DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1 – 20 were previously pending and subject to a non-final office action mailed 11/24/2025. Claims 1, 3 – 5, 10, 12, & 19 – 20 were amended and claims 2 & 11 were cancelled in a reply filed 02/24/2026. Claims 1, 3 – 10, & 12 – 20 are currently pending and subject to the final office action below.
Response to Arguments
The previous claim objections have been rendered moot in light of the currently amended claims. However, see below for new claim objections.
The previous ‘signal per se’ rejection of claims 19 – 20 under 35 USC 101 has been rendered moot in light of the currently amended claims.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the previous rejection under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant initially argues on pg. 11 that a human cannot perform the various functions such as capturing images or monitoring a device location using a location sensor, and therefore the claims “clearly present more than an abstract idea.”
Examiner respectfully submits that the previous and current 101 rejections do not state that a human could perform these functions. Rather, these are classified as additional elements which are analyzed as per Step 2A, Prong Two for a determination of whether these elements provide integration into a practical application, and as per Step 2B for a determination of whether these elements amount to significantly more.
Applicant next argues on pg. 12 that “Applicants' claimed device performs much more than organizing human activity, as the claims provide for the device capturing two different images at two different times and locations and the AI engine then performing a comparative analysis of these two images to determine or detect when there is at least one material discrepancy,” and therefore “Applicants claims are not simply an abstract idea.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, and notes that the “device” and “AI engine” are not classified as being a part of the recited judicial exception. Rather, these are classified as additional elements which are analyzed as per Step 2A, Prong Two for a determination of whether these elements provide integration into a practical application, and as per Step 2B for a determination of whether these elements amount to significantly more. Examiner further submits that the independent claims recite steps (see the 101 rejection below for full analysis) that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in a business relation or commercial interaction. That is, the functions in the context of the claims encompass managing delivery transactions. For example, a comparison of two images of shipped good to determine whether damage occurred or if an item is missing would take place during a shipping transaction of goods to a customer. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in a commercial interaction, or while managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" grouping of abstract ideas e.g., “commercial or legal interactions (including marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations, and following rules or instructions).” Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Applicant next argues on pp. 12 – 13 that under Step 2A, Prong two, the additional elements provide integration into a practical application because “the components are not simply being applied to the processes but are being used to provide a practical application for the capture of these images by the image capturing device,” and that the “claimed invention involves accessing a network connected remote ordering system computer to receive information about the order, which information is included within the analysis completed by the AI engine,” and “the claimed invention involves the tracking of the device via a location sensor and automation of the delivery destination features based on the device being at the delivery destination.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, because the additional element of “using an artificial intelligence (Al)” to perform the comparison merely generally links the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A) & MPEP 2106.05(h)) as well as amounts to a mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional elements of “capture, via one of the at least one image capturing device, a first image comprising one or more items included at the source in the first order for delivery to the delivery address,” “monitor, via a location sensor, a location of the electronic device,” and “subsequently capture, via one of the at least one image capturing device… the second image comprising all items that were delivered at the delivery address” are recited at a high-level of generality, and when viewed as whole/ordered combination, amount to insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)) as well as merely generally linking the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A) & MPEP 2106.05(h)). Examiner further notes that the comparison step is a part of the recited judicial exception itself. Accordingly, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Applicant next argues on pg. 13, that under Step 2B, “Applicants claims provides an inventive concept that utilizes the electronic device as a tool for real time confirmation that a delivery of items is a complete delivery.”
Examiner respectfully notes that using an “electronic device as a tool for real time confirmation that a delivery of items is a complete delivery” is a mere instruction for the practitioner to use an “electronic device as a tool” to perform the recited abstract idea of confirming that a delivery of items is a complete delivery. This amounts to a mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Applicant next argues on pg. 13, that under Step 2B, “There is nothing routine about capturing two different images at two different times and locations for the purposes of presenting those image to be analyzed by an AI engine in order to identify material discrepancies between items in an initial order and items being delivered. Applicants' claimed invention adds significantly more to the use of a device to help with delivery of a pick-up order by performing an AI based analysis of the items being delivered to ensure that no material discrepancies exist.”
Examiner respectfully notes that the previous office action did not state that capturing two different images at two different times and locations for the purposes of presenting those images to be analyzed by an AI engine in order to identify material discrepancies between items in an initial order and items being delivered is routine. Rather, the office action states that the extra-solution functionality of “capture, via one of the at least one image capturing device, a first image comprising one or more items included at the source in the first order for delivery to the delivery address” and “subsequently capture, via one of the at least one image capturing device… the second image comprising all items that were delivered at the delivery address” has been found by the courts to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), noting: “Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document”), and thus do not amount to significantly more under Step 2B. In other words, the additional elements of capturing images is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, while the comparison itself is a part of the abstract idea. That the comparison is performed “using an artificial intelligence (Al)” merely generally links the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A) & MPEP 2106.05(h)) as well as amounts to a mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in the claims adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. There is no indication that the combination of elements, taken both individually and as an ordered combination, improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Applicant next argues on pg. 13, that claim 4 recites “additional features involving accessing another functional system across a network to receive information related to material discrepancy and corrective actions” and are “eligible subject matter under 101.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, because the extra-solution functionality of transmitting information has been found by the courts to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), noting: “Transmitting data over a network”), and thus do not amount to significantly more under Step 2B.
Applicant next argues on pg. 14, regarding claim 7, that the “The automated presentation of the prompt based on a location determination and automated triggering of an image to image comparison on receiving/capturing a second image are not abstract ideas and are patent eligible subject matter under 101.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, because the functionality of prompting a person to perform an action (e.g., capturing an image) when the person has arrived at a particular location is directed to the recited judicial exception. This functionality merely entails proving information upon a determination that a person is at a location, which is an abstract idea. The comparison of two images is likewise abstract, as detailed above. As such, claim 7 is merely directed to the particulars of the abstract idea and likewise does not add significantly more to the recited judicial exception.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the previous rejection under 35 USC 102(a)(1) and 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, on pg. 15, that Ladden does not teach "in response to a capture of the second image, automatically initiate a comparison of the delivered items within the second image with the one or more items within the first image, wherein to initate the comparison, the processor causes the electronic device to identify and compare the one or more items captured in the first image with the delivered items captured in the second image using an artificial intelligence (AI) engine to identify the at least one material discrepancy between the one or more items captured in the first image and the delivered items captured in the second image” because “Ladden checks the delivered items for damage and does not involve or use any images taken of the items at the pickup location of the items.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees that the cited prior art does not teach all of the claimed elements of exemplary independent claim 1. For example, Ladden discloses the functionality of: “in response to completion of a capture of the second image, automatically initiate a comparison of the delivered items within the second image with the one or more items within the first image, wherein to initate the comparison, the processor causes the electronic device to identify and compare the one or more items captured in the first image with the delivered items captured in the second image {…} to identify the at least one material discrepancy between the one or more items captured in the first image and the delivered items captured in the second image” in at least paragraphs [0126], noting that “the damaging reporting component can use video analysis, receiving a video of the item from a 360° view to calculate damage information by comparing the video to a video taken when the item was in perfect condition before being shipped out.” Ladden additionally discloses, in paragraphs [0131], & [0137] – [0138], that “differences between prior images” and a current image are detected to determine if damage has occurred. As per paragraph [0117], “images of an item during each transfer in a delivery,” which are captured “throughout the course of a delivery” and “during each step of the delivery” are gathered in order to determine “whether and if any damage has occurred,” as well as “where the damage occurred.” As per [0167], “the system requires updated pictures and videos throughout each movement, including from the freight truck to an inbound receiving shipping dock” upon pickup from “the at least one manufacturer 718.” As per at least [0091], [0131], [0149], [0169], [0209], [0215], & [0222], the functions, including the image comparison, can be performed automatically by the execution of “the mobile application” of the carrier mobile device.
Therefore, it is clear throughout Ladden that upon every delivery event (including at pickup), an image is captured and is compared with a previous image from a prior delivery stage to determine if any material discrepancy exists. To the extent to which Ladden does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the system performs the comparisons to identify discrepancies “using an artificial intelligence (AI) engine,” Millhouse teaches this element in at least [0018], noting that “Neural net processing” is used to identify discrepancies between images of shipped items. Accordingly, the cited prior art discloses every limitation of the instant claims.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 10, & 19 are objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “in respose to the electronic device reaching the destination” is recited, instead of the grammatically-correct “in response to the electronic device reaching the destination.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “wherein to initate the comparison” is recited, instead of the grammatically-correct “wherein to initiate the comparison.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 10 & 19 are objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “outputing a prompt” is recited, instead of the grammatically-correct “outputting a prompt.” Appropriate correction is required.
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, 3 – 10, & 12 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1 & 3 – 9 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine); claims 10 & 12 – 18 are directed to a method (i.e., a process); claims 19 – 20 are directed to a product (i.e., a manufacture). Therefore, claims 1, 3 – 10, & 12 – 20 all fall within the one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One
Independent claims 1, 10, & 19 substantially recite: “receive information about at least one order that is set for delivery; verifying items delivered for an order that is set for delivery; receive information of a first order set for delivery from a source, the information comprising a delivery address for the first order; monitor… a location… to identify when… at the destination location; in response to… reaching the destination location: output a prompt to capture a second image comprising all items delivered; contemporaneously with presenting the first order at the delivery address; in response to completion of a capture of the second image, automatically initiate a comparison of the delivered items within the second image with the one or more items within the first image, wherein to initiate the comparison… identify and compare the one or more items captured in the first image with the delivered items captured in the second image… to identify the at least one material discrepancy between the one or more items captured in the first image and the delivered items captured in the second image; and in response to identifying at least one material discrepancy between the delivered items in the second image and the one or more items in the first image, present at least one notification indicating the at least one material discrepancy.”
The limitations stated above are processes that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in a business relation or commercial interaction. That is, the functions in the context of the claims encompass managing delivery transactions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in a commercial interaction, or while managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" grouping of abstract ideas e.g., “commercial or legal interactions (including marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations, and following rules or instructions).” Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1, 10, & 19, as a whole, amounts to: (i) merely invoking generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (or an equivalent), (ii) adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as well as (iii) generally linking the recited judicial exception to a particular field or technological environment.
Claim 1 recites the additional computer-related elements of: “electronic device,” “image capturing device,” “ordering system computer,” “memory having a delivery order verification (DOV) module,” “processor communicatively coupled to the at least one image capturing device, the communication subsystem, and the memory, and which executes program code for the delivery order verification module, wherein the processor is configured to cause the electronic device to,” and “the processor causes the electronic device to.” Claim 1 also recites the additional elements of: “capture, via one of the at least one image capturing device, a first image comprising one or more items included at the source in the first order for delivery to the delivery address,” “monitor, via a location sensor, a location of the electronic device,” “using an artificial intelligence (Al) engine,” and “subsequently capture, via one of the at least one image capturing device… the second image comprising all items that were delivered at the delivery address.”
Claim 10 recites the additional computer-related elements of: “image capturing device,” “electronic device,” and “output device.” Claim 10 also recites the additional elements of: “capturing, via one of at least one image capturing device of an electronic device, a first image comprising one or more items included in the first order at the source for delivery to the delivery address,” “monitoring, via a location sensor, a location of the electronic device,” “capturing, via one of the at least one image capturing device… the second image comprising all items that were delivered at the delivery address,” and “using an artificial intelligence (Al) engine.”
Claim 19 recites the additional computer-related elements of: “computer program product,” “non-transitory computer readable storage device,” “program code on the computer readable storage device that when executed by a processor associated with an electronic device, the program code enables the electronic device to provide functionality,” “image capturing device,” and “electronic device.” Claim 19 also recites the additional elements of: “capturing, via one of at least one image capturing device of an electronic device, a first image comprising one or more items included in the first order at the source for delivery to the delivery address,” “monitoring, via a location sensor, a location of the electronic device,” “capturing, via one of the at least one image capturing device… the second image comprising all items that were delivered at the delivery address,” and “using an artificial intelligence (Al).”
The additional elements of “electronic device,” “image capturing device,” “ordering system computer,” “memory having a delivery order verification (DOV) module,” “processor communicatively coupled to the at least one image capturing device, the communication subsystem, and the memory, and which executes program code for the delivery order verification module, wherein the processor is configured to cause the electronic device to,” and “the processor causes the electronic device to,” “output device,” “computer program product,” “non-transitory computer readable storage device,” and “program code on the computer readable storage device that when executed by a processor associated with an electronic device, the program code enables the electronic device to provide functionality” are recited at a high-level of generality, such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional element of “using an artificial intelligence (Al)” merely generally links the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A) & MPEP 2106.05(h)) as well as amounts to a mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional elements of “capture, via one of the at least one image capturing device, a first image comprising one or more items included at the source in the first order for delivery to the delivery address,” “monitor, via a location sensor, a location of the electronic device,” and “subsequently capture, via one of the at least one image capturing device… the second image comprising all items that were delivered at the delivery address” are recited at a high-level of generality, and when viewed as whole/ordered combination, amount to insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)) as well as merely generally linking the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A) & MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements amount to no more than: (i) merely invoking generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (or an equivalent), (ii) adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as well as (iii) generally linking the recited judicial exception to a particular field or technological environment, and do not provide integration of the recited abstract ideas into a practical application. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., (i) merely invoking the generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)); and (ii) adding insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., pre-solution activity, such as mere data retrieval / electronic scanning) to the judicial exception (See MPEP2106.05(g)), as well as (iii) generally linking the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A) & MPEP 2106.05(h)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Furthermore, the extra-solution functionality of “capture, via one of the at least one image capturing device, a first image comprising one or more items included at the source in the first order for delivery to the delivery address,” “monitor, via a location sensor, a location of the electronic device,” and “subsequently capture, via one of the at least one image capturing device… the second image comprising all items that were delivered at the delivery address” has been found by the courts to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), noting: “Performing repetitive calculations,” “Transmitting data over a network,” and “Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document”), and thus do not amount to significantly more under Step 2B. Furthermore, the generic recitation of GPS location monitoring in the instant specification at [0059] (“The location monitoring/tracking can involve use of the built-in GPS device 160 or other location sensor or methodology available to the electronic device 100 (e.g., cellular tower triangulation, WiFi signal localization, etc.).”) demonstrates that these additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(I)(2.) and the Berkheimer Memo, § (III.)(A.)(1.)).
Therefore, the additional elements of “electronic device,” “image capturing device,” “ordering system computer,” “memory having a delivery order verification (DOV) module,” “processor communicatively coupled to the at least one image capturing device, the communication subsystem, and the memory, and which executes program code for the delivery order verification module, wherein the processor is configured to cause the electronic device to,” “the processor causes the electronic device to,” “output device,” “computer program product,” “non-transitory computer readable storage device,” “program code on the computer readable storage device that when executed by a processor associated with an electronic device, the program code enables the electronic device to provide functionality,” “using an artificial intelligence (Al),” “capture, via one of the at least one image capturing device, a first image comprising one or more items included at the source in the first order for delivery to the delivery address,” “monitor, via a location sensor, a location of the electronic device,” and “subsequently capture, via one of the at least one image capturing device… the second image comprising all items that were delivered at the delivery address” fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in the claims adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. There is no indication that the combination of elements, taken both individually and as an ordered combination, improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Furthermore, dependent claims 3 – 9, 12 – 18, & 20 are merely directed to the particulars of the abstract idea and likewise do not add significantly more to the above-identified judicial exception. The additional elements of “via an artificial intelligence (AI)” in claims 4 & 13 are recited at a high-level of generality, and when viewed as whole/ordered combination, amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) as well as merely generally linking the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A) & MPEP 2106.05(h)). The additional elements of “within a user interface” in claims 7 & 16 are recited at a high-level of generality, and when viewed as whole/ordered combination, amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional elements of “on a display screen” in claims 8 & 17 are recited at a high-level of generality, and when viewed as whole/ordered combination, amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitations of the claims, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, do not transform the abstract idea that they recite into patent-eligible subject matter because the claims simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea with generic computer components that conduct generic computer functions within a certain field of use, and thus are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3 – 7, 10, 12 – 16, & 19 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ladden et al. (US 20160171439 A1) in view of Millhouse et al. (US 20190019137 A1).
As per claim 1, Ladden discloses an electronic device comprising:
• at least one image capturing device ([0011], [0020], [0025], [0099], [0117], [0131], [0137], [0211], [0226], “mobile device possessed by delivery personnel” captures pictures of shipments via “image sensors” of the device.);
• a communication subsystem that connects the electronic device to an ordering system computer to receive information about at least one order that is set for delivery (Fig. 5 & [0151] – [0154], communication pathway from mobile application 512 of carrier device using communication network 503 to delivery management system 504. Also see [0025], [0131], [0133], & [0251] – [0252], noting “communicating, by the computer system to delivery personnel via a mobile device. As per at least [0091], [0158], [0212], [0248], carrier device receives alerts and shipping information from management system 504.);
• a memory having a delivery order verification (DOV) module for verifying items delivered for an order that is set for delivery ([0154] & [0257] – [0258], “mobile application” on carrier device for “indicating whether or not the goods are in good condition at each stage of a delivery route” is stored using “storage system 912, which can include a computer readable and/or writeable nonvolatile medium in which signals can be stored to provide a program to be executed by the processor or to provide information stored on or in the medium to be processed by the program.”);
• a processor communicatively coupled to the at least one image capturing device, the communication subsystem, and the memory, and which executes program code for the delivery order verification module ([0253] – [0259], processor implementing program code for carrying out the steps):
• wherein the processor is configured to cause the electronic device to: receive information of a first order set for delivery from a source, the information comprising a delivery address for the first order ([0104], [0108], [0131], [0134] – [0137], [0139], & [0167], “receive order information 102A including, for example, …customer information such as an address);
• capture, via one of the at least one image capturing device, a first image comprising one or more items included at the source in the first order for delivery to the delivery address ([0109], “receive a pre-scan of every item before a shipment is sent out”; [0117], capturing “the inspection information 102B” which includes “images of an item during each transfer in a delivery” from “delivery personnel mobile device” via “image sensors”; Also [0135], [0137], [0141], & [0167] – [0168], capturing “an input (e.g., a picture or video and confirmation that the item is in good condition) that the items from the order have been picked up from the at least one manufacturer 718” i.e., an origin during pickup.);
• monitor, via a location sensor, a location of the electronic device to identify when the electronic device is at the destination location ([0020], “tracking means tracks and validates movement of at least one item as proper using… GPS signals”; [0117], generating “updated GPS coordinates of an item throughout the course of a delivery, and condition information during each step of the delivery”; [0132], using “a mobile application” to track the “global positioning system (GPS) coordinates” in real-time, including tracking the item(s) “from the truck to the delivery location”; [0146], detecting, “via the carrier's mobile device,” the movement of the item(s) using “GPS” to “a correct delivery location”; [0209] – [0211], using “a mobile application” of a “mobile device” of the “delivery personnel” in order to “validate a delivery is taking place based on analysis of current location (e.g., via GPS)”);
• in respose to the electronic device reaching the destination location: output a prompt to capture a second image comprising all items delivered; and subsequently capture, via one of the at least one image capturing device contemporaneously with presenting the first order at the delivery address, the second image comprising all items that were delivered at the delivery address ([0020], [0099], [0124], [0137] – [0138], responsive to a delivery event, prompting “once the goods being delivery reach their ultimate destination process 200 can trigger {i.e., prompt} a final status check at 208 to ensure that no damage has occurred to the goods” and “require images of the product in place at the customer location”; [0141], [0155], & [0167] – [0168], triggering the requirement of images upon each delivery event; [0210] – [0216], upon arrival at the destination, the mobile application will “prompt the driver to take pictures of the delivered goods” and “require pictures of the delivered items unboxed and in place at the customer location.”);
Regarding the following limitation, Ladden discloses:
• in response to completion of a capture of the second image, automatically initiate a comparison of the delivered items within the second image with the one or more items within the first image, wherein to initate the comparison, the processor causes the electronic device to identify and compare the one or more items captured in the first image with the delivered items captured in the second image {…} to identify the at least one material discrepancy between the one or more items captured in the first image and the delivered items captured in the second image ([0123], [0126], [0131], & [0137], “the damaging reporting component can use video analysis, receiving a video of the item from a 360° view to calculate damage information by comparing the video to a video taken when the item was in perfect condition before being shipped out,” and detecting any “differences between prior images” and a current image. As per at least [0091], [0131], [0149], [0169], [0209], [0215], & [0222], the functions, including the image comparison, can be performed automatically by the execution of “the mobile application” of the carrier mobile device.);
To the extent to which Ladden does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the system identifies the discrepancies “using an artificial intelligence (AI) engine,” Millhouse teaches this element in at least [0018], noting that “Neural net processing” is used to identify discrepancies between images of shipped items.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the aforementioned teachings of Millhouse in the invention of Ladden with the motivation “for maintaining quality control for deliveries between” origins and destinations, as evidenced by Millhouse ([0011]).
Ladden further discloses:
• and in response to identifying at least one material discrepancy between the delivered items in the second image and the one or more items in the first image, present at least one notification indicating the at least one material discrepancy ([0126] & [0137], damage triggers alerts to the “delivery personnel” (i.e., “carrier”) device.).
As per claim 10, see the above relevant rejection of claim 1. Ladden additionally discloses a method in at least paras. [0014] – [0017].
As per claim 19, see the above relevant rejection of claim 1. Ladden additionally discloses a computer program product comprising: a computer readable storage device; and program code on the computer readable storage device that when executed by a processor associated with an electronic device, the program code enables the electronic device to provide functionality in at least [0255] & [0257 – [0259].
As per claims 3 & 12, Ladden / Millhouse discloses the limitations of claims 1 & 10. Ladden further discloses wherein,
• in response to identifying the at least one material discrepancy between the one or more items captured in first image and the delivered items captured in second image, the processor: determines a discrepancy type for each of the identified at least one material discrepancy between the one or more items captured in first image and the delivered items captured in the second image ([0126] & [0137], noting differences between the images of an item and determining “damage on an item.”),
• wherein the at least one notification comprises corresponding detail for each of the identified at least one material discrepancy based on the associated discrepancy type ([0126] & [0137], damage triggers alerts to the “delivery personnel” (i.e., “carrier”) device, indicating “noting that an item needs to be fixed or indicating that the damage is minimal” based on a determined damage score.)
As per claims 4 & 13, Ladden / Millhouse discloses the limitations of claims 1 & 10. Ladden further discloses wherein to initiate the comparison, the processor:
• transmits, via the communication subsystem, the first image and the second image to a delivery order verification system, which performs image comparison {…} to identify items and characteristics of items within the first order and determines when the at least one material discrepancy exists that warrants the at least one notification to the delivery agent ([0131], the system receives the captured “update status information and images of each item from a carrier”; As per at least [0126], [0131], & [0137], “the damaging reporting component can use video analysis, receiving a video of the item from a 360° view to calculate damage information by comparing the video to a video taken when the item was in perfect condition before being shipped out.”).
To the extent to which Ladden does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein “via an artificial intelligence (AI)” to identify the discrepancies, Millhouse teaches this element in at least [0018], noting that “Neural net processing” is used to identify discrepancies between images of shipped items.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the aforementioned teachings of Millhouse in the invention of Ladden / Millhouse with the motivation “for maintaining quality control for deliveries between” origins and destinations, as evidenced by Millhouse ([0011]).
Ladden further discloses wherein the processor:
• receives the notification from the delivery order verification system, the notification including: a description of the at least one material discrepancy ([0126] & [0137], the system may notify the carrier of the damaged item.);
• and at least one indication of at least one corrective action required to be taken by a delivery agent in response to the material descrepancy [sic] ([0100] & esp. [0137], reporting to the carrier a determined “responsive action” which can include “ending the delivery of any damaged items and ordering replacement items, sending the damaged items back to the manufacturer to be fixed, canceling a shipment, and continuing the shipping to replace the damaged part later.”).
As per claims 5 & 14, Ladden / Millhouse discloses the limitations of claims 4 & 13. Ladden further discloses wherein,
• in response to a presence of multiple different discrepancy types between the one or more items captured in the first image and the delivered items captured in the second image, the processor: receives, within the at least one notification, a discrepancy type for each of the identified at least one material discrepancy ([0126], generating and outputting damage score for each item. Also [0137], noting differences between the images of an item and determining “damage on an item.” As per at least [0013] & [0018], the system “receive{s} photos or videos of each of the plurality of items, analyze received photos or videos of each of the plurality of items, and detect damage to each of the plurality of items.” Moreover, the mere duplication of shipped items and corresponding discrepancy types has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See In re Harza, 274 F .2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) and MPEP § 2144.04 (VI)(B). In the instant case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have known that including multiple shipped items and corresponding discrepancy types would have yielded the predictable result of performing the damage check of Ladden on multiple shipped items.),
• wherein the at least one notification comprises corresponding detail for each of the identified at least one material discrepancy based on the associated discrepancy type ([0126] & [0137], damage triggers alerts to the “delivery personnel” (i.e., “carrier”) device, indicating “noting that an item needs to be fixed or indicating that the damage is minimal” based on a determined damage score.);
• and in response to identification of no material discrepancy between the delivered items in the second image and the one or more items in the first image, enables a delivery recipient or a purchaser to accept the delivery of the first order as completed with no further action by the delivery agent ([0128], “when at least one item reaches a customer, the tracking and/or inspection component can be configured to require images of the item… to, for example, confirm that neither the item nor the area were damaged by delivery… The inspection component 104E can also finalize the delivery by sending the images (e.g., as transition information 106C) to validate the final delivery transition has been made (e.g. in-place delivery). The manifest component 104B may then receive a digital signature of a customer indicating that the delivery of the one or more items was successful. The digital signature can indicate, for example, that the order is received in good condition.” Also see [0168], noting that “the items arrive at a customer's home or retail store. The items are brought inside and the system can be configured to require pictures or videos of each of the items and the surrounding locations to confirm that no damage has occurred to the delivery location as well as the items. At block 730, the customer accepts or rejects the items. If the customer accepts the order, a signature is taken indicating that the customer is satisfied 732.”).
As per claims 6 & 15, Ladden / Millhouse discloses the limitations of claims 1 & 10. Ladden further discloses wherein the processor further provides at least one indication of at least one corrective action required to be taken from a group comprising:
• re-positioning the delivered items and capturing and transmitting at least one third image of the repositioned delivered items; providing an on-location explanation of why the at least one material discrepancy exists; informing a delivery recipient of the at least one material discrepancy ([0137], after an image comparison determines a damaged item, the system may notify “the customer” (i.e., recipient) for the item); enabling the delivery recipient or the purchaser to accept the delivery of the first order as completed with no further action by a delivery agent; enabling the delivery recipient or the purchaser to request a refund for one or more items confirmed to be missing from the delivered items; and requiring the delivery agent to return to the source to retrieve and deliver one or more items confirmed to be missing from the delivered items.
As per claims 7 & 16, Ladden / Millhouse discloses the limitations of claims 1 & 10. Ladden further discloses wherein the processor:
• presents a first prompt within a user interface of the electronic device for a delivery agent to capture the first image while the electronic device is located at the source ([0249], “the user interface can be configured to require inspection at each delivery event. For example, the UI may lockup or gray out delivery information (e.g., routing information) shown in FIG. 8A and alert delivery personnel that an inspection is required.”);
• presents, while the electronic device is located at the delivery address, a second prompt within the user interface for the delivery agent to capture the second image ([0124], [0128], [0159], [0186], & [0214], the carrier device interface “can be configured to require images of the item at the location” “when at least one item reaches a customer.”);
• and automatically triggers the comparison in response to receiving the second image from the at least one image capturing device ([0126], [0131], [0137], responsive to receiving the second image, the system software automatically detects any “any damages in items or differences between prior images.”).
As per claim 20, Ladden / Millhouse the limitations of claim 19. Ladden further discloses wherein the program code that enables the electronic device to provide the functionality of initiating the comparison further comprises code that enables the electronic device to provide functionality of:
• in response to identifying the at least one material discrepancy between the delivered items captured in second image and the one or more items captured in first image, determining a discrepancy type for each of the identified at least one material discrepancy between the delivered items captured in the second image and the one or more items captured in first image ([0126] & [0137], noting differences between the images of an item and determining “damage on an item.”),
• wherein the at least one notification comprises corresponding detail for each of the identified at least one material discrepancy based on the associated discrepancy type ([0126] & [0137], damage triggers alerts to the “delivery personnel” (i.e., “carrier”) device, indicating “noting that an item needs to be fixed or indicating that the damage is minimal” based on a determined damage score.);
• and presenting at least one indication of at least one corrective action required to be taken by a delivery agent to address the material discrepancy ([0100] & esp. [0137], reporting to the carrier a determined “responsive action” which can include “ending the delivery of any damaged items and ordering replacement items, sending the damaged items back to the manufacturer to be fixed, canceling a shipment, and continuing the shipping to replace the damaged part later.”).
Claims 8 & 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ladden / Millhouse, in further view of Kellaway, Jr. et al. (US 20190287066 A1).
As per claims 8 & 17, Ladden / Millhouse discloses the limitations of claims 1 & 10. Ladden further discloses wherein to initiate the comparison, the processor:
• presents the notification generated for each of the identified at least one material discrepancy on a display screen of the electronic device contemporaneously with the presenting of the first order at the delivery address ([0126], [0137]-[0138], [0144], & [0149], when damage is detected an alert is provided to the carrier device.);
To the extent to which Ladden / Millhouse does not appear to explicitly disclose the following limitations, Kellaway teaches wherein the processor:
• presents a prompt requesting input from a delivery agent of information related to a cause for each of the identified at least one material discrepancy ([0132], “The system can provide another screen 470 (FIG. 21E) with information 472 about the container and again requests if there is any damage to the container or chassis, for example, via “Yes” or “No” radio buttons. If damage is apparent, the driver can enter an explanation in a text box 476.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the aforementioned teachings of Kellaway in the invention of Ladden / Millhouse with the motivation to provide a system and method which “increases efficiencies in the transportation of” items, as evidenced by Kellaway ([0011]).
Claims 9 & 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ladden / Millhouse, in further view of Griffith et al. (US 8473326 B1).
As per claims 9 & 18, Ladden / Millhouse discloses the limitations of claims 6 & 15. To the extent to which Ladden / Millhouse does not appear to explicitly disclose the following limitations, Griffith teaches wherein the processor:
• in response to receiving a request for a refund for the at least one material discrepancy, transmits the request for the refund to the delivery order verification module to initiate processing of the request for the refund (C 10, L 66 – C 11, L 57, “) In box 316, the return selection page that is represented by the user interface 197e (FIG. 2E) is rendered on the client 106 to facilitate the selection of items 143 to be returned for which a refund is to be provided. Thereafter, in box 333, assuming that the courier 159 manipulates the confirm rejection button 249, the courier application 194 renders the return reason page represented, for example, by the user interface 197f (FIG. 2F) to facilitate a selection of the reason items 143 are to be returned and to submit such reasons to the computing device 103 for storage… , the courier application 194 may communicate with the courier management system 189 and/or the electronic commerce application 190 (in the case that the merchant acts as their own carrier) in order to implement a calculation of any refund owed to the customer… , if not all items 143 are to be returned and at least one item 143 is to be delivered to the customer, then the courier application 194 progresses to box 319 in order to allow the courier 159 to specify that delivery has been made with respect to such item 143. (57) In addition, if items 143 are to be returned as determined in box 316, such information is communicated to the computing system 103 and the respective courier stop list 163 is updated appropriately both in the client 106 and the computing device 103. Further, the electronic commerce application 190 is configured to process a refund appropriately, assuming that the courier 159 can confirm that the item 143 is returnable. In order to process a refund, the courier management application 189 that interacts directly with the courier application 194 may also interact with other components of the electronic commerce application 190 to implement the refund.” In other words, after the courier inputs into the courier device that a customer requests a refund, the courier device transmits the refund request to “computing device 103” to initiate processing of the request for the refund.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the aforementioned teachings of Griffith in the invention of Ladden / Millhouse so that “refunds may be processed immediately given that the courier 159 may act as a third party to verify that the item 143 being returned is in the condition in which it was delivered,” as evidenced by Griffith (C 11, L 57 – 61).).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN J KIRK whose telephone number is (571)272-6447. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 9:00-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571)272-5587. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRYAN J KIRK/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights