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 .
Office Action is in response to the Applicant's amendments and remarks filed9/10/2024. Claims 2-8, 10, 12-17, 19, 27-28, 33 and 38 were amended. Claims 9, 11, 18, 20-26 and 29-32 were cancelled. Claims 1-8, 10, 12-17, 19, 27-28, 33 and 38 are presently pending and presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/6/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-8, 10, 12-17, 19, 27-28, 33 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites method for tracking delivery of an undelivered item.
Step 2A – Prong 1
Independent Claims 1 as a whole recite a method of organizing human activity. The limitations from exemplary Claim 1 reciting “receiving a first set of coordinates that identifies a delivery address for a package, based on scanning a barcode label on the package that contains; receiving a second set of coordinates to determine a current location of delivery person at the time of scan just before leaving the package at a recipient's door; comparing the first set of coordinates with the second set of coordinates; and based on the comparison, displaying a notification to leave the package at the current location or to not leave the package at the current location; updating the delivery address for the package prior to delivery when the delivery person receives notification of an updated delivery address for the delivery package after scanning the barcode label on the package at time of delivery; and sending a notification to the delivery person to deliver the package to the updated delivery address” is a method of managing interactions between people, which falls into the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. The mere recitation of a generic computer (tracking system, scanner, memory, GPS device, processor, wireless communication device, signals, token, code, server, database, imaging means of claim 1) does not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Claims 1-8, 10, 12-17, 19, 27-28, 33 and 38 and their underlining limitations, steps, features and terms, are further inspected by the Examiner under the current examining guidelines, and found, both individually and as a whole, not to include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The limitations are directed to limitations referenced in MPEP 2106.05 that are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Limitations that are not enough include, as a non-limiting or non-exclusive examples, such as: (i) adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions, (ii) insignificant extra solution activity, and/or (iii) generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim recites the additional elements of (tracking system, scanner, memory, GPS device, processor, wireless communication device, signals, token, code, server, database, imaging means of claim 1). The tracking system, scanner, memory, GPS device, processor, wireless communication device, signals, token, code, server, database, imaging means of claim 1, are recited at a high level of generality and are generically recited computer elements. The generically recited computer elements amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The combination of these additional elements are additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-8, 10, 12-17, 19, 27-28, 33 and 38 are also directed to same grouping of methods of organizing human activity. The additional elements of the tracking system in claims 2-8, 10, 12-17, 19; scanner in claims 2, 4-5, 12-13, 27-28 and 33; memory in claims 13-14, 27; GPS device in claims 14-15 and 27; processor in claim 27; wireless communication device in claims 14 and 27; signals in claims 14 and 19; token in claims 2, 6-8, 10, 15, 27 and 38; code in claims 2, 4, 12-15, 27; server in claims 14 and 27; database of claim 15 and 28; digitized image in claim 3; OCR in claims 3 and 33; barcode in claims 4, 7, 28 and 38; QR code in claims 4, 8, 28 and 38; controller in claim 14; application specific software in claims 16 and 19; mobile communication device in claims 16 and 19; smartphone in claims 16, 19 and 38; online booking system in claims 16-17; imaging means in claims 27; battery in claim 27; remote server in claim 27,are additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The 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 1-2, 4-5, 7-8, 10, 16-17, 27-28 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huffman et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20150120602 - hereinafter Huff) in view of Chowdhury et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20210298508 - hereinafter Chowdhury).
Re. claim 1, Huff teaches:
A tracking system for facilitating secure delivery of an undelivered item from a sender to a recipient, comprises:
at least one hand-held scanner, which is associated with a delivery person or courier, which includes an imaging means, a memory means, a global positioning system (GPS) device, a processor and a wireless communication device which is operative to transmit signals obtained by the imaging means; [Huff; ¶59 shows scanner for barcode or QR code image. While ¶127 shows processor and GPS device associated with deliverer device such as “The control system 700 includes a processor 801 which is connected to a sensor panel 802 which includes one or more sensors to electrically monitor the cabinet for movement, position, shock, smoke detection etc. The processor 801 is also connected to a data transfer device 803 which may include a modem or Wifi transceiver and a GPS receiver for communication with the MyBox base application 108 and for transactions and data synchronization. The sensor panel 802 may also have a direct connection to the data transfer device 803 for direct security communications or the sensor panel 802 may incorporate its own separate modem. The processor 801 also runs a program code 805 in memory to execute the necessary processes and to operate the various components. The processor 801 is also associated with data storage including a database (not shown) to store, index and access the necessary data”].
a reusable token is adapted to be delivered as security, to a recipients address in lieu of the item, and is redeemable in exchange for the item, the reusable token has a unique identifier which when scanned […], by the imaging means, is processed by the processor to generate a unique identification code that is associated with the item at the GPS location; [Huff; ¶60 shows “these features not only provide a uniquely convenient aspect to the recipient, but provide greater flexibility and security. Recipients do not need to remember a PIN or passcode to gain access, although a PIN or passcode may still be used. In addition, the recipient need not remember in which compartment their item(s) are stored. The storage unit will always open the correct compartment(s) for them to receive their item(s). The fact that the unique identifiers are single-use tokens with billions of possible combinations greatly enhance the security aspect of authentic access”].
a server is operative to receive the unique identification code, from the wireless communication device in the hand-held scanner, and to associate the unique identification code with an address corresponding to the GPS location; and [Huff; ¶51 shows connection to courier companies and computer program with database with network connection integrated into the application such as “MyBox component 107 is connected to one or more courier companies 106 and/or location partners (who may provide storage for objects) to configure and operate the network of MyBox storage units 110. The MyBox base application 108 supports the processes of the MyBox component 107 and automates certain processes. In particular, the MyBox base application 108 includes a computer program and database, with an Internet portal component and/or a private network connection integrated into the application”].
a database stores the unique identification code and the address, for retrieval when presented with the unique identifier; and [Huff; ¶111 shows “In the event that the QR is deemed valid and or authenticated from step 610 but the unique identifier does not have a matching reservation in the local database for the current storage unit 110, then the unit control system 700 will query the MyBox base application 108 to determine if there is a valid reservation matching the unique identifier at another storage unit 110. If the MyBox base application's 108 reply indicates that there is no currently valid reservation for that unique identifier anywhere in the MyBox network or it is not transferable, then the control system may deliver an appropriate message to the user and control then moves to 605. If the reply from the MyBox base application 108 indicates that there is a valid reservation for that unique identifier at another storage unit 110 and that the reservation can be transferred, then the control system may query the local database to see if an appropriate compartment is available in the current storage unit 110 for the object. If an appropriate compartment is not available in the current storage unit 110, then the unit control system may deliver an appropriate message to the user and control then moves to 605. If the unit control system determines that an appropriate compartment is available in the current storage unit 110, then the control system will query the user if they would like to transfer the existing reservation to the current storage unit 110. If the user indicates that they would like to transfer the reservation to the current storage unit, the control system may send a reservation transfer message to the MyBox base application 108, update the local database”].
Huff doesn’t teach, Chowdhury teaches:
a resetting means is operative to place the status of the reusable token into an inactive state suitable for a subsequent usage, in exchange for the item. [Chowdhury; ¶72-¶84 shows when courier is at the delivery box using a unique identifier for delivery].
[…] the reusable token has a unique identifier which when scanned at a GPS location […]; [Chowdhury; ¶72-¶84 shows courier scanning at delivery destination for unique identifier].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Chowdhury in the system of Huff, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Re. claim 2, Huff in view of Chowdhury teaches tracking system according to claim 1.
Huff teaches:
wherein the scanner is operative to obtain address information from the undelivered item to generate the unique identification code and thereby associate the reusable token with a specific letter or package. [Huff; ¶59, ¶91 and ¶107].
Re. claim 4, Huff in view of Chowdhury teaches tracking system according to claim 1.
Huff teaches:
wherein the scanner is operative to derive address information from a barcode on an address label (or on payment label) or from a QR code on an address label (or on payment label). [Huff; ¶59, ¶91 and ¶107].
Re. claim 5, Huff in view of Chowdhury teaches tracking system according to claim 1.
Huff teaches:
wherein the scanner is operative to derive address information from a prepaid postage label or from a stamp attached to the undelivered item. [Huff; ¶59, ¶91 and ¶107 the labels provided on packages with barcode are prepaid labels used to deliver to a destination].
Re. claim 7, Huff in view of Chowdhury teaches tracking system according to claim 1.
Huff teaches:
wherein the unique identifier on the reusable token includes a barcode. [Huff; ¶59, ¶91 and ¶107].
Re. claim 8, Huff in view of Chowdhury teaches tracking system according to claim 1.
Huff teaches:
wherein the unique identifier on the reusable token includes a QR code. [Huff; ¶59, ¶91 and ¶107].
Re. claim 10, Huff in view of Chowdhury teaches tracking system according to claim 1.
Huff teaches:
wherein the reusable token includes braille characters. [Huff; ¶59, ¶92 and ¶107 example of braille characters is QR code shown ].
Re. claim 16, Huff in view of Chowdhury teaches tracking system according to claim 1.
Huff teaches:
wherein a recipient uses application specific software (APP) to modify a mobile communication device, such as a smartphone, in order to access an online booking system. [Huff; ¶111-¶112, ¶164-¶175].
Re. claim 17, Huff in view of Chowdhury teaches tracking system according to claim 16.
Huff teaches:
wherein the online booking system provides a user with a menu of choices, including an option for selecting an alternative delivery time and date, an option for returning the item and an option for collecting the item from a specified location. [Huff; ¶93].
Re. claim 27,
Scanner of claim 27 substantially mirrors the system of claim 1.
Re. claim 28, Huff in view of Chowdhury teaches hand-held scanner according to claim 27.
Huff teaches:
wherein the scanner operates in accordance with software to derive address information from a barcode on an address label (or on a payment label); or from a QR code on an address label (or on a payment label). [Huff; ¶59, ¶91 and ¶107].
Re. claim 38, Huff in view of Chowdhury teaches tracking system according to claim 1.
Huff teaches:
has a unique identifier, such as a QR code and/or a barcode, which when scanned by a smartphone generates a notification on a display of the smartphone and connects the smartphone to a remote database. [Huff; ¶59, ¶91 and ¶107].
Claims 3 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huff in view of Chowdhury in view of Levy et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20200402336 - hereinafter Levy).
Re. claim 3, Huff in view of Chowdhury teaches tracking system according to claim 2.
Huff doesn’t teach, Levy teaches:
wherein the address information is derived from a digitised image of a typed or handwritten address supplied by an optical character recognition (OCR) device, which converts imaged characters from the address to provide address image data. [Levy; ¶30]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Levy in the system of Huff, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Re. claim 33, Huff in view of Chowdhury teaches hand-held scanner according to claim 27.
Huff doesn’t teach, Levy teaches:
wherein the hand-held scanner includes an optical character recognition (OCR) device. [Levy; ¶30].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Levy in the system of Huff, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Levy in the system of Huff, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huff in view of Chowdhury in view of Pagones et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20110253576 - hereinafter Pagones).
Re. claim 6, Huff in view of Chowdhury teaches tracking system according to claim 1.
Huff doesn’t teach, Pagones teaches:
wherein the reusable token is formed from a synthetic plastics material. [Pagones; ¶19-¶20].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Pagones in the system of Huff, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim(s) 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huff in view of Chowdhury in view of Beadles et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20170132565 - hereinafter Beadles).
Re. claim 12, Huff in view of Chowdhury teaches tracking system according to claim 1.
Huff doesn’t teach, Beadles teaches:
wherein the hand-held scanner applies a time and date stamp to generate the unique identification code. [Beadles; ¶83 shows time stamp with an identifier created for each time parcel is scanned such as “in some instances, each time the scannable parcel tag is scanned during transit the database record can be updated with additional tracking information. This tracking information may include a time stamp and/or location stamp, as well as a postal carrier identifier or other postal carrier information”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Beadles in the system of Huff, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Re. claim 13, Huff in view of Chowdhury in view of Beadles teaches tracking system according to claim 12.
Huff doesn’t teach, Beadles teaches:
wherein the time and date stamp and the unique identification code are stored in the memory means in the hand-held scanner. [Beadles; ¶83].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Beadles in the system of Huff, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Re. claim 14, Huff in view of Chowdhury in view of Beadles teaches tracking system according to claim 13.
Huff doesn’t teach, Beadles teaches:
wherein data, including time data and date stamp date, unique identification code data and address data corresponding to the GPS location, is temporarily stored in the memory means and is transmitted to the server when the wireless communication device receives a request from a controller which indicates when a suitable wireless signal is detected. [Beadles; ¶83].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Beadles in the system of Huff, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Re. claim 15, Huff in view of Chowdhury teaches tracking system according to claim 1.
Huff doesn’t teach, Beadles teaches:
wherein a database stores data, including time stamp data, date stamp data, unique identification code data, unique identifier data corresponding to the reusable token and address data corresponding to the GPS location, time and location of collection of the item and identity data of the recipient for purposes of providing an audit trail. [Beadles; ¶83].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Beadles in the system of Huff, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huff in view of Chowdhury in view of Robinson et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20180060800 - hereinafter Robinson).
Re. claim 19, Huff in view of Chowdhury teaches tracking system according to claim 17.
Huff doesn’t teach, Beadles teaches:
wherein the application specific software (APP) is operative to configure the mobile communication device, (smartphone) to display or transmit a release signal to an automatic release means on the secure locker. [Robinson; ¶14 shows when deliverer with their device is within proximity of the lockers, such as “When a delivery driver arrives at a locker bank to deliver one or more parcels (e.g., or other items), the system may, in various embodiments, automatically open a wireless communication channel between the driver's mobile computing device 180 and a locker bank computer 130 associated with the locker bank 170”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Robinson in the system of Huff, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IBRAHIM EL-BATHY whose telephone number is (571)272-7545. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 7pm.
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, Resha Desai can be reached at 571-270-7792. 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.
/IBRAHIM N EL-BATHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628