispatcher named Karen Donovan 2231. The display also includes a set of filters 2210 that the reviewer can specify in order to select different subsets of the orders accessible to him or her. For example, all orders may be accessible to a reviewer who is a dispatcher, or all orders for the dispatcher's courier service, or, where a courier service has multiple dispatchers, only those orders assigned to a particular dispatcher.” Disclosing managing an unlimited number of third-party dispatch software products and any delivery network, and provides a reviewer interface with filters to view data across multiple dispatchers and courier services (contracting entities); and
causing a summarization of a capacity of each of the courier agent contracting entities to be added to the displayed interface (Col. 8 line 56 - Col. 9 line 6: “the facility selects a courier agent to perform the order. In various embodiments, the facility considers various factors in the selection…whether the agent is scheduled to work at the pickup and dropoff times, or can be scheduled to work them; whether the agent is free at the specified pickup and dropoff times;” Roth discloses the system tracks the availability and schedule of the agents to determine who has the capacity to take an order. Col. 14 lines 26-28, “an agents section 2820 contains only the photos 2821-2833 of the agents to which the selected orders are assigned.” Disclosing a summary of the agents deploys for a specific filtered set of orders of the reviewer dashboard).
Claims 6 and 18, Roth discloses the method of claim 1 and the one or more memories of claim 13, further comprising:
wherein the preliminary compliance evidence includes completion of a course, and the course is provided to the device of the courier agent (Col. 9 lines 7-14: “For example, typical third-party certifications and trainings include: TSA, HIPAA, Human biohazard, Insurance coverage, Safe driving.” discloses the preliminary requirements include training courses. Col. 9 lines 47-54 discloses providing the certification or training document on interface).
Claims 7 and 19, Roth discloses the method of claim 1 and the one or more memories of claim 13, further comprising:
in response to receiving a selection of the indication of compliance, displaying the execution compliance evidence and the preliminary compliance evidence (Col. 14 lines 29-36 “in act 2705, where user input is received from the reviewer that chooses a particular order from among the presently selected orders shown by their map locations, photo streams, or order details, the facility selects only the order chosen by this user input. After act 2705, the facility continues in act 2702 to display only the map location, photo stream, and order details of the single order selected in act 2705.” and Col. 14 lines 37-49 discloses an interface where selecting an order or agent displays the detailed stream of compliance evidence, including photos and agent details. In Col. 14 lines 44-61 discloses in response to the selection, the system displays the specific compliance evidence (execution photos) and agent profile data (preliminary evidence/authorization) associated with the selection).
Claim 17, Roth discloses the one or more memories of claim 13, further comprising:
causing a plurality of indications of interfaces corresponding to a plurality of courier service orders to be added to the displayed interface (Col. 14 lines 5-28: “FIG. 28 is a display diagram showing sample contents of a reviewer order navigation reviewer user interface… Map 2830 shows three location indications 2831-2833, each corresponding to one of three orders in scope for the reviewer that satisfy the filter criteria. The photo stream 2840 includes only those photos received for the three selected orders, and order details column 2850 contains only order details for these three selected orders. Additionally, an agents section 2820 contains only the photos 2821-2833 of the agents to which the selected orders are assigned.” Stating a reviewer user interface that displays a plurality of orders using map locations, photo streams, and order detail columns); and
causing a compliance status summary of each of the plurality of orders to be added to the displayed interface. (Col. 12 lines 45-51 “A photo 2241 of the assigned courier agent is also shown. Also displayed is a list 2242 of the steps of the task, in which check marks identify steps that have been completed. Based upon those check marks, it can be seen that step 2243 is in progress. A stream of compliance evidence for this order is also displayed, including photos 2221-2224.” Disclosing the interface tracks and displays the compliance status (e.g., completed steps, collected evidence) for the orders being monitored).
Claims 20 and 26, Roth discloses the one or more memories of claim 13 and the system of claim 22, further comprising:
wherein the received execution compliance evidence includes an environmental characteristic measured by the device of the courier agent (Col. 3 lines 48-50; Col. 9 lines 14-18; disclosing the medical couriers require specificized handling such as temperature control and explicitly lists temperature sensors as required equipment).
Claim 21, Roth discloses the one or more memories of claim 13, further comprising:
causing a plurality of indications of compliance corresponding to a plurality of courier service orders to be added to the displayed interface (C(Col. 14 lines 5-28: “FIG. 28 is a display diagram showing sample contents of a reviewer order navigation reviewer user interface… Map 2830 shows three location indications 2831-2833, each corresponding to one of three orders in scope for the reviewer that satisfy the filter criteria. The photo stream 2840 includes only those photos received for the three selected orders, and order details column 2850 contains only order details for these three selected orders. Additionally, an agents section 2820 contains only the photos 2821-2833 of the agents to which the selected orders are assigned.” Stating a reviewer user interface that displays a plurality of orders using map locations, photo streams, and order detail columns).
Relevant Prior Art Not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. The additional cited art, including but not limited to the excerpts below, further establishes the state of the art at the time of Applicant’s invention and shows the following was known:
Roth et al. (US20220405702A1)
Roth et al. (WO2022265900A1)
Myers (US20030083903A1)
Mikurak (US20120259722A1)
Tan et al. (WO2017065687A1)
A. A. T. Bui et al., "openSourcePACS: An Extensible Infrastructure for Medical Image Management," in IEEE Transactions on Information Technology in Biomedicine, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 94-109, Jan. 2007, doi: 10.1109/TITB.2006.879595.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WENREN CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5208. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10AM - 6PM.
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, Nathan C Uber can be reached on (571) 270-3923. 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.
/WENREN CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights