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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for National Stage under 35 U.S.C. 371. The certified copy has been filed of parent Application No. PCT/JP2021/034065, filed on September 16, 2021.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-10 were rejected in the Non-Final Office action mailed on 03/26/2025. Applicant’s amended claimset, entered on 09/25/2025, amended Claims 1, 3, 6, and 9, canceled Claims 5 and 8, and added new Claim 19. Herein this Final Office Action, Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-10, and 19 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 09/25/2025, with respect to Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 for Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-10, and 19, have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
On Pages 7-8, Applicant restates previous rejection and amended Claim 1, emphasizing two limitations (i.e. “acquiring first biometric information of a delivery person who responds to the responsibility request from a first delivery person terminal among the plurality of delivery person terminals, the first delivery person terminal being a delivery person terminal used by a delivery person;” and “causing the addressee terminal to execute processing for generating second biometric information of an addressee when trigger information serving as a trigger for starting biometric authentication of the addressee during handover of the package to the addressee is acquired from the first delivery person terminal.”). On Pages 8-9 Applicant argues “Claim 1 is patent eligible under Prong Two of the revised Step 2A of the Alice test.” Applicant further argues that the emphasized limitations integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application. On Page 9 Applicant argues that “Claim 1 is patent eligible of Step 2B of the Alice test.” Applicant further argues that the amended Claim 1 provides an inventive concept and “does not simply append well-understood, routine or conventional activities.” Applicant finally argues that Claims 2-4, 6-7, and 9-10 are directed are patent eligible by virtue of similarity to, or dependency on, Claim 1. Examiner does not agree.
Examiner responds that the emphasized claim limitations do not recite additional elements, but are a part of the abstract idea. The claims do not include how the “delivery control apparatus comprising: at least one memory configured to store instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to perform operations . . . ,” which is identified as an additional element, performs these limitation, but merely that the “processor” is configured to “perform” the “operations.” Therefore, the claim as a whole is directed towards the judicial exception by merely applying the abstract idea using generic computer components per MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, the claimed “operations” that the “processor” is configured to “perform,” are recited at a high-level of generality and performs generic computer functions that have been determined to be well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) (i.e., i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, iii. Electronic recordkeeping, iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, and v. Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document.). Thus, Applicant has failed to overcome the rejection and demonstrate patent eligible subject matter.
Applicant’s arguments filed 09/25/2025, with respect to Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 for Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-10, and 19, have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
On Page 10, Applicant summarizes the rejections of the previous office action. Examiner does not materially disagree.
On Pages 10-11, regarding amended Claim 9, Applicant argues that Singh does not teach “generating biometric information of an addressee upon acquiring trigger information for starting biometric authentication of the addressee from a delivery control apparatus when the addressee receives a package from a delivery person, the delivery control apparatus being an apparatus for controlling delivery of the package or delivery person terminals each owned by each of delivery persons.” Examiner does not agree.
Examiner responds that the “terminal 190” of the “delivery representative 180” in Singh (Fig. 1 and C04L61-C05L09) teaches “the delivery control apparatus being an apparatus for controlling delivery of the package or delivery person terminals each owned by each of delivery persons,” under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the Claim (i.e. the BRI of the “delivery control apparatus” in independent Claim 9 is not limited to a remote server, but would also include a smartphone of the delivery person used to “control” the delivery of the package, e.g. provide instructions or notifications to the delivery person). Therefore, Singh teaches that the claimed “trigger information” is acquired from the “delivery control apparatus” by determining proximity between “terminal 190” and “terminal 170” via exchanging information wirelessly. See C05L03-06 (“In some embodiments, proximity of terminal 170 to terminal 190 may be determined based on communication such as near-field communication (NFC) or BLUETOOTH® between the devices.”). Thus, the rejection remains.
On Pages 11-13, regarding Claims 1 and 6, Applicant seems to acknowledge that Singh teaches that authorization for delivery is dependent upon determining that the claimed “addressee terminal” and “first delivery person terminal” are proximate (C04L61-C05L09), but argues that Singh does not teach “causing the addressee terminal to execute processing for generating second biometric information of an addressee when trigger information serving as a trigger for starting biometric authentication of the addressee during handover of the package to the addressee is acquired from the first delivery person terminal.” Examiner does not agree.
Examiner responds that one of the purposes of Singh is to combine biometric authentication with other methods of authentication before authorizing delivery. See C04L39-41 stating “For example, biometric authentication may be combined with another method of authentication before authenticating the user and authorizing delivery.” (Emphasis added). As shown in the previous office action and herein, Singh C04L66-C05L06 states “The terminal 190 may receive the authorization for delivery if it is in proximity of terminal 170. Proximity of terminal 170 to terminal 190 may be determined based on both devices being within the geographical area or location 185. In some embodiments, proximity of terminal 170 to terminal 190 may be determined based on communication such as near-field communication (NFC) or BLUETOOTH® between the devices . . .” Therefore, the system of Singh transfers information (via NFC or Bluetooth) between devices to determine proximity, teaching “acquiring trigger information for starting biometric authentication of the addressee from a delivery control apparatus when the addressee receives a package from a delivery person.”
Additionally, Singh Fig. 6 and 12, C10L46-52, and C12L47-58 provide specific embodiments showing that the proximity/location determination or signal from the delivery representative “terminal 190” to a recipient “terminal 170” occurs before the biometric authentication, i.e. the biometric authentication process is conditioned on the proximity of, or signal transmission between, the terminals, teaching that the “trigger information” starts the “biometric authentication of the addressee.” Thus, the rejection remains.
On page 13, regarding dependent Claims 2-5, 7-8, and 10 and new Claim 19, Applicant argues non-obviousness by virtue of dependency. Examiner does not agree. As discussed above, the independent claims remain rejected, and therefore, dependency fails to require a determination of non-obviousness.
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.
Claims 9-10 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites the limitation ". . . generating biometric information of an addressee upon acquiring trigger information for starting biometric authentication of the addressee from a delivery control apparatus when the addressee receives a package from a delivery person, the delivery control apparatus being an apparatus for controlling delivery of the package or delivery person terminals each owned by each of delivery persons; and executing biometric authentication of the addressee, based on the biometric information, or transmits the biometric information to a delivery control apparatus for controlling delivery of the package" (emphasis added) at the end of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because it is unclear as to whether the second “a control apparatus” is (1) introducing a new feature or (2) referencing “the control apparatus.”
Claim 10 recites the limitation "The addressee terminal according to claim 9, wherein, when biometric authentication of the addressee is executed based on the biometric information, a result of the biometric authentication to a delivery person terminal or the delivery control apparatus.” (Emphasis added). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as depended upon Claim 9 introduces “a delivery control apparatus” twice.
In support of compact prosecution, further examination herein will interpret the end of Claim 9 as reciting “. . . or transmits the biometric information to the delivery control apparatus for controlling delivery of the package,” which provides sufficient definiteness for Claims 9-10.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-10, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-4 and 19 recite a delivery control apparatus (i.e. a machine or manufacture), Claims 6-7 recite a delivery person terminal (i.e. a machine or manufacture), and Claims 9-10 recite an addressee terminal (i.e. a machine or manufacture). Therefore, Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-10, and 19 all fall within the one of the four statutory categories of invention of 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 2A, Prong One
Independent Claim 1 recites the abstract idea of:
“acquiring from an addressee terminal, a delivery request including first identification information for identifying a package;
transmitting a responsibility request for delivery of the package to a plurality of delivery person terminals;
acquiring first biometric information of a delivery person who responds to the responsibility request from a first delivery person terminal among the plurality of delivery person terminals, the first delivery person terminal being a delivery person terminal used by a delivery person;
performing biometric authentication of the delivery person, based on the acquired first biometric information
transmitting, to the delivery person terminal, second identification information for proving that the delivery person is a person in charge of delivery of the package, when the biometric authentication of the delivery person has succeeded; and
causing the addressee terminal to execute processing for generating second biometric information of an addressee when trigger information serving as a trigger for starting biometric authentication of the addressee during handover of the package to the addressee is acquired from the first delivery person terminal.”
The limitations stated above are processes/ functions that under broadest reasonable interpretation covers (1) acquiring a delivery request, (2) transmitting a responsibility request for delivery of a package to multiple delivery persons, (3) acquire first biometric information from a person who responded to the request, (4) performing biometric authentication of the delivery person based on biometric information acquired, (5) transmitting second identification information when authentication has succeeded, and (6) generating second biometric information when trigger information is acquired during handover of the package, all of which are managing personal behavior by following rules and interacting between people (i.e. verifying a person’s identity by looking at them is a “social activity”) and commercial or legal interactions (i.e. request delivery and verifying identity of delivery person are “marketing or sales activities or behaviors”), which are certain methods of organizing human activity, an abstract idea, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)II. The mere the recitation of generic computer components (i.e., “delivery control apparatus, comprising at least one memory configured to store instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to perform operations”) implementing the identified abstract idea does not take the claim out of the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. MPEP 2106.04(d). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people” and “commercial or legal interactions” but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls in the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP 2106.04. Therefore, Claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 as a whole amounts to: (i) merely invoking generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (or an equivalent) and (ii) generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The claim recites the additional elements of:
(i) delivery control apparatus comprising
(ii) memory and
(iii) processor.
Examiner notes that the recited “addressee terminal” and “delivery person terminal” are explicitly outside the scope of the claim, which is limited to the “delivery control apparatus,” and therefore are not additional elements of the claim (e.g. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “causing the addressee terminal to execute processing for . . .” includes instructing the user to perform an operation on the terminal. See MPEP 2106.04(a)II stating “Finally, the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the ‘certain methods of organizing human activity’ grouping.”).
The additional elements of (i) delivery control apparatus (Fig. 13 and ¶139 shows “delivery control apparatus 101.”) comprising (ii) memory (Fig. 13 and ¶142 shows “The memory 1030 is a main storage apparatus achieved by a random access memory (RAM) or the like.”) and (iii) processor (Fig. 13 and ¶141 shows “The processor 1020 is a processor achieved by a central processing unit (CPU), a graphics processing unit (GPU), or the like.”), are recited at a high-level of generality, such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination (Fig. 13 and ¶¶139-46 shows elements in combination.), they 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 (i) delivery control apparatus, (ii) memory, and (iii) processor, when viewed as whole/ordered combination (Fig. 13 and ¶¶139-46 shows elements in combination.), does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e. online computer environment) (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination (Fig. 13 and ¶¶139-46 shows elements in combination.), do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does 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) “apply it” (or an equivalent) and (ii) generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and are not a practical application of the abstract idea. 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) generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See 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 (i) delivery control apparatus, (ii) memory, and (iii) processor, when viewed as whole/ordered combination (Fig. 13 and ¶¶139-46 shows elements in combination.) are recited at a high-level of generality and performs generic computer functions (i.e., i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, iii. Electronic recordkeeping, iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, and v. Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document.) that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)).
Therefore, the additional elements of the (i) delivery control apparatus, (ii) memory, and (iii) processor, do not 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 (Fig. 13 and ¶¶139-46 shows elements in combination.), nothing in the claims adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Dependent Claims 2-4 and 19 recite the abstract idea of:
“wherein the delivery request is information including an address of each of a reception place of the package and a delivery destination of the package” (Claim 2);
“wherein a support range being a range in which the delivery person is capable of delivering is determined for the delivery person, and the responsibility request is transmitted to the plurality of delivery person terminals used by delivery ersons, support range of each of the delivery persons including Claim 3).
“setting a fact that delivery is in progress as status information associated with the second identification information in delivery data, when the second identification information is acquired from a package control system for controlling the package checked at a reception place” (Claim 4).
“acquiring the second biometric information generated in response to the trigger information,
performing authentication of the addressee, based on the second biometric information, transmitting result of the authentication of the addressee to the first delivery person terminal when the authentication of the addressee has succeeded.” (Claim 19).
Dependent Claims 2-4 and 19, have been given the full two-prong analysis including analyzing the further elements and limitations, both individually and in combination. When analyzed individually and in combination, these claims are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The further limitation of Claims 2-4 and 19 fail to establish claims that are not directed to an abstract idea because the further limitations (1) specify the information in the request, (2) use a support range to determine potential delivery drivers to receive the responsibility request, (3) setting a fact that delivery is in progress upon certain conditions, and (4) executing biometric authentication upon receiving trigger information and communicating the results, which are apart of the abstract idea. The further elements of Claims 2-4 and 19 (i.e. “delivery control apparatus”) fails to establish claims that are not directed to an abstract idea because the elements merely recite generic computer hardware similar to the generic computer hardware of Claim 1 (i.e. “delivery control apparatus”) or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technology or field of use just as in Claim 1. The organization of the further limitations of Claims 2-5 fail to integrate an abstract idea into a practical application just as discussed above for Claim 1. Additionally, performing the abstract idea of Claim 1 as recited in each of the further limitations of Claims 2-4 and 19, individually or in combination, does not (1) impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas, or (2) provide improvements to the functioning of computing systems or to another technology or technical field, just as discussed above regarding Claim 1. Therefore, Claims 2-4 and 19 amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea (1) using generic computer components—using the computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea, and (2) generally linked to a particular technology or field of use. Because the claims merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity in a particular field of use, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept, the elements and limitations of Claims 2-4 and 19 fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept, just as in Claim 1. Therefore, Claims 2-4 and 19 fails the Subject Matter Eligibility Test and are consequently rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Independent Claim 6 recites the abstract idea of:
“acquiring a responsibility request for delivery of a package;
generating biometric information of a delivery person who responds to the responsibility request;
acquiring second identification information for proving that the delivery person is a person in charge of delivery of the package, when biometric authentication based on biometric information of the delivery person has succeeded;
transmitting trigger information for starting biometric authentication of an addressee when the addressee receives the package, and
acquiring a result of biometric authentication of the addressee performed according to the trigger information.”
The limitations stated above are processes/ functions that under broadest reasonable interpretation covers (1) acquiring a responsibility request for delivery of a package, (2) performing biometric authentication of the delivery person based on biometric information acquired, (3) transmitting second identification information when authentication has succeeded, (4) transmit information that starts biometric authentication of addressee, and (5) acquiring results of authentication, all of which are managing personal behavior by following rules and interacting between people (i.e. verifying a persons identity by looking at them is a “social activity”) and commercial or legal interactions (i.e. request delivery and verifying identity of delivery person are “marketing or sales activities or behaviors”), which are certain methods of organizing human activity, an abstract idea, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)II. The mere the recitation of generic computer components (i.e., “A delivery person terminal comprising: at least one memory configured to store instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to perform operations”) implementing the identified abstract idea does not take the claim out of the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. MPEP 2106.04(d). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people” and “commercial or legal interactions” but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls in the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP 2106.04. Therefore, Claim 6 recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 6 as a whole amounts to: (i) merely invoking generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (or an equivalent) and (ii) generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The claim recites the additional elements of:
(i) delivery person terminal comprising
(ii) memory and
(iii) processor.
The additional elements of (i) delivery person terminal (Fig. 14 and ¶147 shows “The delivery person terminal 102 is physically, for example, a tablet personal computer (PC), a smartphone, or the like.”) comprising (ii) memory (Fig. 14 and ¶151 shows “The memory 2030 is a main storage apparatus achieved by a random access memory (RAM) or the like.) and (iii) processor (Fig. 14 and ¶150 shows “The processor 2020 is a processor achieved by a central processing unit (CPU), a graphics processing unit (GPU), or the like.), are recited at a high-level of generality, such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination (Fig. 14 and ¶¶147-55 shows elements in combination.), they 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 (i) delivery person terminal, (ii) memory, and (iii) processor, when viewed as whole/ordered combination (Fig. 14 and ¶¶147-55 shows elements in combination.), does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e. online computer environment) (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination (Fig. 14 and ¶¶147-55 shows elements in combination.), do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does 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) “apply it” (or an equivalent) and (ii) generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and are not a practical application of the abstract idea. 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) generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See 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 (i) delivery person terminal, (ii) memory, and (iii) processor, when viewed as whole/ordered combination (Fig. 14 and ¶¶147-55 shows elements in combination.) are recited at a high-level of generality and performs generic computer functions (i.e., i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, iii. Electronic recordkeeping, iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, and v. Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document.) that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)).
Therefore, the additional elements of the (i) delivery person terminal, (ii) memory, and (iii) processor, do not 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 (Fig. 14 and ¶¶147-55 shows elements in combination.), nothing in the claims adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Dependent Claim 7 recites the abstract idea of “displaying the second identification information as a one-dimensional code or a two-dimensional code.”
Dependent Claim 7, has been given the full two-prong analysis including analyzing the further elements and limitations, both individually and in combination. When analyzed individually and in combination, these claims are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The further limitation of Claim 7 fails to establish claims that are not directed to an abstract idea because the further limitations (1) display a code, which are apart of the abstract idea. The further elements of Claim 7 (i.e. “delivery person terminal”) fail to establish claims that are not directed to an abstract idea because the elements merely recite generic computer hardware similar to the generic computer hardware of Claim 6 (i.e. “delivery person terminal”) or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technology or field of use just as in Claim 6. The organization of the further limitations of Claim 7 fails to integrate an abstract idea into a practical application just as discussed above for Claim 6. Additionally, performing the abstract idea of Claim 6 as recited in each of the further limitations of Claim 7, individually or in combination, do not (1) impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas, or (2) provide improvements to the functioning of computing systems or to another technology or technical field, just as discussed above regarding Claim 6. Therefore, Claim 7 amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea (1) using generic computer components—using the computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea, and (2) generally linked to a particular technology or field of use. Because the claims merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity in a particular field of use, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept, the elements and limitations of Claim 7 fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept, just as in Claim 6. Therefore, Claim 7 fails the Subject Matter Eligibility Test and are consequently rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Independent Claim 9 recites the abstract idea of:
“generating biometric information of an addressee upon acquiring trigger information for starting biometric authentication of the addressee from a delivery control apparatus when the addressee receives a package from a delivery person, the delivery control apparatus being an apparatus for controlling delivery of the package or delivery person terminals each owned by each of delivery persons; and
executing biometric authentication of the addressee, based on the biometric information, or transmits the biometric information to a delivery control apparatus for controlling delivery of the package.”
The limitations stated above are processes/ functions that under broadest reasonable interpretation covers (1) performing biometric authentication of the addressee based on biometric information acquired from a specific source (i.e. delivery control apparatus) when addressee receives the package, all of which are managing personal behavior by following rules and interacting between people (i.e. verifying a persons identity by looking at them is a “social activity”) and commercial or legal interactions (i.e. verifying identity of delivery recipient are “marketing or sales activities or behaviors”), which are certain methods of organizing human activity, an abstract idea, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)II. The mere the recitation of generic computer components (i.e., “An addressee terminal comprising: at least one memory configured to store instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to perform operations”) implementing the identified abstract idea does not take the claim out of the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. MPEP 2106.04(d). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people” and “commercial or legal interactions” but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls in the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP 2106.04. Therefore, Claim 6 recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 9 as a whole amounts to: (i) merely invoking generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (or an equivalent) and (ii) generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The claim recites the additional elements of:
(i) addressee terminal comprising
(ii) memory and
(iii) processor.
The additional elements of (i) addressee terminal (¶156 shows “The addressee terminal 103 may physically include a configuration similar to that of the delivery person terminal 102.” Fig. 14 and ¶147 shows “The delivery person terminal 102 is physically, for example, a tablet personal computer (PC), a smartphone, or the like.”) comprising (ii) memory (Fig. 14 and ¶151 shows “The memory 2030 is a main storage apparatus achieved by a random access memory (RAM) or the like.) and (iii) processor (Fig. 14 and ¶150 shows “The processor 2020 is a processor achieved by a central processing unit (CPU), a graphics processing unit (GPU), or the like.), are recited at a high-level of generality, such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination (Fig. 14 and ¶¶147-56 shows elements in combination.), they 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 (i) addressee terminal, (ii) memory, and (iii) processor, when viewed as whole/ordered combination (Fig. 14 and ¶¶147-56 shows elements in combination.), does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e. online computer environment) (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination (Fig. 14 and ¶¶147-56 shows elements in combination.), do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does 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) “apply it” (or an equivalent) and (ii) generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and are not a practical application of the abstract idea. 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) generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See 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 (i) addressee terminal, (ii) memory, and (iii) processor, when viewed as whole/ordered combination (Fig. 14 and ¶¶147-56 shows elements in combination.) are recited at a high-level of generality and performs generic computer functions (i.e., i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, iii. Electronic recordkeeping, iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, and v. Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document.) that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)).
Therefore, the additional elements of the (i) addressee terminal, (ii) memory, and (iii) processor, do not 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 (Fig. 14 and ¶¶147-56 shows elements in combination.), nothing in the claims adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Dependent Claim 10 recites the abstract idea of “wherein, when biometric authentication of the addressee is executed based on the biometric information, a result of the biometric authentication to a delivery person terminal or the delivery control apparatus.”
Dependent Claim 10, have been given the full two-prong analysis including analyzing the further elements and limitations, both individually and in combination. When analyzed individually and in combination, these claims are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The further limitation of Claim 10 fail to establish claims that are not directed to an abstract idea because the further limitations (1) limiting the timing of an operation, which is apart of the abstract idea. Examiner notes that “a delivery person terminal or the delivery control apparatus” are beyond the scope of the claimed “addressee terminal.” The further elements of Claim 10 (i.e. “addressee terminal”) fails to establish claims that are not directed to an abstract idea because the elements merely recite generic computer hardware similar to the generic computer hardware of Claim 9 (i.e. “addressee terminal”) or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technology or field of use just as in Claim 9. The organization of the further limitations of Claim 10 fail to integrate an abstract idea into a practical application just as discussed above for Claim 9. Additionally, performing the abstract idea of Claim 9 as recited in each of the further limitations of Claim 10, individually or in combination, does not (1) impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas, or (2) provide improvements to the functioning of computing systems or to another technology or technical field, just as discussed above regarding Claim 9. Therefore, Claim 10 amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea (1) using generic computer components—using the computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea, and (2) generally linked to a particular technology or field of use. Because the claims merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity in a particular field of use, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept, the elements and limitations of Claim 10 fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept, just as in Claim 9. Therefore, Claim 10 fails the Subject Matter Eligibility Test and are consequently 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 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US-11200306-B1 (“Singh”).
Regarding Claim 9, Singh discloses “An addressee terminal comprising: at least one memory configured to store instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to perform operations” (Fig. 1 and C04L42-C05L13 shows “terminal 170” (i.e. addressee terminal). Fig. 16 and C13L32-55 shows “FIG. 16 is a block diagram of a wireless electronic device 1600 of an authentication system, such as system 100 of FIG. 1. The wireless electronic device 1600 of FIG. 16 may correspond to devices such as terminals 120, 170, and/or 190 of FIG. 1. . . Referring to FIG. 16, wireless electronic device 1600 includes a display 1603, a processor circuit 1601, and a memory 1606 containing computer readable program code. . . The processor circuit 1601 is configured to execute the computer readable program code in the memory 1606 to perform at least some of the operations and methods of described herein as being performed by the wireless electronic device 1600. . .”) comprising:
“generating biometric information of an addressee upon acquiring trigger information for starting biometric authentication of the addressee from a delivery control apparatus when the addressee receives a package from a delivery person, the delivery control apparatus being an apparatus for controlling delivery of the package or delivery person terminals each owned by each of delivery persons” (Fig. 1 and C04L42-C05L13 shows “ . . . In a second geographical area or location 185 [(i.e. delivery location)], a user 160 may provide information such as biometric information to a terminal 170 [(i.e. addressee terminal generating biometric information of an addressee during handover)]. . . Upon receiving authorization for delivery, the delivery representative 180 may deliver item 195 to user 160.” C04L39-41 shows “For example, biometric authentication may be combined with another method of authentication [(e.g. proximity)] before authenticating the user and authorizing delivery.” (Emphasis added). C04L66-C05L06 shows “The terminal 190 may receive the authorization for delivery if it is in proximity of terminal 170. Proximity of terminal 170 to terminal 190 may be determined based on both devices being within the geographical area or location 185. In some embodiments, proximity of terminal 170 to terminal 190 [(i.e. the delivery control apparatus being an apparatus for controlling delivery of the package or delivery person terminals each owned by each of delivery persons)] may be determined based on communication such as near-field communication (NFC) or BLUETOOTH® between the devices [(i.e. trigger information from delivery control apparatus)] . . .” Fig. 6 and C10L46-52 shows “FIG. 6 is a flowchart of operations according to some embodiments of the present inventive concepts. Referring now to FIG. 6, a determination may be made that the second location corresponds to a delivery location established at a time of the transaction, at block 610. The item may be delivered to the delivery location, responsive to the server authorizing access to the item, at block 620.” Thus, Fig. 6 and C10L46-52 shows that the proximity determination at Step 610 triggers the biometric authentication at Step 620. Additionally, and alternatively, Fig. 12 and C12L47-58 shows “FIG. 12 is a flowchart of operations according to some embodiments of the present inventive concepts. Referring now to FIG. 12, authenticating the second user may include 50 receiving, by the second user, a request from a delivery representative or associated device to provide biometric information, at block 1210 [(i.e. acquiring trigger information)]. The second user may provide the biometric information requested by the delivery representative, at block 1220. The biometric information provided by 55 the second user may be verified to make sure that it corresponds to stored biometric information that was stored in a server that is remote from the second user, at block 1230.”); and
“executing biometric authentication of the addressee, based on the biometric information, or transmits the biometric information to a delivery control apparatus for controlling delivery of the package” (C05L61-C06L08 shows “When a person such as the user that placed the order or a designated pick up person arrives in a location (i.e., different jurisdiction) where goods are to be delivered, applicable rules are checked related to the specific goods that are to be shipped or delivered. The user may be requested for the biometric information by an application running on a terminal at the pick-up location or on a mobile device associated with the user. If the biometric authentication matches with the authentication at the time or sale or order, and/or the location matches with the location (jurisdiction) of where the goods are supposed to be delivered, then the goods or services may be cleared for delivery. Upon completing biometric authentication, goods may be delivered to a location (i.e., jurisdiction) which was identified at the time of sale or order.” Thus, Singh shows that the “addressee terminal” “execut[es] biometric authentication of the addressee, based on the biometric information.”).
Regarding Claim 10, Singh discloses the “The addressee terminal according to claim 9,” as shown above.
Singh further discloses that “wherein, when biometric authentication of the addressee is executed based on the biometric information, a result of the biometric authentication to a delivery person terminal or the delivery control apparatus” (Fig. 1 and C04L61-66 shows “The information may be transmitted from terminal 170 to the server 140 for verification. The server 140 may communicate with a terminal 190 associated with delivery representative 180. Upon receiving authorization for delivery [(i.e. result of biometric authentication)], the delivery representative 180 may deliver item 195 to user 160.”).
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 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, 6-8, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-20190180229-A1 (“Phillips”) in view of KR-20210048124-A (“Ban”) and US-11200306-B1 (“Singh”).
Regarding Claim 1, Phillips teaches “A delivery control apparatus comprising: at least one memory configured to store instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to perform operations” (Fig. 2 and ¶33 shows “scheduling platform 225 [(i.e. delivery control apparatus)] may be implemented by one or more other types of devices as well, such as a server computer, laptop computer, tablet computer, handheld computer, or the like.” Fig. 3, ¶¶45-46, and ¶50 shows “device 300” includes “scheduling platform 225” and comprises “memory 330” and “processor 320,” which executes instructions stored on “memory 330.”) comprising:
“acquiring from an addressee terminal, a delivery request including first identification information for identifying a package” (Fig. 1A and ¶17 shows “As shown in FIG. 1A, and by reference number 105, the user device may send, to the scheduling platform, a request for a product. For example, a user of the user device may send a request for a cashier's check to the scheduling platform (e.g., using a banking application operating on the user device). In some implementations, data associated with the request may indicate the product, the location to which the product should be delivered (e.g., an address at which the user is or will be located), and a time at which the product is to be delivered (e.g., a time during which someone will be at home to receive the product).” (Emphasis added). Fig. 2 and ¶31 shows “user device 210.” The data indicating the product in Phillips teaches “first identification information for identifying a package.”);
“transmitting a responsibility request for delivery of the package to a plurality of delivery person terminals” (Fig. 1A and ¶20 shows “As further shown in FIG. 1A, and by reference number 130, the scheduling platform may send, to the courier device, a request associated with data specifying the delivery location and the delivery time [(i.e. responsibility request)]. In some implementations, the request may also be associated with product location information specifying the product location, as a courier may pick up the product at the product location. As shown by reference number 135, the scheduling platform may receive courier characteristics from the courier device. For example, the courier characteristics may include an availability of the courier, an estimated delivery time associated with delivering the product to a geographic location, traffic conditions associated with the courier, and/or the like.” Fig. 2 and ¶41 shows “courier device 240 may be a smart phone owned by a person capable of picking up a product from a product location and delivering that product to a delivery location.” ¶93 shows that the request can be transmitted to “multiple courier devices 240” (i.e. a plurality of delivery person terminals), one of which can accept the delivery request.).
Phillips does not explicitly teach, but Ban teaches:
“acquiring first biometric information of a delivery person who responds to the responsibility request from a first delivery person terminal among the plurality of delivery person terminals, the first delivery person terminal being a delivery person terminal used by a delivery person” (Page 4 states “For example, the information providing unit 140 confirms whether or not biometric recognition has been performed through the courier recipient terminal 300 through communication with the courier recipient terminal 300 or a separate biometric information authentication server 500, and then biometric recognition. The multi-dimensional code image can be transmitted to the delivery recipient terminal 300 only in the case of success.” Fig. 4 and Page 6 shows “The delivery recipient terminal 300 may display the URL received from the unmanned delivery box device 100 (step S21), and when a URL selection (click) is detected by a user (i.e., the delivery recipient) (step S23) By executing the authentication-related app, the following process is performed (step S25). When a user places his or her finger on the fingerprint recognition area or photographs an iris through a camera, the delivery recipient terminal 300 recognizes such biometric information (stepS27) and uses the recognized biometric information into the biometric information authentication server 500 ) To (step S29). The biometric information authentication server 500 compares the previously stored biometric information of the parcel recipient with the biometric information received [(i.e. acquired)] from the parcel recipient terminal 300 [(i.e. first delivery person terminal)] to perform authentication processing (step S31), and sends the result to the parcel recipient terminal 300. Transfer (step S33).” (Emphasis added).);
“performing biometric authentication of the delivery person, based on the acquired first biometric information ); and
“transmitting, to the delivery person terminal, second identification information for proving that the delivery person is a person in charge of delivery of the package, when the biometric authentication of the delivery person has succeeded” (Page 4 states “For example, the information providing unit 140 generates and stores a multidimensional code image including a one-time password generated by the password generation unit 130, and then stores a URL corresponding to the multidimensional code image on the delivery recipient terminal 300 ( Uniform Resource Locator), and when a one-time password request signal using a corresponding URL is received from the delivery recipient terminal 300 later, the temporarily stored multidimensional code image can be transmitted. In this case, the information providing unit 140 may not always provide the one-time password, but may provide it only when a predetermined condition is satisfied. For example, the information providing unit 140 confirms whether or not biometric recognition has been performed through the courier recipient terminal 300 [(i.e. delivery person terminal)] through communication with the courier recipient terminal 300 or a separate biometric information authentication server 500, and then biometric recognition. The multi-dimensional code image [(i.e. second identification information)] can be transmitted to the delivery recipient terminal 300 only in the case of success.” (Emphasis added). Page 3 states “Here, the one-time password must be entered or presented in order to open the un attended delivery box in which the delivery product 400 sent to the user is stored.” Thus, Ban teaches at least that in order for the delivery person to receive the package (before delivering it), the delivery person’s identity is verified via biometric authentication, and then the delivery person terminal receives a password/code that enables them to pick up the package from an unmanned box and begin the delivery (i.e. proving that the delivery person is a person in charge of delivery of the package).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ban with Phillips because Phillips ¶60 teaches “A product location is a location where products may be housed, such as a retail location, warehouse location, storage locker location, or the like,” and Ban teaches an authentication protocol that enables a delivery agent to be given access to a locker that stores the item, improving security of delivery (Section “Background-Art” on Pages 1-2). Thus, combining Ban with Phillips furthers the interest taught in Ban, and therefore, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Phillips and Ban do not explicitly teach, but Singh teaches “causing the addressee terminal to execute processing for generating second biometric information of an addressee when trigger information serving as a trigger for starting biometric authentication of the addressee during handover of the package to the addressee is acquired from the first delivery person terminal” (Fig. 1 and C04L42-C05L13 shows “FIG. 1 is a diagram of a system for authenticating a user. Referring to FIG. 1, system 100 may include a server 140 that is connected to a database 150. The server 140 is configured to authenticate a user for a transaction such as a purchase of an item, a subscription, vaccination, or prescription. A user 110 in a geographic area or location 130 may be involved in a transaction. The user 110 may provide information such as biometric information to a terminal 120. Terminal 120 may be a wireless device connected over a network to a server 140 that provides authentication. The biometric information provided by the user 110 may be stored by the server 140 into an associated database 150. In a second geographical area or location 185 [(i.e. delivery location)], a user 160 may provide information such as biometric information to a terminal 170 [(i.e. addressee terminal generating biometric information of an addressee during handover)]. . . The information may be transmitted from terminal 170 to the server 140 for verification. The server 140 may communicate with a terminal 190 associated with delivery representative 180. Upon receiving authorization for delivery, the delivery representative 180 may deliver item 195 to user 160. The terminal 190 may receive the authorization for delivery if it is in proximity of terminal 170. Proximity of terminal 170 to terminal 190 may be determined based on both devices being within the geographical area or location 185. In some embodiments, proximity of terminal 170 to terminal 190 may be determined based on communication such as near-field communication (NFC) or BLUETOOTH® between the devices [(i.e. triggering information from the delivery person terminal to the addressee terminal)]. . . Delivery representative 180 may be a person that brings the ordered item to the user 160. . . .” Fig. 12 and C12L47-L58 shows “FIG. 12 is a flowchart of operations according to some embodiments of the present inventive concepts. Referring now to FIG. 12, authenticating the second user may include receiving, by the second user, a request from a delivery representative or associated device to provide biometric information, at block 1210. The second user may provide the biometric information requested by the delivery representative, at block 1220. The biometric information provided by the second user may be verified to make sure that it corresponds to stored biometric information that was stored in a server that is remote from the second user, at block 1230.” Thus, Singh teaches that the communication between the addressee terminal and the delivery person terminal (i.e. block 1210) triggers the receipt of biometric information for authentication by the addressee terminal (i.e. block 1220). See also Fig. 6, C10L46-52, and C12L37-46 showing conditioning authentication on proximity and location detection.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Singh with Phillips and Ban because Singh teaches that authenticating a package recipient improves security of delivery and enables compliance with laws related to restricting possession of items (C04L22-41). Thus, combining Singh with Phillips and Ban furthers the interest taught in Singh, and therefore, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 3, Phillips in view of Ban and Singh teaches “The delivery control apparatus according to claim 1,” as discussed above.
Phillips further teaches “wherein a support range being a range in which the delivery person is capable of delivering is determined for the delivery person, and the responsibility request is transmitted to the plurality of delivery person terminals used by delivery ersons, support range of each of the delivery persons including shows “[0065] As shown in FIG. 4, process 400 may include identifying a courier based on the request (block 440). For example, scheduling platform 225 may identify a courier based on the request. In some implementations, the courier may include an entity capable of transporting the product from the product location to the delivery location. For example, the courier may be an independent contractor based delivery person, a drone, a commercial carrier, and/or the like. The courier may also be associated with courier device 240 (e.g., a computing device used to enable the courier to perform the product delivery). [0066] In some implementations, scheduling platform 225 may identify the courier based on obtaining courier characteristics. For example, courier characteristics may include data indicating a cost associated with a courier, data indicating a range associated with a courier, data indicating availability for a courier, data indicating traffic conditions associated with a courier, data indicating an estimated delivery time to the delivery location, and/or data indicating insurance characteristics associated with a courier. Scheduling platform 225 may obtain courier characteristics in a variety of ways. For example, courier characteristics may be stored by or otherwise accessible to scheduling platform 225, courier characteristics may be requested from courier device 240, or scheduling platform 225 may broadcast, in a geographic region near the product location and/or delivery location, a request for courier characteristics from courier device 24. [0067] In some implementations, scheduling platform 225 may identify the courier based on the range associated with the potential courier (e.g., a courier may be identified as a potential courier if it is capable of picking up a product from the product location and delivering it to the delivery location). In some implementations, scheduling platform 225 may identify the courier based on data indicating availability for the potential courier (e.g., a courier may not be identified as the courier if the courier is otherwise engaged or otherwise unable to deliver a product within the requested time window). In some implementations, scheduling platform 225 may identify the courier based on an estimated delivery time associated with the courier. In some implementations, scheduling platform 225 may identify the courier based on an insurance characteristic, or insurance policy, associated with the courier (e.g., for some products, scheduling platform 225 may require a particular type of insurance for a courier to be eligible to be the courier). As noted above, other courier characteristics (such as the cost of a courier or traffic conditions on a delivery route) may be used, alone or in combination with each other or any of the above courier characteristics, to identify the courier.” (Emphasis added).).
Regarding Claim 6, Phillips teaches “A delivery person terminal comprising: at least one memory configured to store instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to perform operations” (Fig. 2 and ¶41 shows “courier device 240 [(i.e. delivery person terminal)] may be a smart phone owned by a person capable of picking up a product from a product location and delivering that product to a delivery location.” Fig. 3, ¶¶45-46, and ¶50 shows “device 300” includes “courier device 240” and comprises “memory 330” and “processor 320,” which executes instructions stored on “memory 330.”) comprising:
“acquiring a responsibility request for delivery of a package” (Fig. 1A and ¶20 shows “As further shown in FIG. 1A, and by reference number 130, the scheduling platform may send, to the courier device, a request associated with data specifying the delivery location and the delivery time [(i.e. responsibility request)]. In some implementations, the request may also be associated with product location information specifying the product location, as a courier may pick up the product at the product location. As shown by reference number 135, the scheduling platform may receive courier characteristics from the courier device. For example, the courier characteristics may include an availability of the courier, an estimated delivery time associated with delivering the product to a geographic location, traffic conditions associated with the courier, and/or the like.” Fig. 2 and ¶41 shows “courier device 240 may be a smart phone owned by a person capable of picking up a product from a product location and delivering that product to a delivery location.” See also and ¶93 showing that the request can be transmitted to “multiple courier devices 240,” one of which can accept the delivery request.); . . .
Phillips does not explicitly teach, but Ban teaches:
“generating biometric information of a delivery person who responds to the responsibility request” (Page 3 states “Meanwhile, the biometric information authentication server 500 communicates with the courier recipient terminal 300 [(i.e. delivery person terminal)] to perform biometric information authentication processing of the courier recipient. For example, by storing biometric information of the courier recipient in advance, the courier recipient terminal 300 The authentication process is performed by comparing the biometric information received from [delivery person terminal] and the previously registered biometric information. Since the function of the biometric information authentication server 500 itself corresponds to a known technology, a more detailed description will be omitted.”); and
“acquiring second identification information for proving that the delivery person is a person in charge of delivery of the package, when biometric authentication based on biometric information of the delivery person has succeeded” (Page 4 states “For example, the information providing unit 140 generates and stores a multidimensional code image including a one-time password generated by the password generation unit 130, and then stores a URL corresponding to the multidimensional code image on the delivery recipient terminal 300 ( Uniform Resource Locator), and when a one-time password request signal using a corresponding URL is received from the delivery recipient terminal 300 later, the temporarily stored multidimensional code image can be transmitted. In this case, the information providing unit 140 may not always provide the one-time password, but may provide it only when a predetermined condition is satisfied. For example, the information providing unit 140 confirms whether or not biometric recognition has been performed through the courier recipient terminal 300 [(i.e. delivery person terminal)] through communication with the courier recipient terminal 300 or a separate biometric information authentication server 500, and then biometric recognition. The multi-dimensional code image [(i.e. second identification information)] can be transmitted to the delivery recipient terminal 300 only in the case of success.” (Emphasis added). Page 3 states “Here, the one-time password must be entered or presented in order to open the un attended delivery box in which the delivery product 400 sent to the user is stored.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ban with Phillips because Phillips ¶60 teaches “A product location [(i.e. origin of delivery route)] is a location where products may be housed, such as a retail location, warehouse location, storage locker location, or the like,” and Ban teaches an authentication protocol that enables a delivery agent to be given access to a locker that stores the item, improving security of delivery (Section “Background-Art” on Pages 1-2). Thus, combining Ban with Phillips furthers the interest taught in Ban, and therefore, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Phillips and Ban do not explicitly teach, but Singh teaches “transmitting trigger information for starting biometric authentication of an addressee when the addressee receives the package, and acquires a result of biometric authentication of the addressee performed according to the trigger information” (Fig. 1 and C04L42-C05L13 shows “FIG. 1 is a diagram of a system for authenticating a user. Referring to FIG. 1, system 100 may include a server 140 that is connected to a database 150. The server 140 is configured to authenticate a user for a transaction such as a purchase of an item, a subscription, vaccination, or prescription. A user 110 in a geographic area or location 130 may be involved in a transaction. The user 110 may provide information such as biometric information to a terminal 120. Terminal 120 may be a wireless device connected over a network to a server 140 that provides authentication. The biometric information provided by the user 110 may be stored by the server 140 into an associated database 150. In a second geographical area or location 185 [(i.e. delivery location)], a user 160 may provide information such as biometric information to a terminal 170 [(i.e. addressee terminal generating biometric information of an addressee during handover)]. . . The information may be transmitted from terminal 170 to the server 140 for verification. The server 140 may communicate with a terminal 190 associated with delivery representative 180. Upon receiving authorization for delivery, the delivery representative 180 may deliver item 195 to user 160. The terminal 190 may receive the authorization for delivery if it is in proximity of terminal 170. Proximity of terminal 170 to terminal 190 may be determined based on both devices being within the geographical area or location 185. In some embodiments, proximity of terminal 170 to terminal 190 may be determined based on communication such as near-field communication (NFC) or BLUETOOTH® between the devices [(i.e. triggering information from the delivery person terminal to the addressee terminal)]. . . Delivery representative 180 may be a person that brings the ordered item to the user 160. . . .” Fig. 12 and C12L47-L58 shows “FIG. 12 is a flowchart of operations according to some embodiments of the present inventive concepts. Referring now to FIG. 12, authenticating the second user may include receiving, by the second user, a request from a delivery representative or associated device to provide biometric information, at block 1210. The second user may provide the biometric information requested by the delivery representative, at block 1220. The biometric information provided by the second user may be verified to make sure that it corresponds to stored biometric information that was stored in a server that is remote from the second user, at block 1230.” Thus, Singh teaches that the communication between the addressee terminal and the delivery person terminal (i.e. block 1210) triggers the receipt of biometric information for authentication by the addressee terminal (i.e. block 1220). See also Fig. 6, C10L46-52, and C12L37-46 showing conditioning authentication on proximity and location detection.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Singh with Phillips and Ban because Singh teaches that authenticating a package recipient improves security of delivery and enables compliance with laws related to restricting possession of items (C04L22-41). Thus, combining Singh with Phillips and Ban furthers the interest taught in Singh, and therefore, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 7, Phillips in view of Ban and Singh teaches “The delivery person terminal according to claim 6,” as discussed above.
Phillips does not explicitly teach, but Ban further teaches “displaying the second identification information as a one-dimensional code or a two-dimensional code” (Page 3 states “Here, the one-time password [(i.e. second identification information)] must be entered or presented in order to open the un attended delivery box in which the delivery product 400 sent to the user is stored. The one-time password may be received in the form of text, or may be received in the form of a predetermined image. In particular, the one-time password may be received in a form included in a multidimensional code image (for example, a barcode or QR code).” (Emphasis added).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ban with Phillips because Phillips ¶60 teaches “A product location [(i.e. origin of delivery route)] is a location where products may be housed, such as a retail location, warehouse location, storage locker location, or the like,” and Ban teaches an authentication protocol that enables a delivery agent to be given access to a locker that stores the item, improving security of delivery (Section “Background-Art” on Pages 1-2). Thus, combining Ban with Phillips furthers the interest taught in Ban, and therefore, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 19, Phillips in view of Ban and Singh teaches “The delivery control apparatus according to claim 1,” as discussed above.
Phillips and Ban do not explicitly teach, but Singh further teaches:
“acquiring the second biometric information generated in response to the trigger information” (Fig. 17 and C14L51-L59 shows “Second biometric information of a second user [(i.e. second biometric information generated)] may be transmitted [(i.e. acquiring)] from a second electronic device at a second location via a second communications link, at block 1730. The second communication link may connect the second electronic device over a network to the same server [(i.e. delivery control apparatus)] as the first electronic device. A second indication that the second user has been biometrically authenticated may be received at the second electronic device via the second communications link, at block 1740.” See also C14L36-L51 showing first biometric authentication.),
“performing authentication of the addressee, based on the second biometric information” (Fig. 17 and C14L51-L59 shows “Second biometric information of a second user [(i.e. second biometric information generated)] may be transmitted from a second electronic device at a second location via a second communications link, at block 1730. The second communication link may connect the second electronic device over a network to the same server [(i.e. delivery control apparatus)] as the first electronic device. A second indication that the second user has been biometrically authenticated [(i.e. performing authentication of the addresseee)] may be received at the second electronic device via the second communications link, at block 1740.” See also C14L36-L51 showing first biometric authentication of comparing received biometric information with stored biometric information.),
“transmitting result of the authentication of the addressee to the first delivery person terminal when the authentication of the addressee has succeeded” (Fig. 17 and C14L63-C15L03 shows “Access to the item at the second location may be authorized, responsive to receiving the verification indication from the server, at block 1760. In some embodiments, the verification indication and an indication authorizing delivery of the item [(i.e. results of the authentication of the addressee)] may be transmitted together from the server [(i.e. delivery control apparatus)] to the second electronic device [(i.e. first delivery person terminal)]. The second electronic device may be a mobile device belonging to the user or a terminal associated with the delivery representative.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Singh with Phillips and Ban because Singh teaches that authenticating a package recipient improves security of delivery and enables compliance with laws related to restricting possession of items (C04L22-41). Thus, combining Singh with Phillips and Ban furthers the interest taught in Singh, and therefore, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-20190180229-A1 (“Phillips”) in view of KR-20210048124-A (“Ban”), US-11200306-B1 (“Singh”), and US-20190311315-A1 (“Kim”).
Regarding Claim 2, Phillips in view of Ban and Singh teaches “The delivery control apparatus according to claim 1,” as discussed above.
Phillips further teaches “wherein the delivery request is information including an address of . . . a delivery destination of the package” (¶55 shows “In some implementations, the request may indicate or be associated with data identifying the product, a delivery location to which the product is to be delivered [(i.e. delivery destination)], and/or a time at which the product is to be delivered. For example, the request may be sent with GPS data identifying a location of user device 210, and the location identified by the GPS data may be the delivery location. As another example, a user of user device 210 may provide input indicating a delivery location, such as a street address. The delivery time may be, for example, a specific date/time or a window of time on a particular date, and in some implementations the delivery time may be immediate (e.g., user is requesting the product be delivered as soon as possible). In this way, scheduling platform 225 may receive a request for a product, enabling scheduling platform 225 to determine a geographic location for delivery of the product and a delivery time for delivery of the product.).
Phillips, Ban, and Singh do not explicitly teach, but Kim teaches “wherein the delivery request is information including an address of each of a reception place of the package and a delivery destination of the package” (¶20 shows “The delivery requester terminal may be allowed to register at least one of an image, a size, a weight, contents, a recipient contact, a pickup location [(i.e. reception place)], a destination [(i.e. delivery destination)], and a delivery charge from the pickup location to the destination of an article to the administrator server so as to be confirmed by the carrier terminal. The delivery requester terminal may be allowed to transmit at least one of an image, a sound source, a voice, a photograph, and a message to the recipient terminal.” (Emphasis added).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Kim with Phillips, Ban, and Singh because Kim teaches that including both the pickup and destination locations in the request enables transmitting the request to delivery drivers near the pickup location, which provides for a quicker delivery (¶¶2-12 and ¶18). Thus, combining Kim with Phillips, Ban, and Singh furthers the interest taught in Kim, and therefore, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-20190180229-A1 (“Phillips”) in view of KR-20210048124-A (“Ban”), US-11200306-B1 (“Singh”), and US-20190130354-A1 (“Han”).
Regarding Claim 4, Phillips in view of Ban and Singh teaches “The delivery control apparatus according to claim 1,” as discussed above.
Phillips does not explicitly teach, but Ban teaches “when the second identification information is acquired from a package control system for controlling the package checked at a reception place” is “when [authenticated pickup occurs]” (Page 5 states “Accordingly, by using the delivery recipient terminal 300 that has received the multidimensional code image from the unmanned delivery box apparatus 100, the delivery recipient may receive the delivery product 400 from the unmanned delivery box. For example, when a multidimensional code image [(i.e. second identification information)] is recognized through a scanner provided in an unmanned delivery box [(i.e. package control system)], the unmanned delivery box device 100 recognizes this and compares it with a previously stored one-time password to open the corresponding delivery box if it matches.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ban with Phillips because Phillips ¶60 teaches “A product location [(i.e. origin of delivery route)] is a location where products may be housed, such as a retail location, warehouse location, storage locker location, or the like,” and Ban teaches an authentication protocol that enables a delivery agent to be given access to a locker that stores the item, improving security of delivery (Section “Background-Art” on Pages 1-2). Thus, combining Ban with Phillips furthers the interest taught in Ban, and therefore, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Phillips, Ban, and Singh do not explicitly teach, but Han teaches “setting a fact that delivery is in progress as status information associated with the second identification information in delivery data, when [authenticated pickup occurs]” (¶82 shows “In other embodiments, orders may be located in assigned lockers or other storage for couriers to locate and pick up. . . . A smart locker system may be implemented to temporarily store the orders which may be accessed upon authenticating the courier.” Fig. 5 and ¶94 shows “At 512, the courier is authenticated and the pickup of the order is confirmed.” Fig. 8C and ¶117 shows “Upon the courier's arrival at the merchant location, a confirmation of arrival at merchant location may be received at 827. In some embodiments, the confirmation of arrival at merchant location may be a check-in status update input by the courier on the courier device and transmitted via network 710. Once the order is provided to the courier, a confirmation of order pickup may be received at 829. In some embodiments, the confirmation of order pickup may be confirmed by the courier via the courier device. As previously described, the confirmation of order pickup may additionally, and/or alternatively, be confirmed by the merchant via the merchant device.” (Emphasis added). ¶47 shows “In various embodiments, the delivery service may determine the estimated time arrival (ETA) of delivery of the order to the customer once the order has been placed. This ETA may be provided to the customer. The ETA of delivery of an order may be estimated based on tracked events or milestones corresponding to the order. As used herein, the terms “events” may be used interchangeably with “milestones.” The customer may also be provided with information regarding the status of the order, events, or milestones. The customer may also be provided with other information, such as information corresponding to the courier, etc. Information regarding the status of the order, events, or milestones may also be provided to the merchants and the couriers.” (Emphasis added). Therefore, ¶45 teaches that the progress status is “set” in delivery data.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Han with Phillips, Ban, and Singh because Han teaches that tracking events, including pick-ups, enables providing an estimated time of arrival to the customer, improving customer experience (¶16 and ¶45). Thus, combining Han with Phillips, Ban, and Singh furthers the interest taught in Han, and therefore, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is as follows:
US-20190160994-A1 (“Letson”) shows use of a trigger signal in biometric authentication for transferring custody of a retail product.
“Bluetooth pairing without user confirmation” (“michael” 09/09/2020, https://web.archive.org/web/20200909071214/https://stackoverflow.com/questions/5885438/bluetooth-pairing-without-user-confirmation) shows that Bluetooth communication requires a handshake, i.e. data transmission between devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW PARKER GOODMAN whose telephone number is (571) 272-5698. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday from 9:30 AM ET to 6:00 PM ET. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey Zimmerman, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-4602. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR
system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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.
/MATTHEW PARKER GOODMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/JESSICA LEMIEUX/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626