DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Status of the Claims
The Amendment received on 03 February 2026 has been acknowledged and entered.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-10, and 15-19 have been amended. No new claims have been added.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Response to Amendments and Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03 February 2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (in REMARKS, pages 9-10) that closely analyzing the limitations of claims 1, 2, and 17, there is no mention of: fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following the rules or instructions). With respect to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions, to which the Office Action alleges the claims are directed, Applicant submits that the claims are not so directed. Amended claim 1 recites, among other things: associating … incoming physical mail and email that is associated with the incoming physical mail, with the hybrid-digital mailbox; obtaining… information concerning a physical mail item in transit to the physical mailing address of the user; obtaining an email associated with the physical mail item, the email having been received at the email address of the user associated with the physical mailing address of the user; and displaying … information about the physical mail item in transit and the email associated with the physical mail item. This recitation is not involved in managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Instead, the recitation relates to: obtaining information concerning a physical mail item in transit to a user's physical mailing address; obtaining an email, having been received at an email address of the user associated with the user's physical mailing address; and displaying the information about the physical mail item in transit and the email associated with the physical mail item via the hybrid-digital mailbox. That is, claim 1 relates to obtaining information concerning a physical mail item in transit to the physical mailing address of the user, obtaining an email associated with the physical mail item and received at the email address of the user associated with the physical mailing address of the user, and displaying both the information about the physical mail and the email via the hybrid-digital mailbox. Amended claim 1 is completely unrelated to managing a recipient's behavior, relationships, or interactions between people.
In response to Applicant’s argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that first, the claims are directed to a user registering for usage of a hybrid-digital mailbox. Secondly, 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 may fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping. The Examiner maintains the claims as a whole recite “Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People” as the claims include social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions. Therefore, the claims are patent ineligible.
Applicant argues (in REMARKS, page 10) that under Step 2A of the analysis, for a claim of a patent application to be rejected as directed to ineligible subject matter under § 101, the Examiner must demonstrate that the claim is "directed to" a judicial exception to patentability such as an abstract idea… Applicant submits that the Office Action failed to demonstrate that the character of claim 1 as a whole is directed to an abstract idea. Applicant submits that amended independent claims 2 and 17 recite limitations similar to the previously discussed limitations of amended claim 1. Amended claims 2 and 17 are completely unrelated to managing a recipient's behavior, relationships, or interactions between people. The Office Action failed to demonstrate that the character of claims 2 and 17 as a whole is directed to an abstract idea.
In response to Applicant’s argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that first, the claims (claims 1, 2, and 17) are directed to a user registering for usage of a hybrid-digital mailbox. Secondly, 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 may fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping. The Examiner maintains the claims as a whole recite “Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People” as the claims include social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions. Therefore, the claims are patent ineligible.
Applicant argues (in REMARKS, pages 10-11) that assuming, arguendo, that the Office determines that independent claims 1, 2, and 17 are somehow directed to a judicial exception, a point to which Applicant does not agree, Applicant submits that the amended claims as a whole integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. According to MPEP §2106.04(d), limitations the courts have found indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a practical application include an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. The Office Action, at page 7, found that the "providing" limitation of claim 1, the "receiving", "obtaining," "obtaining," and "providing" in claims 2 and 17 are characterized as insignificant post-solution activity, are recited at a high level of generality, and merely automates the providing, receiving, and obtaining steps. Applicant respectfully disagrees.
In response to Applicant’s argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that first, Applicant has not shown a teaching in the specification on how the invention improves a technology or established a clear nexus between the claim language and the improvement to technology where both the claims and the specification support the asserted technical improvement. For instance, registering a user for usage of a hybrid-digital mailbox is not a technical solution to technical a problem, but is instead, a business solution to business problem by using generic tools (e.g. computing device) to implement the abstract idea. Secondly, Further, the additional element of the “computing device” and/or “a physical mail processing system”, the “providing,” “obtaining,” “obtaining,” and “displaying” limitation in claim 1, and in regards to the “server”, the “receiving,” “obtaining,” “obtaining,” and “providing” in claim 2, and in regards to the “processor”, the “receiving,” “obtaining,” “obtaining,” and “providing” in claim 17 is insignificant extra-solution activity (Pre-Solution and/or Post-Solution) Activity”, i.e. activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claims. Specifically, the limitations are considered pre-solution activity because they are mere gathering or pre-processing data/information and post-solution activity providing/displaying information about a physical mail item in transit based on the gathered data in conjunction with the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, even 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. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible. Therefore, the Examiner maintains the claims are patent ineligible.
Applicant argues (in REMARKS, pages 10-11) that Applicant claims a hybrid-digital mailbox that obtains information about a physical mail item sent to a user's physical mailing address and an email received at a user's email address associated with the physical mailing address, and simultaneously displays both the information about the physical mail item and the email via the hybrid-digital mailbox, thereby providing a new technical capability that improves the presentation of information about the physical mail item by adding a presentation of the separate email, which the user could not heretofore see all in one place. The recited invention unifies the obtaining of the physical item information and the email information, and displays both in a single improved hybrid-digital mailbox display, which eliminates the user's need to check two different mailboxes. Applicant further submits that the claims are not directed to mathematical concepts and mental processes. For at least the reasons discussed above, Applicant submits that independent claims 1, 2, and 17 are not directed to an abstract idea and respectfully requests that the rejection of these claims be withdrawn.
In response to Applicant’s argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that Applicant appears to be referencing a business solution to a business problem, not a technical solution to a technical problem by enhancing the overall performance of a system. The Examiner suggests that Applicant provide a teaching in the specification on how “the single improved hybrid-digital mailbox display” improves a technology or established a clear nexus between the claim language and the improvement to technology where both the claims and the specification support the asserted technical improvement.
Applicant argues (in REMARKS, page 11) that additionally, claims 3-9, claims 10-16, and claims 18-20, respectively, depend from claims 1, 2, and 17 either directly or as a base claim and are not directed to an abstract idea for at least the reasons discussed with respect to claims 1, 2, and 17 as well as for other reasons. Therefore, Applicant respectfully requests that the rejection of these claims be withdrawn.
In response to Applicant’s argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees for reasons stated above regarding the rejection of claims 1, 2, and 17.
Applicant's arguments filed 03 February 2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (in REMARKS, pages 11-12) that regarding claims 1, 2, and 17, Smith '284 fails to disclose or suggest: obtaining an email associated with a physical mail item in transit to a physical mailing address of a user, the email having been received at the email address of the user associated with the physical mailing address of the user; and displaying, via a hybrid-digital mailbox, the information about the physical mail item in transit and the email associated with the physical mail item, as required by amended independent claim 1…and Gmuender fails to remedy the deficiencies of Smith '284. That is, neither Smith '284 nor Gmuender disclose or suggest, either separately or in combination: obtaining an email associated with a physical mail item in transit to a physical mailing address of a user, the email having been received at the email address of the user associated with the physical mailing address of the user; and displaying, via a hybrid-digital mailbox, the information about the physical mail item in transit and the email associated with the physical mail item, as required by amended independent claim 1. Therefore, Applicant submits that amended claim 1 is patentable over Smith '284 and Gmuender and respectfully requests that the rejection of claim 1 be withdrawn.
In response to Applicant’s argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that Smith ‘284 claim 1 discloses: at a linking component creating linked information corresponding to the given mail piece, said linked information including (1) delivery status information (2) address and delivery particulars, (3) a digital copy of the mail piece, and (4) an excerpt from the mail piece; associating said linked information with the user identifier of the intended recipient; and sending an email with a link or providing access to the linked information to a web component, thereby providing the user with the capability to track and trace the given mail piece, said linked information being sent or accessible to the user by logging onto a website; iv. at the web component upon clicking on the sent link, or while logging into website, authenticating a user-supplied user identifier and associated password and providing, for display to the user, the delivery status information linked to the user identifier including (1) the date of shipment of the given mail piece, (2) the date of delivery of the mail piece, and (3) one or more dates of debiting or crediting one or more payments associated with the mail piece; and B. a web browser displaying the one or more graphical user interfaces through which the user enters their user identifier and their associated password and, after authentication by the web component, displaying the delivery status information linked to the user identifier on the website.
Further, Smith et al. 284 discloses obtaining, from the physical mail processing system, information indicating that a physical mail item is in transit to the physical mailing address of the user (see Smith et al. ‘284; FIG. 3, 35a checkmark means has been delivered, 35b being delivered by postal air , 35c being delivered by postal ground), (FIG. 1 [018]; MY MAIL-Track incoming mail and parcels, redirect shipments, view e-messages); obtaining an email associated with the physical mail item, the email having been received at the email address of the user (see Smith et al. ‘284; FIG. 5 [62] and FIG. 6 [72]; col. 6, lines 54-57, The mail piece image 72 included in the detailed view may be provided by the source of the mail piece, or alternatively, the image may be provided by the postal service or other delivery service by the scanning of the mail piece); and (Smith et al. ‘284: FIG. 3 [34e]); and (Smith et al. ‘284: col. 5, lines 24-28; An attachment field 34e displays an associated message that was supplied by the sender of the mail piece and/or the postal service or other delivery company; (col. 5, lines 16-28; In the table 28, the entry that corresponds to a letter (icon 37c) from Mom (sender field 34d) includes a lightning bolt icon to indicate that there is a message that is associated with the mail piece through the Postport system. To read the message, the user clicks on the displayed information. The information displayed in the attachment field in a given entry is essentially information that identifies the associated message to the user, much like a Re: line in an email message. Alternatively, the display in the attachment field may be the start of the message); and displaying, via the hybrid-digital mailbox, the information about the physical mail item in transit and the email associated with the physical mail item (Smith et al. ‘284; FIG. 3, 35a checkmark means has been delivered, 35b being delivered by postal air , 35c being delivered by postal ground); (Smith et al. ‘284; FIG. 5 [62] and FIG. 6 [72]; col. 6, lines 54-57, The mail piece image 72 included in the detailed view may be provided by the source of the mail piece, or alternatively, the image may be provided by the postal service or other delivery service by the scanning of the mail piece); and (col. 7, lines 40-50; The Postport system can be thought of as giving a mail piece a digital shadow, that is, a link from the physical mail piece to information about the mail piece or associated with the mail piece by the sender, the postal service and/or the intended recipient. The information linked to the mail piece can be address and delivery particulars, a digital copy of the mail piece, a summary of the mail piece, an excerpt from the mail piece, a history of the transactions associated with the mail piece, and so forth. Other information associated with the mail piece can be hyperlinks to source or recipient URLs, and personalized or general message attachments).
Applicant argues (in REMARKS, pages 12-13) that in addition, pages 16 and 22 of the Office Action allege that Smith '284 at Fig. 5 [62] and Fig. 6 [72] disclose "obtaining an electronic mail item associated with the physical mail item" as formerly recited by claims 2 and 17. Applicant notes that the above limitation of claims 2 and 17 has been amended to "obtaining an email associated with the physical mail item, the email having been received at the email address of the user." Applicant notes that col. 6, lines 18-22 of Smith '284 states that 62 in Fig. 5 is a pull-down menu for an entry in a table that corresponds to a bill. Thus 62 is not an email. Smith '284, at col. 6, lines 26-34, states that item 72 is a copy or facsimile of a particular mail piece. Item 72, itself, is not an email. Claims 3 and 7, claims 10-15, and claims 19-20, respectively, depend from claims 1, 2, and 17 and are patentable over Smith '284 in view of Gmuender for at least the reasons discussed with respect to independent claims 1, 2, and 17 as well as for reciting other limitations. Therefore, Applicant respectfully requests that the rejection of claims 3, 7, 10-15, and 19-20 be withdrawn.
In response to Applicant’s argument, the Examiner respectfully notes that col. 6 of Smith et al. discloses FIG. 5 depicts a screen 60 in which a pull-down menu 62 for an entry 32 in the table 28 that corresponds to bill (icon 37b) from City Electric (field 34d) provides to the user links to the web pages associated with various on-line bill payment services offered through City Electric. Smith et al. ‘284 in col. 5, lines 16-28; In the table 28, teaches the entry that corresponds to a letter (icon 37c) from Mom (sender field 34d) includes a lightning bolt icon to indicate that there is a message that is associated with the mail piece through the Postport system. To read the message, the user clicks on the displayed information. The information displayed in the attachment field in a given entry is essentially information that identifies the associated message to the user, much like a Re: line in an email message. Alternatively, the display in the attachment field may be the start of the message). Also. FIGS 5, 6, and 7 teaches attachments and memos which are email messages; and see claim 1 of Smith et al. ‘284. Therefore, Smith et al. ‘284 teaches emails associated with physical mail. Further, Claims 3 and 7, claims 10-15, and claims 19-20, respectively, depend from claims 1, 2, and 17 and are rejected for reasons stated above regarding the rejection of claims 1, 2, and 17.
Applicant argues (in REMARKS, pages 13-14) that Claims 4, 5, and 9, claim 16, and claim 18, respectively, depend from claims 1, 2, and 17, either directly or as a base claim, and are patentable over Smith '284 and Gmuender for at least the reasons discussed above with respect to claims 1, 2, and 17, as well as for reciting other limitations… However, Smith '808 fails to remedy the deficiencies of Smith '284 and Gmuender. That is, Smith '284 in view of Gmuender and further in view of Smith '808 fail to disclose or suggest, either separately or in any combination: obtaining an email associated with a physical mail item in transit to a physical mailing address of a user, the email having been received at the email address of the user associated with the physical mailing address of the user; and displaying, via a hybrid-digital mailbox, the information about the physical mail item in transit and the email associated with the physical mail item, as required by amended independent claim 1 and dependent claims 4, 5, and 9. Therefore, Applicant submits that claims 4, 5 and 9 are patentable over Smith '284 in view of Gmuender and further in view of Smith '808 and respectfully requests that the rejection of claims 4, 5, and 9 be withdrawn. Claims 2 and 17 recite similar limitations to those previously discussed with respect to amended claim 1. For at least this reason, claim 2 and dependent claim 16, and claim 17 and dependent claim 18 are patentable over Smith '284 in view of Gmuender and further in view of Smith '808 and Applicant respectfully requests that the rejection of claims 16 and 18 be withdrawn.
In response to Applicant’s arguments, the Examiner respectfully disagrees for reasons stated above regarding the rejection of claims 1, 2, and 17.
Applicant argues (in REMARKS, pages 13-14) that Claim 6 depends from claim 1 and is patentable over Smith '284 and Gmuender for at least the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1, as well as for reciting other limitations…Sagi fails to remedy the deficiencies of Smith '284 and Gmuender. That is, Smith '284 in view of Gmuender and further in view of Sagi fail to disclose or suggest, either separately or in any combination: obtaining an email associated with a physical mail item in transit to a physical mailing address of a user, the email having been received at the email address of the user associated with the physical mailing address of the user; and displaying, via a hybrid-digital mailbox, the information about the physical mail item in transit and the email associated with the physical mail item, as required by amended independent claim 1 and dependent claim 6. Therefore, Applicant submits that claim 6 is patentable over Smith '284 in view of Gmuender and further in view of Sagi and respectfully requests that the rejection of claim 6 be withdrawn.
In response to Applicant’s arguments, the Examiner respectfully disagrees for reasons stated above regarding the rejection of claim 1.
Applicant argues (in REMARKS, page 15) that Claim 8 depends from claim 1 and is patentable over Smith '284 and Gmuender for at least the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1, as well as for reciting other limitations… Malik fails to remedy the deficiencies of Smith '284 and Gmuender. That is, Smith '284 in view of Gmuender and further in view of Malik fail to disclose or suggest, either separately or in any combination: obtaining an email associated with a physical mail item in transit to a physical mailing address of a user, the email having been received at the email address of the user associated with the physical mailing address of the user; and displaying, via a hybrid-digital mailbox, the information about the physical mail item in transit and the email associated with the physical mail item, as required by amended independent claim 1 and dependent claim 8. Therefore, Applicant submits that claim 8 is patentable over Smith '284 in view of Gmuender and further in view of Malik and respectfully requests that the rejection of claim 8 be withdrawn.
In response to Applicant’s arguments, the Examiner respectfully disagrees for reasons stated above regarding the rejection of claim 1.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1 and 3-9 are directed to a method (i.e., a process); Claims 2 and 10-16 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine); and Claims 17-20 are directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium (i.e., a manufacture). Therefore, Claims 1-20 all fall within the one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong 1
Independent claim 1 substantially recites:
registering [ ] a user, the registering further comprising:
verifying an authenticity of the user,
associating the user with a mailing address,
providing the user with a unique user ID, and
linking the mailing address with an email address in a profile of the user; and associating [ ] incoming physical mail and electronic mail that is associated with the incoming physical mail, with the hybrid-digital mailbox;
obtaining [ ] information concerning a physical mail item in transit to the physical mailing address of the user;
obtaining an email associated with the physical mail item, the email having been received at the email address of the user associated with the physical mailing address of the user; and
displaying [ ] the information about the physical mail item in transit and the email associated with the physical mail item. The aforementioned limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations by Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity which includes Managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed by Managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people.
Independent claims 2 and 17 substantially recite:
receiving, from a user, information for creating a mailbox for the user, wherein the information includes: a name of the user, a physical mailing address of the user, and an email address of the user;
authenticating the user based on the name and the physical mailing address;
storing the name of the user, the physical mailing address of the user, and the email address of the user with links to each other;
obtaining [ ] information indicating that a physical mail item is in transit to the physical mailing address of the user;
obtaining an email item associated with the physical mail item, the email having been received at the email address of the user; and
providing [ ] to the user, a display of the mailbox showing the information indicating that the physical mail item is in transit and the email. The aforementioned limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations by Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity which includes Managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed by Managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people.
Step 2A Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites the additional elements: “a hybrid digital mailbox,” “a comping device,” “a system,” and “a physical mail processing system,”; claim 2 recites the additional elements: “a system,” “a hybrid digital-mailbox,” “a physical mail processing system,” and “a hybrid-digital mail server”; and claim 17 recites the additional elements: “a computer-readable medium,” “instructions,” “a processor,” “a computing device,” “a hybrid-digital mailbox,” and “a physical mail processing system” to perform the “registering,” “verifying,” “associating,” “providing,” “linking,” “associating, ” “obtaining,” “obtaining,” and displaying” steps in claim 1, and to perform the “receiving/receiving,” “authenticating/authenticating,” “storing/storing,” “obtaining/obtaining,” “obtaining/obtaining,” and “providing/providing” steps in claims 2 and 17, respectively. The claimed computer components in the steps of claims 1, 2, and 17 are recited at a high-level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea (i.e., “a system,” “a hybrid digital-mailbox,” “a physical mail processing system,” and “a hybrid-digital mail server” in claim 1; “a system,” “a hybrid digital-mailbox,” “a physical mail processing system,” and “a hybrid-digital mail server” in claim 2; and “computer-readable medium,” “instructions,” “processor,” “computing device,” “hybrid-digital mailbox,” and “physical mail processing system” in claim 17 performing generic computer functions of “registering,” “verifying,” “associating,” “providing,” “linking,” “associating,” “obtaining,” “obtaining,” and displaying” steps in claim 1, and to perform the “receiving/receiving,” “authenticating/authenticating,” “storing/storing,” “obtaining/obtaining,” “obtaining/obtaining,” and “providing/providing” steps in claims 2 and 17, respectively) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components (i.e. “a system,” “a hybrid digital-mailbox,” “a physical mail processing system,” and “a hybrid-digital mail server” in claim 1; “a system,” “a hybrid digital-mailbox,” “a physical mail processing system,” and “a hybrid-digital mail server” in claim 2; and “computer-readable medium,” “instructions,” “processor,” “computing device,” “hybrid-digital mailbox,” and “physical mail processing system” in claim 17). The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (i.e., “a system,” “a hybrid digital-mailbox,” “a physical mail processing system,” and “a hybrid-digital mail server” in claim 1; “a system,” “a hybrid digital-mailbox,” “a physical mail processing system,” and “a hybrid-digital mail server” in claim 2; and “computer-readable medium,” “instructions,” “processor,” “computing device,” “hybrid-digital mailbox,” and “physical mail processing system” in claim 17). Accordingly, even 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. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Further, in regards to the “computing device” and/or “a physical mail processing system”, the “providing,” “obtaining,” “obtaining,” and “displaying” limitation in claim 1, and in regards to the “server”, the “receiving,” “obtaining,” “obtaining,” and “providing” in claim 2, and in regards to the “processor”, the “receiving,” “obtaining,” “obtaining,” and “providing” in claim 17 is just more mere data gathering, and also are characterized as transmitting or receiving data over a network and are also recited at a high level or generality, and merely automates the providing, receiving, and obtaining steps.
Step 2B
The independent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using the (“system,” “hybrid digital-mailbox,” “physical mail processing system,” and “hybrid-digital mail server” in claim 1; “system,” “hybrid digital-mailbox,” “physical mail processing system,” and “hybrid-digital mail server” in claim 2; and “computer-readable medium,” “instructions,” “processor,” “computing device,” “hybrid-digital mailbox,” and “physical mail processing system” in claim 17 to perform the “registering,” “verifying,” “associating,” “providing,” “linking,” “associating,” “obtaining,’ “obtaining,” and “displaying” steps in claim 1, and to perform the “receiving/receiving,” “authenticating/authenticating,” “storing/storing,” “obtaining/obtaining,” “obtaining/obtaining,” and “providing/providing” steps in claims 2 and 17, amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are patent ineligible.
As per dependent claim 3, the recitation, “accessing… data storing data and information related to incoming or outgoing email…” is further directed to a method of organizing human activity as described in claims 1. Therefore, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea. Further, the recitations of “a data repository” and “one or more databases” are other computer components recited at a high-level of generality and is merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Similar to claim 1, the recitation does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, or significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
As per dependent claims 4, the recitation, “providing to the user a message…” is further directed to a method of organizing human activity as described in claim 1. Similar to above, the “providing” is just mere data gathering, and also characterized as transmitting or receiving data over a network, and hence not significantly more. Further, the recitations of “a tracking system” and “electronic message” are other computer components recited at a high-level of generality and is merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Similar to claim 1, the recitation does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, or significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
As per dependent claim 5, the recitations of “an email” and “a text message” are other computer components recited at a high-level of generality and is merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Similar to claim 1, the recitation does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, or significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
As per claim 6, the recitations, “receiving a shipment notification message”; “forwarding, by the user, the shipment notification message…”; “extracting data from the shipment notification message”; and “storing the data for use and display…” are further directed to a method of organizing human activity and/or a mental process as described in claim 1. Therefore, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea. Further, the recitations of “a tracking system” and “a tracking database” are other computer components recited at a high-level of generality and is merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Similar to claim 1, the recitation does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, or significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
As per dependent claim 7, the recitation, “providing a listing of the email and a listing of the incoming physical mail…” is further directed to a method of organizing human activity as described in claim 1. Therefore, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
As per dependent claim 8, the recitation, “providing a sender of a time sensitive item an option to delete the time sensitive item…. is further directed to a method of organizing human activity as described in claim 1. Therefore, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
As per dependent claims 9 and 18, the recitation, “providing, to the user, a display of a calendar showing a plurality of days and at least one of: an amount of the incoming physical mail or an amount of emails received or expected to be received on each of the plurality of days” is further directed to a method of organizing human activity as described in claims 1 and 18, respectively. Therefore, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
As per dependent claim 10, the recitations of “a data repository” and “email” are other computer components recited at a high-level of generality and is merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Similar to claim 2, the recitation does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, or significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
As per dependent claim 11, the recitation, “receive information” is further directed to a method of organizing human activity as described in claim 2. Therefore, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
As per dependent claim 12, the recitations, “obtains data related to a location…” is further directed to a method of organizing human activity as described in claim 2. Therefore, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea. Further, the recitation of “a tracking system” is another computer components recited at a high-level of generality and is merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Similar to claim 2, the recitation does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, or significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
As per dependent claim 13, the limitation merely narrows the previously recited abstract idea limitations. Dependent claim 13 recites some of the data comprises a digest of physical mail. For the reasons described above with respect to claim 13, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea
As per dependent claims 14 and 20, the recitation, “displays/displaying data related to the forwarding of the physical mail item” is further directed to a method of organizing human activity as described in claims 2 and 17, respectively. Therefore, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
As per dependent claim 15, the recitation, “lists the emails… is further directed to a method of organizing human activity as described in claim 2. Therefore, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
As per dependent claim 16, the recitation, “provides a display of a calendar…” is further directed to a method of organizing human activity as described in claim 2. Therefore, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
As per dependent claim 19, the recitation, “displaying an inbox section…” is further directed to a method of organizing human activity and/or a mental process as described in claim 17. Therefore, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent Claims 3-16 and 18-20 have been given the full two part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. Dependent Claims 3-16 and 18-20, when analyzed individually, and in combination, are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The dependent claims fail to establish that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the additional recited limitations of the dependent claims merely further narrow the abstract idea of the independent claims. The dependent claims recite no additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Simply implementing the abstract idea on generic computer components is not a practical application of the judicial exception and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 7, 10-15, 17, and 19-20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Smith et al. (US Patent No. 8,527,284 B2 hereinafter referred to as “Smith et al. ‘284”) in view of Gmuender et al. (WO 0113576 A2).
As per claim 1, Smith et al. ‘284 discloses a computer-implemented method for creating and using a hybrid-digital mailbox, the computer-implemented method comprising:
registering, by a computing device, a user with a system that provides the hybrid-digital mailbox (Smith et al.‘284: FIG. 1, "Button" 15 enables the user to register at the website for the My Mail or other services provided through what is referred to herein as the "Postport System") the registering further comprising:
associating the user with a physical mailing address (Smith et al.‘284: col. 4, lines 4-17; FIG. 2 depicts screen 20 to which a user is directed when button 15 of FIG. 1 is used to sign into the Postport system for the first time. Using the screen 20, a new user provides the requested address and identification information in order to register for the various Postport system services, and thus be assigned a Postport User ID); and .
providing the user with a unique user ID (Smith et al.‘284:, col. 14, lines 4-17, FIG. 2 depicts screen 20 to which a user is directed when button 15 of FIG. 1 is used to sign into the Postport system for the first time. Using the screen 20, a new user provides the requested address and identification information in order to register for the various Postport system services, and thus be assigned a Postport User ID.), and
linking the mailing address with an email address in a profile of the user (FIG. 2 depicts screen 20 to which a user is directed when button 15 of FIG. 1 is used to sign into the Postport system for the first time. Using the screen 20, a new user provides the requested address and identification information in order to register for the various Postport system services, and thus be assigned a Postport User ID. A user previously registered may be provided access to the screen 20 by selecting the My Profile service from the list 18 on the screen 10 of FIG. 1. Using the screen 20, the registered user may change its address, identification and/or password information. After registering or updating the registration information, the user selects one of the other services, for example, the My Mail service, using the menu bar 24*); also see claim 1; and
associating, by the computing device, incoming physical mail and email which is associated with the incoming physical mail, with the hybrid-digital mailbox (Smith et al. ‘284: col. 2, lines 33-43, Further, the system may link to the entry more detailed information about the particular mail piece, such as a description or digital image of the contents. The user may then "click" on the links to, for example, view and pay a bill electronically. Also, the system may link to the table entries various attachments, such as related messages from the sender, the delivery company and/or the postal service. A company or an individual sending or delivering the mail piece may thus inform the intended recipient that, for example, a signature or payment is required at time of delivery); and (Smith et al. ‘284: col. 8, lines 50-58 , The Postal Server may comprise a single server, or be one of a plurality of such servers, preferably interconnected for sharing data. Associated with each server is a database 171 on which the name and other pertinent data such as physical (i.e. street) address, email address, user ID, telephone number, and other such data with respect to each of its users are stored. The Postal Service itself may use the information in this database to associate the information about the mail pieces with the various users)
obtaining, from the physical mail processing system, information indicating that a physical mail item is in transit to the physical mailing address of the user (Smith et al. ‘284; FIG. 3, 35a checkmark means has been delivered, 35b being delivered by postal air , 35c being delivered by postal ground), (FIG. 1 [018]; MY MAIL-Track incoming mail and parcels, redirect shipments, view e-messages)
obtaining an email associated with the physical mail item, the email having been received at the email address of the user (Smith et al. ‘284; see claim 1; FIG. 5 [62] attachments and FIG. 6 [72], memos; col. 6, lines 54-57, The mail piece image 72 included in the detailed view may be provided by the source of the mail piece, or alternatively, the image may be provided by the postal service or other delivery service by the scanning of the mail piece); and (Smith et al. ‘284: FIG. 3 [34e]); and (Smith et al. ‘284: col. 5, lines 24-28; An attachment field 34e displays an associated message that was supplied by the sender of the mail piece and/or the postal service or other delivery company; (col. 5, lines 16-28; In the table 28, the entry that corresponds to a letter (icon 37c) from Mom (sender field 34d) includes a lightening bolt icon to indicate that there is a message that is associated with the mail piece through the Postport system. To read the message, the user clicks on the displayed information. The information displayed in the attachment field in a given entry is essentially information that identifies the associated message to the user, much like a Re: line in an email message. Alternatively, the display in the attachment field may be the start of the message); and
displaying, via the hybrid-digital mailbox, the information about the physical mail item in transit and the email associated with the physical mail item (Smith et al. ‘284; see claim 1; FIG. 3, 35a checkmark means has been delivered, 35b being delivered by postal air , 35c being delivered by postal ground); (Smith et al. ‘284; FIG. 5 [62] attachments,and FIG. 6 [72] memos; col. 6, lines 54-57, The mail piece image 72 included in the detailed view may be provided by the source of the mail piece, or alternatively, the image may be provided by the postal service or other delivery service by the scanning of the mail piece); and (col. 7, lines 40-50; The Postport system can be thought of as giving a mail piece a digital shadow, that is, a link from the physical mail piece to information about the mail piece or associated with the mail piece by the sender, the postal service and/or the intended recipient. The information linked to the mail piece can be address and delivery particulars, a digital copy of the mail piece, a summary of the mail piece, an excerpt from the mail piece, a history of the transactions associated with the mail piece, and so forth. Other information associated with the mail piece can be hyperlinks to source or recipient URLs, and personalized or general message attachments).
Smith et al.‘284 does not explicitly disclose, however, Gmuender et al. discloses:
verifying an authenticity of the user (Gmuender et al. : page 7, lines 17-23; (ii) a new user can request an account by entering both an entityname and a postal address (which is a valid geographically determinate physical address) that corresponds, using a deterministic method, to a unique identifier not yet in the digital mail account database of registered accounts. This mechanism is called "user-initiated account registration" and the user can choose whether to request immediate authentication by validation of their identity through a trusted database (such as a credit-check) or whether to wait for a passcode to be physically sent to them). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Smith et al. ‘284 to include the verification and authentication service as taught by Gmuender et al. to check that a user really can receive physical mail addressed using the postal address from which the unique identifier is created (Gmuender et al.., page 7 line 33- page 8, line 3).
As per claim 2, Smith et al. ‘284 discloses a system for a hybrid-digital mailbox, the system comprising:
a physical mail processing system (FIG 13. [1320]; POSTAL SYSTEM, FIG. 10, POSTAL STATIONS #1 and #2); and
a hybrid-digital mail server that is communicatively connected to the physical mail processing system, wherein the hybrid-digital mail server performs operations (Smith et al.‘284: FIG 13. [1300]; POSTPORT SERVERS),comprising:
receiving, from a user, information for creating a hybrid-digital mailbox for the user (Smith et al.‘284: FIG. 1, "Button" 15 enables the user to register at the website for the My Mail or other services provided through what is referred to herein as the "Postport System"); and (col. 14, lines 14-17),
wherein the information includes:
a physical mailing address of the user (Smith et al.‘284: FIG. 2, Address information) and
an email address of the user (Smith et al.‘284: FIG. 2: Current Email (Optional));
obtaining, from the physical mail processing system, information indicating that a physical mail item is in transit to the physical mailing address of the user (Smith et al. ‘284; FIG. 3, 35a checkmark means has been delivered, 35b being delivered by postal air , 35c being delivered by postal ground), (FIG. 1 [018]; MY MAIL-Track incoming mail and parcels, redirect shipments, view e-messages)
obtaining an email associated with the physical mail item, the email having been received at the email address of the user (Smith et al. ‘284; FIG. 5 attachments and FIG. 6 memos; col. 6, lines 54-57, The mail piece image 72 included in the detailed view may be provided by the source of the mail piece, or alternatively, the image may be provided by the postal service or other delivery service by the scanning of the mail piece); and (Smith et al. ‘284: FIG. 3 [34e]); and (Smith et al. ‘284: col. 5, lines 24-28; An attachment field 34e displays an associated message that was supplied by the sender of the mail piece and/or the postal service or other delivery company; (col. 5, lines 16-28; In the table 28, the entry that corresponds to a letter (icon 37c) from Mom (sender field 34d) includes a lightning bolt icon to indicate that there is a message that is associated with the mail piece through the Postport system. To read the message, the user clicks on the displayed information. The information displayed in the attachment field in a given entry is essentially information that identifies the associated message to the user, much like a Re: line in an email message. Alternatively, the display in the attachment field may be the start of the message).
providing, by the hybrid-digital mail server and to the user, a display of the hybrid-digital mailbox showing the information indicating that the physical mail item is in transit and the email (Smith et al. ‘284; FIG. 3, 35a checkmark means has been delivered, 35b being delivered by postal air , 35c being delivered by postal ground); (Smith et al. ‘284; FIG. 5 attachments and FIG. 6 memos; col. 6, lines 54-57, The mail piece image 72 included in the detailed view may be provided by the source of the mail piece, or alternatively, the image may be provided by the postal service or other delivery service by the scanning of the mail piece); and (col. 7, lines 40-50; The Postport system can be thought of as giving a mail piece a digital shadow, that is, a link from the physical mail piece to information about the mail piece or associated with the mail piece by the sender, the postal service and/or the intended recipient. The information linked to the mail piece can be address and delivery particulars, a digital copy of the mail piece, a summary of the mail piece, an excerpt from the mail piece, a history of the transactions associated with the mail piece, and so forth. Other information associated with the mail piece can be hyperlinks to source or recipient URLs, and personalized or general message attachments).
Smith et al. ‘284 does not explicitly disclose, however, Gmuender et al. discloses:
wherein the information includes:
a name of the user (Gmuender et al. page 7, lines 17-23; a new user can request an account by entering both an entityname and a postal address (which is a valid geographically determinate physical address) that corresponds, using a deterministic method, to a unique identifier not yet in the digital mail account database of registered accounts);
authenticating the user based on the name and the physical mailing address (Gmuender et al. : page 7, lines 17-23; page 7, line 29 -page 8, line 15; (ii) a new user can request an account by entering both an entityname and a postal address (which is a valid geographically determinate physical address) that corresponds, using a deterministic method, to a unique identifier not yet in the digital mail account database of registered accounts. This mechanism is called "user-initiated account registration" and the user can choose whether to request immediate authentication by validation of their identity through a trusted database (such as a credit-check) or whether to wait for a passcode to be physically sent to them).
storing the name of the user, the physical mailing address of the user, and the email address of the user with links to each other Gmuender et al.: (Page 30, lines 7-17 The Digital Mail Post Office 107 includes a digital mail account database 115. This database 115 stores account data for a large number of digital mailboxes. Each digital mailbox is associated with the name and postal address of a user, and other identifying information, such as email address(es), telephone number(s), facsimile number(s), and the like. In addition, any number of unique identifiers derived from a combination of the name and postal address are also associated with each user's digital mailbox. The database 115 may be a relational or object oriented database; either implementation is acceptable. The only significant constraint is that each digital mailbox can be accessed by various unique identifiers formed from the user's name and the other identifying information, one of the postal addresses, telephone numbers, or the like). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Smith et al. ‘284 to include the verification and authentication service as taught by Gmuender et al. to check that a user really can receive physical mail addressed using the postal address from which the unique identifier is created (Gmuender et al.., page 7 line 33- page 8, line 3).
As per claim 3, Smith et al.‘284 in view of Gmuender et al. discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1. Smith et al.‘284, further discloses:
accessing, by the computing device, a data repository including one or more databases storing data and information related to incoming or outgoing email (Smith et al.‘284; FIG. 3, 34c; FIG. 7,134a Outbound, col. 5, lines 9-12; A delivery field 34c informs the user of the actual or expected delivery date, while a sender field 34d informs the user of the source of the mail piece); and (Smith et al.‘284: col. Referring now to FIG. 7, the Postport system also provides personal tracking and tracing of mail pieces sent by the user. As depicted in screen 100, a table 128 includes entries 132 for the respective mail pieces that the user has sent. The user selects this table from a pull down menu (not shown) using arrow the 40 in menu bar 29. The table includes status, type and delivery fields 134a, 134b and 134c that are similar to the fields of the table 28 discussed above with reference to Fig. 3.),
address book contacts,
system and user preference settings,
calendar events, or mail campaigns.
As per claim 7, Smith et al. ‘284 in view of Gmuender et al. discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1. Smith et al. ‘284 further discloses:
providing, by the hybrid-digital mailbox, a listing of the emails associated with the hybrid-digital mailbox and a listing of the incoming physical mail associated with the hybrid- digital mailbox (Smith et al.‘284: FIG. 3, 37, 37a, 37b, 37c, and 37e, A type field 34b indicates to the user, again through the use of icons 37, the category of mail piece. The mail piece may be a magazine as indicated by the icon 37a, a bill as indicated by the icon 37b, a letter as indicated by the icon 37c, a package as indicated by the icon 37d or a catalog as indicated by the icon 37e, and so forth as indicated by various other icons 37. A delivery field 34c informs the user of the actual or expected delivery date, while a sender field 34d informs the user of the source of the mail piece. An attachment field 34e displays an associated message that was supplied by the sender of the mail piece and/or the postal service or other delivery company).
As per claim 10, Smith et al. ‘284 in view of Gmuender et al. discloses the system of claim 2. Smith et al. ‘284 further discloses:
a data repository communicatively coupled to the hybrid-digital mail server, the data repository including information that is accessed by the hybrid-digital mail server (Smith et al. ‘284:. col. 8, lines 50-65; 42) The Postal Server may comprise a single server, or be one of a plurality of such servers, preferably interconnected for sharing data. Associated with each server is a database 171 on which the name and other pertinent data such as physical (i.e. street) address, email address, user ID, telephone number, and other such data with respect to each of its users are stored. The Postal Service itself may use the information in this database to associate the information about the mail pieces with the various users. Alternatively, the Postal Service may, under suitable conditions, provide access to its database directly to a third party, which may then associate various information with the identified users. For example, the third party may associate accounts or transactions with the respective users based on the identifying information contained in the database, and thereafter, supply relevant account or transaction information to the Postal Service sorted by the User IDs).,
wherein the information comprises information related to at least one of:
physical mail (col. 11, lines 1-7, As discuss previously, and illustrated in functional block diagram form in FIG. 13, one or more servers 1300 of the Postport system acquire delivery information, about a given mail piece of a plurality of mail pieces, electronically by receiving messages from and/or by access to respective databases of at least two of a sender of the mail piece 1330, a postal service 1320 and a delivery company 1330),
email, address book contacts, system settings, user preference settings, calendar events, or mail campaigns.
As per claim 11, Smith et al. ‘284 in view of Gmuender et al. discloses the system of claim 10. Smith et al. ‘284 further discloses:
wherein: the data repository is communicatively coupled with and receives information from the physical mail processing system (Smith et al. ‘284: [1300],[1320] and [1330] include DATABASE(S).
As per claim 12, Smith et al. ‘284 in view of Gmuender et al. discloses the system of claim 2. Smith et al. ‘284 further discloses:
a tracking system, communicatively coupled to the hybrid-digital mail server and to the physical mail processing system, that obtains data from the physical mail processing system related to a location of the physical mail item and provides at least some of the data to the hybrid-digital mail server (Smith et al. ‘284: col. 11, lines 11-19; The servers link information corresponding to the given mail piece, such as (1) delivery status information, (2) address and delivery particulars, and at least one of (3) a digital copy of the mail piece, and (4) an excerpt from the mail piece with the user identifier of the intended recipient. The servers send the links to, or provide access to the linked information via, a web component, such as, for example, a website. The user is thus provided with the capability to track and trace the given mail piece by logging onto the website).
As per claim 13, Smith et al. ‘284 in view of Gmuender et al. discloses the system of claim 12. Smith et al. ‘284 further discloses:
wherein at least some of the data comprises a digest of physical mail items to expect (Smith et al. ‘284: FIG. 3, 34b, 35b. 35c).
As per claim 14, Smith et al. ‘284 in view of Gmuender et al. discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1. Smith et al. ‘284 further discloses, wherein:
the at least some of the data comprises data related to forwarding of a physical mail item, and wherein the hybrid-digital mailbox displays the data related to the forwarding of the physical mail item (Smith et al. ‘284: FIG. 8, Outbound items. Land’s end: received item accepted for return); and (Smith et al. ‘284: col. 4, lines 39-44, The user may instead view a table that contains information about mail pieces which were sent by the user. To do this the user selects the appropriate table category from a list that is pulled down using arrow 40. The table of outbound mail pieces and the information contained therein are discussed in more detail below with reference to FIG. 7).
As per claim 15, Smith et al. ‘284 in view of Gmuender et al. discloses the system of claim 2. Smith et al. ‘284 further discloses:
wherein: the hybrid-digital mailbox comprises an inbox display that lists the email item and the physical mail item (Smith et al. ‘284: FIG. 3, 37).
As per claim 17, Smith et al. ‘284 discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions recorded thereon, when the instructions are executed by a processor of computing device, the computing device performs operations comprising:
receiving, from a user, information for creating a hybrid-digital mailbox for the user (Smith et al.‘284: FIG. 1, "Button" 15 enables the user to register at the website for the My Mail or other services provided through what is referred to herein as the "Postport System"), wherein the information includes:
a physical mailing address of the user (Smith et al.‘284: FIG. 2, Address information), and
an email address of the user (Smith et al.‘284: FIG. 2: Current Email (Optional));
obtaining, from a physical mail processing system, information indicating that a physical mail item is in transit to the physical mailing address of the user (Smith et al. ‘284; col. 2, lines 18-28, Further, the user does not even need to know that a particular package has been sent before he or she learns through the personal tracking and tracing system to expect a delivery. The system updates the delivery status information, i.e., expected delivery dates, current locations and so forth, based on information supplied by the delivery companies and/or the postal service. Thus, to keep track of the changes to the delivery status, the user has only to check his or her web page rather than inquire at the various companies or the postal service and/or sort through e-mail messages from them); and (Smith et al. ‘284; col. 4, lines 51-56, The detailed view listing displays the respective table entries in more detail, is discussed below with reference to FIG. 6. The icons may further be linked to information that indicates the current locations of the respective packages. Alternatively, the table may include a separate location field (not shown);
obtaining an email associated with the physical mail item (Smith et al. ‘284; FIG. 5 [62] attachments and FIG. 6 [72] memos; col.6, lines 54-58, The mail piece image 72 included in the detailed view may be provided by the source of the mail piece, or alternatively, the image may be provided by the postal service or other delivery service by the scanning of the mail piece); and (Smith et al. ‘284: col. 5, lines 24-28; An attachment field 34e displays an associated message that was supplied by the sender of the mail piece and/or the postal service or other delivery company; (col. 5, lines 16-28; In the table 28, the entry that corresponds to a letter (icon 37c) from Mom (sender field 34d) includes a lightning bolt icon to indicate that there is a message that is associated with the mail piece through the Postport system. To read the message, the user clicks on the displayed information. The information displayed in the attachment field in a given entry is essentially information that identifies the associated message to the user, much like a Re: line in an email message. Alternatively, the display in the attachment field may be the start of the message); and
providing a display of the hybrid-digital mailbox showing the information indicating that the physical mail item is in transit and the email (Smith et al. ‘284; FIG. 3, 35a checkmark means has been delivered, 35b being delivered by postal air , 35c being delivered by postal ground); (Smith et al. ‘284; FIG. 5 [62] attachments and FIG. 6 [72] memos; col. The mail piece image 72 included in the detailed view may be provided by the source of the mail piece, or alternatively, the image may be provided by the postal service or other delivery service by the scanning of the mail piece)..
Smith et al. ‘284 does not explicitly disclose, however, Gmuender et al. discloses:
wherein the information includes:
a name of the user (Gmuender et al. : page 7, lines 17-23; a new user can request an account by entering both an entityname and a postal address (which is a valid geographically determinate physical address) that corresponds, using a deterministic method, to a unique identifier not yet in the digital mail account database of registered accounts):
verifying an authenticity of the user (Gmuender et al. : page 7, lines 17-23; a new user can request an account by entering both an entityname and a postal address (which is a valid geographically determinate physical address) that corresponds, using a deterministic method, to a unique identifier not yet in the digital mail account database of registered accounts. This mechanism is called "user-initiated account registration" and the user can choose whether to request immediate authentication by validation of their identity through a trusted database (such as a credit-check) or whether to wait for a passcode to be physically sent to them).
authenticating the user based on the name and the physical mailing address (Gmuender et al. : page 7, lines 17-23; page 7, line 29 -page 8, line 15; (ii) a new user can request an account by entering both an entityname and a postal address (which is a valid geographically determinate physical address) that corresponds, using a deterministic method, to a unique identifier not yet in the digital mail account database of registered accounts. This mechanism is called "user-initiated account registration" and the user can choose whether to request immediate authentication by validation of their identity through a trusted database (such as a credit-check) or whether to wait for a passcode to be physically sent to them).
storing the name of the user, the physical mailing address of the user, and the email address of the user with links to each other (Gmuender et al.: (Page 30, lines 7-17 The Digital Mail Post Office 107 includes a digital mail account database 115. This database 115 stores account data for a large number of digital mailboxes. Each digital mailbox is associated with the name and postal address of a user, and other identifying information, such as email address(es), telephone number(s), facsimile number(s), and the like. In addition, any number of unique identifiers derived from a combination of the name and postal address are also associated with each user's digital mailbox. The database 115 may be a relational or object oriented database; either implementation is acceptable. The only significant constraint is that each digital mailbox can be accessed by various unique identifiers formed from the user's name and the other identifying information, one of the postal addresses, telephone numbers, or the like). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Smith et al. ‘284 to include the verification and authentication service as taught by Gmuender et al. to check that a user really can receive physical mail addressed using the postal address from which the unique identifier is created (Gmuender et al.., page 7 line 33- page 8, line 3).
As per claim 19, Smith et al. ‘284 in view of Gmuender et al. discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 17. Smith et al. ‘284 further discloses wherein the providing a display of the hybrid-digital mailbox comprises:
displaying an inbox section of the hybrid-digital mailbox, wherein the inbox section lists the email and the physical mail item that is in transit (Smith et al. ‘284: FIG. 3, 37).
.
As per claim 20, Smith et al. ‘284 in view of Gmuender et al. discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 17. Smith et al. ‘284 further discloses wherein the providing a display of the hybrid-digital mailbox comprises: displaying data related to forwarding of the physical mail item (Smith et al. ‘284: FIG. 8, Outbound items. Land’s end: received item accepted for return); and (Smith et al. ‘284: col. 4, lines 39-44, The user may instead view a table that contains information about mail pieces which were sent by the user. To do this the user selects the appropriate table category from a list that is pulled down using arrow 40. The table of outbound mail pieces and the information contained therein are discussed in more detail below with reference to FIG. 7).
Claims 4-5, 9, 16, and 18 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Smith et al. (US Patent No. 8,527,284 B2 hereinafter referred to as “Smith et al. ‘284”) in view of Gmuender et al. (WO 0113576 A2) as applied to claims 1 and 2 above and further in view of Smith et al. (US PG Pub. 2002/0042808 A1 hereinafter referred to as “Smith et al. ‘808”).
As per claim 4, Smith et al. ‘284 in view of Gmuender et al. discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1. Smith et al. ‘284 in view of Gmuender et al. does not explicitly disclose, however, Smith et al. ‘808 discloses:
providing to the user, by a tracking system, an electronic message having a digest of incoming physical mail to expect (Smith et al. ‘808. FIG. 3, [40] View messages, [56] View as a list; [0016] Other data objects notify the user of other events, e.g., a scheduled haircut on Friday, indicted by data object 53 or expected or actual receipt of a package on Thursday, indicated by data object 54). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Smith et al. ‘284 in view of Gmuender et al.’s verification and authentication service to include messaging for notification of expected mail as taught by Smith et al. ‘808 to make the user aware of pending deliveries.
As per claim 5, Smith et al. ‘284 in view of Gmuender et al. and Smith et al. ‘808 discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 4. Smith et al. ‘284 in view of Gmuender et al. does not explicitly disclose, however Smith et al. ‘808 discloses:
wherein the electronic message is either an email or a text message (Smith et al. ‘808 [0015] Among these are "detail view" which enables the user to access further information concerning the object, such as the nature of the object, deadlines associated with it, etc. as described above; "view messages" which enables the user to view a list of electronically transmitted messages; "email to sender" which enables the user to quickly send an email to the sender of the data object; "hybrid mail to sender" which, e.g., allows mail to be sent along one part of its route in electronic form and along another part in physical form; "redirect shipment", which enables the user to forward the object to another address; "set notification" which enables the user to configure alerts such as pager messages that depend upon message sender, content, or time; "sender history" which enables the user to access information concerning the sender, such as prior data objects sent, when sent, etc.; "pay bill" which enables the user to pay received bills electronically; "view image" which enables the user to view an image of the object that has been scanned into or otherwise placed in the database of data objects; "view packing list" which enables the user to view a list of the physical contents of a parcel shipment, "view linked documents" which enables the user to view documents that are associated with a particular data object; and "cancel shipment" which enables the user to cancel a shipment of the object, e.g., a package). . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Smith et al. ‘284 in view of Gmuender et al.’s verification and authentication service to include electronic or text messaging for notification of expected mail as taught by Smith et al. ‘808 to provide a variety of ways make the user aware of pending deliveries.
As per claim 9, Smith et al. ‘284 in view of Gmuender et al. discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1. Smith et al. ‘284 in view of Gmuender et al. does not explicitly disclose, however, Smith et al. ‘808 discloses:
providing, to the user, a display of a calendar showing a plurality of days (Smith et al. ‘808: FIG. 2) and at least one of:
an amount of the incoming physical mail or an amount of email received or expected to be received on each of the plurality of days (Smith et al. ‘808; FIG. 2, [0014] For example, an icon 32 indicates that a periodical publication is expected to arrive on September 1. Icons 34 and 36 indicate that on September 5, a package (icon 34) and a letter (icon 36), respectively, were, or are scheduled to be, received). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Smith et al. ‘284 in view of Gmuender et al.’s verification and authentication service to include a count of electronic and physical mail as taught by Smith et al. ‘808 to provide the user with a notification of delivered or expected mail.
As per claim 16, Smith et al. ‘284 in view of Gmuender et al. discloses the system of claim 2. Smith et al. ‘284 in view of Gmuender et al. does not explicitly disclose, however, Smith et al. ‘808 discloses:
wherein: the hybrid-digital mailbox provides a display of a calendar showing a plurality of days (Smith et al.: ‘808) and at least one of:
an amount of physical mail items or an amount of emails received or expected to be received on each of the plurality of days (Smith et al. ‘808; FIG. 2, [0014] For example, an icon 32 indicates that a periodical publication is expected to arrive on September 1. Icons 34 and 36 indicate that on September 5, a package (icon 34) and a letter (icon 36), respectively, were, or are scheduled to be, received). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Smith et al. ‘284 in view of Gmuender et al.’s verification and authentication service to include a count of electronic and physical mail as taught by Smith et al. ‘808 to provide the user with a notification of delivered or expected mail.
As per claim 18, Smith et al. ‘284 in view of Gmuender et al. discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 17. Smith et al. ‘284 in view of Gmuender et al. does not further disclose, however Smith et al. ‘808 discloses wherein the providing a display of the hybrid-digital mailbox comprises:
providing, to the user, a display of a calendar showing a plurality of days (Smith et al. ‘808; FIG. 2) and at least one of:
an amount of physical mail items in transit or an amount of email items received or expected to be received on each of the plurality of days (Smith et al. ‘808; FIG. 2, [0014] For example, an icon 32 indicates that a periodical publication is expected to arrive on September 1. Icons 34 and 36 indicate that on September 5, a package (icon 34) and a letter (icon 36), respectively, were, or are scheduled to be, received). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Smith et al. ‘284 in view of Gmuender et al.’s verification and authentication service to include a count of electronic and physical mail as taught by Smith et al. ‘808 to provide the user with a notification of delivered or expected mail.
Claim 6 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Smith et al. (US Patent No. 8,527,284 B2 hereinafter referred to as “Smith et al. ‘284”) in view of Gmuender et al. (WO 0113576 A2) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Sagi et al. (US PG Pub. 2012/0179606 A1).
As per claim 6, Smith et al. ‘284 in view of Gmuender et al. discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1. Smith et al. ‘284 further discloses the computer-implemented method further comprising:
receiving, by a user, a shipment notification message (Smith et al. ‘284; FIG. 3 [35b] [35c]); and
storing, by the tracking system, the data in a tracking database for use and display by the hybrid-digital mailbox (Smith et al. ‘284; col. 2, lines 18-28, Further, the user does not even need to know that a particular package has been sent before he or she learns through the personal tracking and tracing system to expect a delivery. The system updates the delivery status information, i.e., expected delivery dates, current locations and so forth, based on information supplied by the delivery companies and/or the postal service. Thus, to keep track of the changes to the delivery status, the user has only to check his or her web page rather than inquire at the various companies or the postal service and/or sort through e-mail messages from them); and (Smith et al. ‘284; col. 4, lines 51-56, The detailed view listing displays the respective table entries in more detail, is discussed below with reference to FIG. 6. The icons may further be linked to information that indicates the current locations of the respective packages. Alternatively, the table may include a separate location field (not shown); and
forwarding, by the user, the shipment notification message to a tracking system (FIG. 3, Land’s End: Click here to trace your package).
Smith et al. ‘284 in view of Gmuender et al. does not explicitly disclose, however, Sagi et al. discloses:
extracting, by the tracking system, data from the shipment notification message (Sagi et al.: Abstract: The server then processes the mail piece print stream to extract time sensitive data such as a payment amount and due date. The server utilizes the identity of the physical mail piece recipient and the time sensitive data to provide a scheduling message to the recipient); (Sagi et al.: [0051], When mail piece 210 hits the last sort, or at a predetermined time afterward, the addressee is notified. Likewise, image notification may be performed each time mail piece 210 passes through a sorting machine en route from a sender 205 to its address destination. Thus, the addressee can track mail piece 210 in transit to P.O. boxes 245 or residence 250). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Smith et al. ‘284 in view of Gmuender et al.’s verification and authentication service to include extracting data from the message as taught by Sagi et al. to assist with tracking time sensitive items, such as bills, 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 8 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Smith et al. (US Patent No. 8,527,284 B2 hereinafter referred to as “Smith et al. ‘284”) in view of Gmuender et al. (WO 0113576 A2) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of (Malik US PG Pub. 2003/0229668 A1).
As per claim 8, Smith et al. ‘284 in view of Gmuender et al. discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1. Smith et al. ‘284 in view of Gmuender et al. does not further disclose, however, Malik discloses:
providing a sender of a time sensitive email an option to delete the time sensitive email from the hybrid-digital mailbox when a time associated with the time sensitive item has passed and the time sensitive email has not been opened (Malik: FIG 2B [235],[245] and [255]; and [0041] However, if the time-sensitive e-mail message was not downloaded by the date specified by the date/time stamp of the folder in the recipient's mailbox, the "NO" branch is followed to 245, in which a determination is made whether there is more than one message associated with the time-sensitive e-mail message. The e-mail message application 119 checks the "#of correlated messages" field in the header of the e-mail to determine if the value is greater than 1. If the determination is made by the e-mail message application 119 at 245 that there was only one message sent in the time-sensitive e-mail message, then the "NO" branch is followed to 255 where e-mail message application 119 deletes the message from the recipient's mailbox).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1) Pawlecki et al. (US PG Pub. 20100144376 A1) discloses a method and system for producing hard copies of electronic information employing a portable personal receiving device where physical items are put into electronic form and then transmitted to recipients by email or put into a format on a website that can be remotely accessed by a recipient; and also, the digitized electronic format mail is transmitted to a cell phone and the cell phone processes the received electronic communications to convert the received electronic documents into a printable form.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FREDA A. NELSON whose telephone number is (571)272-7076. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10:00am - 6:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shannon Campbell can be reached at 571-272-5587. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/F.A.N/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/SHANNON S CAMPBELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights