DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is in response to the reply filed December 18, 2025.
Claims 1, 4, 7-8, and 15 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed December 18, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the previous rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant presented the following arguments:
As amended, claim 1 does not recite the alleged abstract idea, but instead recites features necessarily rooted in computer technology to overcome a problem specifically arising in graphical user interfaces. Traditional systems for providing content via shipping labels only provide static or generic content that is not dependent on or associated with the user receiving the package. See, Specification, para. [0001]. The claimed system recites features related to improved graphical user interfaces, and specifically recites a system that identifies when a QR code on a package label is scanned from scan data of a user device, determines ambient data related to a delivery location for the package at the time of the QR code scan, determines scores for a plurality of pieces of content based on the time of the scan and the ambient data, and generates and outputs customized content on the device used to perform the scan based on the scoring of the plurality of pieces of content. Thereby, the user is presented with a custom piece of content, specific to the time of the QR code scan and ambient event data associated with the delivery location.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The identified improvements of providing customized content argued by Applicant are really, at best, improvements to the performance of the abstract idea itself (e.g. improvements made in the underlying business method) and not in the operations of any additional elements or technology. For example, in Trading Tech, the court determined that the claim simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology. Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Similar to Trading Tech the role of the interface is providing information. The selection of which information to provide is not an improvement to the functioning of the interface but instead is improvement to the underlying abstract idea.
Regarding the previous rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant presented the following arguments:
The invention claimed in the pending application is analogous to the example 23 claim in that the claimed invention also recites features necessarily rooted in computer technology that overcome a problem specific to graphical user interfaces. Here, as stated above, the problem is that traditional systems only provide static or generic content on shipping labels that are not dependent on or associated with the user receiving the package (see, Specification, paras. [0002]- [0003]), and the claimed solution rooted in computer technology is a system that, upon detecting a scan of a QR code from a user device, determines content relevant to the user at that time that includes real-time local event information specific to the delivery location at the time of the scan. The system further generates and outputs the content to the user on the same device associated with the scan. Thereby, the user is provided with immediate customized content relevant to the user at their location in real-time upon receiving the shipped item.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The identified improvements of providing customized content argued by Applicant are really, at best, improvements to the performance of the abstract idea itself (e.g. improvements made in the underlying business method) and not in the operations of any additional elements or technology. For example, in Trading Tech, the court determined that the claim simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology. Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
Regarding example 23 of the Eligibility Guidelines, the claim recites the limitations of displaying a first and second window, detecting an overlap condition indicating the windows overlap such that textual information in the first window is obscured from view, determining the textual information is too large to fit in an unobstructed portion of the first window, scaling the textual information based upon the calculated scale factor, automatically relocating the scaled textual information to an unobstructed portion of the first window so that it is viewable by the user, and automatically returning the textual information to its original format when the overlap condition no longer exists. These limitations are not merely attempting to limit the mathematical algorithm to a particular technological environment. Instead, these claim limitations recite a specific application of the mathematical algorithm that improves the functioning of the basic display function of the computer itself. As discussed above, the scaling and relocating the textual information in overlapping windows improves the ability of the computer to display information and interact with the user.
In the instant case, the claims do not improve the function of the computer itself like the claims in example 23. Rather the instant claims merely attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Regarding the previous rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant presented the following arguments:
Applicant contends that the features above do not fall into the methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas. Indeed, the claimed features related to receiving scan data from a user device, determining ambient data based on the scan time and delivery location, generating dynamic content, and outputting content to the device performing the scan in real- time do not fall into the interactions associated with methods of organizing human activity.
Applicant contends that the features above do not fall into the mental process grouping of abstract ideas. Indeed, Applicant fails to see how the claimed features such as receiving scan data from a user device and ultimately presenting data relevant to the scan on the same user device in real-time can be performed by the human mind or with pen and paper.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims recite a method of organizing human activity because the identified idea is a fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk) by reciting using shipping labels to convey information about a package. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A). The claims recite a method of organizing human activity because the identified idea is a commercial or legal interaction (including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors) by reciting providing customized content to a recipient based upon their package related data. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B).
Regarding the previous rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant presented the following arguments:
As amended, claim 1 successfully integrates the claim into the particular technological environment of systems for generating customized content for delivered packages based on the delivery location and scan data associated with the scan of a package QR code. Claim 1 recites, upon detecting a scan of a QR code from a user device, determining content relevant to the user at that time that includes real-time local event information specific to the delivery location at the time of the scan. The system further generates and outputs the content to the user on the same device associated with the scan. Thereby, the user is provided with immediate customized content relevant to the user at their location in real-time upon receiving the shipped item
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The identified improvements of providing customized content argued by Applicant are really, at best, improvements to the performance of the abstract idea itself (e.g. improvements made in the underlying business method) and not in the operations of any additional elements or technology. For example, in Trading Tech, the court determined that the claim simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology. Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
In Solutran, Inc. v. Elavon, Inc., 931 F.3d 1161, 2019 USPQ2d 281076 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the claims were to methods for electronically processing paper checks, all of which contained limitations setting forth receiving merchant transaction data from a merchant, crediting a merchant’s account, and receiving and scanning paper checks after the merchant’s account is credited. In particular, the court determined that the claims "did not improve the technical capture of information from a check to create a digital file or the technical step of electronically crediting a bank account" nor did the claims "improve how a check is scanned." Id. Similarly, the instant claims do not improve the technical capture of a QR Code and therefore the claimed scanning a QR code is not a practical application.
Performance of the identified abstract idea in real time does not make the identified abstract idea any less abstract. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1368-69 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("Indeed, the budgeting calculations at issue here are unpatentable because they could still be made using a pencil and paper with a simple notification device, even in real time as expenditures were being made.”).
Regarding the previous rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant presented the following arguments:
Applicant submits that claim 1, as amended, recites features that firmly link the claimed invention to the particular technological environment of systems for generating customized content for delivered packages. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that claim 2, as amended, is patent eligible pursuant to step 2A prong 2.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use does not, alone, meaningfully limit the claim. Employing generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, does not add significantly more, similar to how limiting the abstract idea in Flook to petrochemical and oil-refining industries was insufficient. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Regarding the previous rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant presented the following arguments:
The Applicant submits that the WURC nature of the claimed features must be considered under the step 2B analysis pursuant to 2106.05(d), and that any determination of WURC must be properly supported in writing using the evidentiary requirements found in MPEP 2106.07(a)(III). Absent such an assertion, the Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1 includes additional elements that amount to significantly more than the alleged abstract idea pursuant to step 2B analysis, and is therefore patent eligible.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the following additional elements because they are described in a manner that indicates the elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a): a processor (Specification [0030]), a computer readable medium (Specification [0031]-[0032]), a computer storage device (Specification [0031]), a computer (Specification [0029]), and scanning a QR code to link to content (Specification [0043]). See MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2).
Regarding the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view the new grounds of rejection.
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 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Alice/Mayo Framework Step 1:
Claims 1-7 recite a combination of devices and therefore recite a machine.
Claims 8-14 recite a series of steps and therefore recite a process.
Claims 15-20 recite a tangible article given properties through artificial means and therefore recite a manufacture.
Alice/Mayo Framework Step 2A – Prong 1:
Claims 1, 8, and 15, as a whole, are directed to the abstract idea of targeting custom content to the recipient of a package based upon the information about the package, which is a method of organizing human activity. The claims recite a method of organizing human activity because the identified idea is a fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk) by reciting using shipping labels to convey information about a package. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A). The claims recite a method of organizing human activity because the identified idea is a commercial or legal interaction (including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors) by reciting providing customized content to a recipient based upon their package related data. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B). The method of organizing human activity of “targeting custom content to the recipient of a package based upon the information about the package,” is recited by claiming the following limitations: obtaining package related data, applying a set of rules, generating customized content, identifying space on a shipping label, generating a QR code, printing the QR code on the label, receiving scan data, determining ambient data, scoring pieces of content, generating updated customized content, and outputting the content. The mere nominal recitation of a processor, a computer readable medium, a computer storage device, a computer, a user device, and scanning a QR code to link to content does not take the claim of the method of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
With regards to Claims 3-6, 9-14, and 16-20, the claims further recite the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea) by reciting the following limitations: receiving event data, updating customized content based on the event data, outputting customized content, predicting content of interest, selecting customized content, authenticating a user, and providing access to the customized content based on authentication.
Alice/Mayo Framework Step 2A – Prong 2:
Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite the additional elements: a processor, a computer readable medium, a computer storage device, a computer, a user device, and scanning a QR code to link to content. These processor, computer readable medium, computer storage device, computer, and user device limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The scanning a QR code to link to content step is recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Regarding claims 2, 6, 13, and 19 the scanning a QR code to link to a website and machine learning limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Taken individually 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.
Considering the limitations containing the judicial exception as well as the additional elements in the claim besides the judicial exception does not amount to a practical application of the abstract idea. The claim as a whole does not improve the functioning of a computer or improve other technology or improve a technical field. The claim as a whole is not implemented with a particular machine. The claim as a whole does not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state. The claim as a whole is not applied in any meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of cross selling products in a computer environment. The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform an existing advertising process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Alice/Mayo Framework Step 2B:
Claims 1, 8, and 15 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims recite a generic computer performing generic computer function by reciting a processor, a computer readable medium, a computer storage device, a user device, and a computer. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1341 (describing a “processor” as a generic computer component); Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324–25 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims reciting an “interface,” “network,” and a “database” are nevertheless directed to an abstract idea); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347–48 (discussing the same with respect to “data” and “memory”). The claims recite the following computer functions recognized by the courts as generic computer functions by reciting receiving information (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec; TLI Communications LLC; OIP Techs.; buySAFE, Inc.), processing information (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) performing repetitive calculations, Flook; Bancorp Services), presenting information (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), MPEP 2106.05(g) presenting offers gathering statistics, OIP Technologies), and updating information (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp.; Ultramercial). The specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the following additional elements because they are described in a manner that indicates the elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a): a processor (Specification [0030]), a computer readable medium (Specification [0031]-[0032]), a computer storage device (Specification [0031]), a computer (Specification [0029]), and scanning a QR code to link to content (Specification [0043]). See MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2). The claims add the words “apply it” or words equivalent to “apply the abstract idea” such as instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer by a processor, a computer readable medium, a computer storage device, a computer, and scanning a QR code to link to a website. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims recite insignificant extrasolution activity (i.e. mere data gathering and selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated) by reciting shipping labels, QR codes, and scanning QR codes. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The claims limit the field of use by reciting the shipping field. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. See MPEP 2106.05(a). Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. See MPEP 2106.05(b). Therefore, the claims do not include additional elements alone, and in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
With regards to Claims 2, 6, 13, and 19, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Regarding claims 2, 6, 13, and 19, the specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the following additional elements because they are described in a manner that indicates the elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a): scanning a QR code to link to a website (Specification [0043]) and machine learning (Specification [0086]-[0087]). See MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2). Claims 2, 6, 13, and 19 add the words “apply it” or words equivalent to “apply the abstract idea” such as instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer by reciting scanning a QR code to link to a website and machine learning. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. See MPEP 2106.05(a). Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. See MPEP 2106.05(b). Therefore, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Remaining Claims:
With regards to Claims 7, these claims merely add a degree of particularity to the limitations discussed above rather than adding additional elements capable of transforming the nature of the claimed subject matter. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, the claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-12, and 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gillen et al. (U.S. P.G. Pub. 2015/0066798 A1), hereinafter Gillen, in view of Otto et al. (U.S. P.G. Pub. 2009/0132344 A1), hereinafter Otto, in view of Gavriliu et al. (U.S. P.G. Pub. 2017/0372362 A1), hereinafter Gavriliu.
Claim 1.
Gillen discloses a system for generating dynamically customized content associated with personalized shipping labels, the system comprising:
a processor (Gillen [0049]); and
a computer-readable medium storing instructions that are operative upon execution by the processor to (Gillen [0049]):
obtain package-related data associated with an item to be shipped to a user at a delivery location from a plurality of data sources (Gillen [0068], [0080], [0081] carrier data comprises package data; [0072] carrier assigned shipper identifier; [0084] shipment identifier; [0081], [0094] consignee identifier; [0103] proximate time may be upon arrival at the delivery address; [0111] third party identifier);
apply a set of rules to the package-related data (Gillen [0116], [0121], [0123], [0219] business rules such as foreign-based jurisdictional classification may take priority over any user-defined preferences or parameters; [0124] delayed shipment rules);
generate a plurality of pieces of content and select from the plurality of pieces of content an initial customized content predicted to be of interest to the user based on a result of application of the set of rules to the package-related data (Gillen [0088], [0121] provide a hyperlink associated with an audio, image and/or video filed uploaded with some portion of the data such as a personal message, an advertisement, information about the item being shipped and/or return instructions);
identify customizable space on a shipping label associated with a carrier ID of a carrier shipping the item (Gillen [0153] determine placement of rendered data on labels; [0121], [0154], [0183], [0187] content may be on package label; [0171] business rules for rendering);
generate a QR code linked to the initial customized content (Gillen Fig. 17 item 1503, [0187], [0200], [0201] customized content may be embedded within a machine-readable symbol shown in item 1503 as a QR code);
print the QR code within the customizable space of the shipping label prior to shipping the item to the user (Gillen Fig. 17, [0187] customized content 1508 may communicate promotional offers and customized content may be embedded within a barcode 1507, a tracking number 1506, or a machine-readable symbol 1503);
Regarding the following limitation:
receive scan data from a user device used to scan the QR code, the scan data identifying a time at which the QR code was scanned by the user device;
Gillen discloses receive scan data from a user device used to scan the QR code (Gillen [0201] scanning machine-readable symbols to retrieve customized content). However, Gillen does not disclose the scan data identifying a time at which the QR code was scanned by the user device, but Otto does (Otto [0079] determine if moment in time the barcode is scanned matches the condition).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include the moment in time the barcode is scanned in Otto in the system of Gillen in order to easily compare the expected arrival of a package to the actual arrival time of a package. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the scan time as taught by Otto in the system of Gillen, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in the art of advertising, 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. Specifically, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that only routine engineering would be required to incorporate the above features and yield predictable result of Gillen’s system with the improved functionality to only provide promotions that the user scanning the promotion is eligible to use.
Regarding the following limitation:
determine ambient data associated with the delivery location based on the time at which the QR code was scanned, the ambient data comprising real-time local events specific to the delivery location at the time at which the QR code was scanned;
Gillen discloses receive scan data from a user device used to scan the QR code (Gillen [0201] scanning machine-readable symbols to retrieve customized content). However, Gillen does not disclose determine ambient data associated with the delivery location based on the time at which the QR code was scanned, the ambient data comprising real-time local events specific to the delivery location at the time at which the QR code was scanned, but Pacey does (Pacey [0127] QR code may provide local attractions such as theme parks or public events such as concerts).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to determine the public event data when the QR is scanned in Pacey in the system of Gillen in order to provide a variety of promotions that can be offered to a recipient. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the public event data as taught by Pacey in the system of Gillen, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in the art of advertising, 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. Specifically, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that only routine engineering would be required to incorporate the above features and yield predictable result of Gillen’s system with the improved functionality to only provide a wider variety of promotions thereby increasing the chances a user may be interested in a promotion.
Gillen, as modified above by Otto, teaches:
determine a score for each of the plurality of pieces of content based on the time and a shopping history associated with the user as of the time (Gillen [0122], [0034] rank attractiveness of advertisement content using the shipping history of the product to the consignee);
Regarding the following limitation:
generate dynamically updated customized content from the plurality of pieces of content in real-time based on the time, the dynamically updated customized content being different from the initial customized content and having a highest score of the determined scores; and
Gillen discloses generate dynamically updated customized content from the plurality of pieces of content in real-time based on the time, the dynamically updated customized content being different from the initial customized content (Gillen [0217], [0220] provide a promotion for late delivery; [0240] event specific custom content; [0122], [0034] rank attractiveness of advertisement content using the shipping history of the product to the consignee). However, Gillen does not disclose the dynamically updated customized content being different from the initial customized content and having a highest score of the determined scores, but Gavriliu does (Gavriliu [0011], [0015], [0017] when a shopper’s shopping cart stops, user information (i.e. purchase history) can be used to run a micro auction that ranks possible advertisements in real time; [0030], [0039] real-time auction).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include the different content having the highest rank as in Gavriliu in the system of Gillen in order to maximize the effectiveness of a promotion. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the different content having the highest rank as taught by Gavriliu in the system of Gillen, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in the art of advertising, 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. Specifically, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that only routine engineering would be required to incorporate the above features and yield predictable result of Gillen’s system with the improved functionality to maximize the effectiveness of a particular promotion.
Gillen, as modified above by Otto, discloses:
output the dynamically updated customized content to the user device in response to the QR code being scanned at the time (Gillen [0201] customized advertisement and its associated data may be retrievable by scanning one or more of the machine-readable symbols; [0217], [0220] provide a promotion for late delivery; [0240] event specific custom content).
Claim 2.
Gillen in view of Otto, Pacey, and Gavriliu teaches all the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Additionally, Gillen discloses:
wherein the user scans the QR code on the shipping label to access a website storing the dynamically updated customized content (Gillen [0088], [0121] link to a website; [0183] customized communications may comprise a message embedded onto a package label via a barcode or other machine-readable symbol placed thereon; Fig. 17 item 1503, [0187] customized content may be embedded within a machine-readable symbol shown in item 1503 as a QR code).
Claim 3.
Gillen in view of Otto, Pacey, and Gavriliu teaches all the elements of claim 2, as shown above. Additionally, Gillen discloses:
wherein the dynamically updated customized content comprising a first set of customized content and wherein instructions are further operative to: receive updated event data associated with an event occurring during transit of a package including the shipping label (Gillen [0124], [0222] where a consignor has established an account generic parameter or custom content advertisement (e.g., a 5% discount), the consignor may also establish event-specific parameters or custom content advertisements (e.g., a 10% discount where shipments are delayed). In such instances, according to certain embodiments, the event-specific custom content will take priority over the account generic content, such that if a particular package is, in fact, delayed for delivery, the 10% discount will be applied.);
generate a second set of customized content based on the updated event data (Gillen [0124], [0217], [0222], [0240] consignor may establish event-specific parameters or custom content advertisements (e.g., a 10% discount where shipments are delayed) and will take priority over the account generic content); and
update the dynamically updated customized content with the second set of customized content prior to receipt of the package by an intended recipient (Gillen [0124], [0222] where a consignor has established an account generic parameter or custom content advertisement (e.g., a 5% discount), the consignor may also establish event-specific parameters or custom content advertisements (e.g., a 10% discount where shipments are delayed). In such instances, according to certain embodiments, the event-specific custom content will take priority over the account generic content, such that if a particular package is, in fact, delayed for delivery, the 10% discount will be applied).
Claim 4.
Gillen in view of Otto, Pacey, and Gavriliu teaches all the elements of claim 2, as shown above. Additionally, Gillen discloses:
wherein the dynamically updated customized content is first dynamically customized content, wherein the user is a first user, and wherein instructions are further operative to: output the first dynamically customized content to the first user in response to the first user scanning the QR code of the shipping label (Gillen [0116], [0121], [0123], [0219] business rules such as foreign-based jurisdictional classification may take priority over any user-defined preferences or parameters); and
output second dynamically customized content to a second user in response to the second user scanning the QR code of the shipping label (Gillen [0116], [0121], [0123], [0219] business rules such as foreign-based jurisdictional classification may take priority over any user-defined preferences or parameters),
wherein the second dynamically customized content is different customized content than the first dynamically customized content (Gillen [0116], [0121], [0123], [0219] business rules such as foreign-based jurisdictional classification may take priority over any user-defined preferences or parameters).
Claim 5.
Gillen in view of Otto, Pacey, and Gavriliu teaches all the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Additionally, Gillen discloses:
wherein the dynamically updated customized content is first dynamically customized content, and wherein the instructions are further operative to: output the first dynamically customized content to the user in response to the user scanning the QR code at a first time (Gillen [0124], [0222] where a consignor has established an account generic parameter or custom content advertisement (e.g., a 5% discount)); and
output second dynamically customized content to the user in response to the user scanning the QR code at a second time (Gillen [0124], [0217], [0222], [0240] consignor may establish event-specific parameters or custom content advertisements (e.g., a 10% discount where shipments are delayed) and will take priority over the account generic content),
wherein the first dynamically customized content is different customized content than the second dynamically customized content (Gillen [0124], [0222] where a consignor has established an account generic parameter or custom content advertisement (e.g., a 5% discount), the consignor may also establish event-specific parameters or custom content advertisements (e.g., a 10% discount where shipments are delayed). In such instances, according to certain embodiments, the event-specific custom content will take priority over the account generic content, such that if a particular package is, in fact, delayed for delivery, the 10% discount will be applied).
Claim 7.
Gillen in view of Otto, Pacey, and Gavriliu teaches all the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Additionally, Gillen discloses:
wherein the package-related data comprises merchant data, carrier data, recipient data, ambient data, and package data (Gillen [0068] consignor data database, carrier data database, consignee data database, third party data database; [0080] package data; [0220] weather delay).
Claim 8.
Gillen discloses a method for generating dynamically customized content associated with personalized shipping labels, the method comprising:
analyzing package-related data associated with an item to be shipped to a user at a delivery location using a set of rules, the package-related data including a carrier identification (ID) associated with a carrier shipping the item to the user (Gillen [0068], [0080], [0081] carrier data comprises package data; [0072] carrier assigned shipper identifier; [0084] shipment identifier; [0081], [0094] consignee identifier; [0103] proximate time may be upon arrival at the delivery address; [0111] third party identifier; [0116], [0121], [0123], [0219] business rules such as foreign-based jurisdictional classification may take priority over any user-defined preferences or parameters; [0124] delayed shipment rules);
generating a plurality of pieces of content and selecting from the plurality of pieces of content an initial customized content predicted to be of interest to the user based on a result of analysis of the package-related data (Gillen [0088], [0121] provide a hyperlink associated with an audio, image and/or video filed uploaded with some portion of the data such as a personal message, an advertisement, information about the item being shipped and/or return instructions);
identifying customizable space of a shipping label associated with the carrier ID associated with the carrier shipping the item to the user (Gillen [0153] determine placement of rendered data on labels; [0121], [0154], [0183], [0187] content may be on package label; [0171] business rules for rendering);
generating a customized content code linked to the initial customized content (Gillen Fig. 17 item 1503, [0187], [0200], [0201] customized content may be embedded within a machine-readable symbol shown in item 1503 as a QR code);
printing the customized content code within at least a portion of the customizable space associated with the shipping label (Gillen Fig. 17, [0187] customized content 1508 may communicate promotional offers and customized content may be embedded within a barcode 1507, a tracking number 1506, or a machine-readable symbol 1503);
Regarding the following limitation:
receiving scan data from a user device used to scan the customized content code, the scan data identifying a time at which the customized content code was scanned;
Gillen discloses receive scan data from a user device used to scan the QR code (Gillen [0201] scanning machine-readable symbols to retrieve customized content). However, Gillen does not disclose the scan data identifying a time at which the customized content code was scanned, but Otto does (Otto [0079] determine if moment in time the barcode is scanned matches the condition).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include the moment in time the barcode is scanned in Otto in the system of Gillen in order to easily compare the expected arrival of a package to the actual arrival time of a package. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the scan time as taught by Otto in the system of Gillen, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in the art of advertising, 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. Specifically, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that only routine engineering would be required to incorporate the above features and yield predictable result of Gillen’s system with the improved functionality to only provide promotions that the user scanning the promotion is eligible to use.
Regarding the following limitation:
determine ambient data associated with the delivery location based on the time at which the customized content code was scanned, the ambient data comprising real-time local events specific to the delivery location at the time at which the customized content code was scanned;
Gillen discloses receive scan data from a user device used to scan the QR code (Gillen [0201] scanning machine-readable symbols to retrieve customized content). However, Gillen does not disclose determine ambient data associated with the delivery location based on the time at which the customized content code was scanned, the ambient data comprising real-time local events specific to the delivery location at the time at which the customized content code was scanned, but Pacey does (Pacey [0127] QR code may provide local attractions such as theme parks or public events such as concerts).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to determine the public event data when the QR is scanned in Pacey in the system of Gillen in order to provide a variety of promotions that can be offered to a recipient. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the public event data as taught by Pacey in the system of Gillen, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in the art of advertising, 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. Specifically, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that only routine engineering would be required to incorporate the above features and yield predictable result of Gillen’s system with the improved functionality to only provide a wider variety of promotions thereby increasing the chances a user may be interested in a promotion.
Gillen, as modified above by Otto, teaches:
determining a score for each of the plurality of pieces of content based on the time, the ambient data, and a shopping history associated with the user as of the time (Gillen [0122], [0034] rank attractiveness of advertisement content using the shipping history of the product to the consignee);
Regarding the following limitation:
generating dynamically updated customized content from the plurality of pieces of content in real-time based on the time, the dynamically updated customized content being different from the initial customized content and having a highest score of the determined scores; and
Gillen discloses generate dynamically updated customized content from the plurality of pieces of content in real-time based on the time, the dynamically updated customized content being different from the initial customized content (Gillen [0217], [0220] provide a promotion for late delivery; [0240] event specific custom content; [0122], [0034] rank attractiveness of advertisement content using the shipping history of the product to the consignee). However, Gillen does not disclose the dynamically updated customized content being different from the initial customized content and having a highest score of the determined scores, but Gavriliu does (Gavriliu [0011], [0015], [0017] when a shopper’s shopping cart stops, user information (i.e. purchase history) can be used to run a micro auction that ranks possible advertisements in real time; [0030], [0039] real-time auction).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include the different content having the highest rank as in Gavriliu in the system of Gillen in order to maximize the effectiveness of a promotion. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the different content having the highest rank as taught by Gavriliu in the system of Gillen, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in the art of advertising, 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. Specifically, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that only routine engineering would be required to incorporate the above features and yield predictable result of Gillen’s system with the improved functionality to maximize the effectiveness of a particular promotion.
Gillen, as modified above by Otto, discloses:
linking the dynamically updated customized content to the customized content code printed on the shipping label, wherein the dynamically updated customized content is output to the user in response to the user scanning the customized content code at the time (Gillen [0088], [0121] link to a website; [0183] customized communications may comprise a message embedded onto a package label via a barcode or other machine-readable symbol placed thereon; Fig. 17 item 1503, [0187] customized content may be embedded within a machine-readable symbol shown in item 1503 as a QR code).
Claim 9.
Gillen in view of Otto, Pacey, and Gavriliu teaches all the elements of claim 8, as shown above. Additionally, Gillen discloses:
receiving event data associated with an event occurring after shipping a package having the shipping label from a source (Gillen [0124], [0222] where a consignor has established an account generic parameter or custom content advertisement (e.g., a 5% discount), the consignor may also establish event-specific parameters or custom content advertisements (e.g., a 10% discount where shipments are delayed). In such instances, according to certain embodiments, the event-specific custom content will take priority over the account generic content, such that if a particular package is, in fact, delayed for delivery, the 10% discount will be applied.);
updating the dynamically updated customized content in response to the event data in real-time as the package is in transit from the source to an intended recipient (Gillen [0124], [0222] where a consignor has established an account generic parameter or custom content advertisement (e.g., a 5% discount), the consignor may also establish event-specific parameters or custom content advertisements (e.g., a 10% discount where shipments are delayed). In such instances, according to certain embodiments, the event-specific custom content will take priority over the account generic content, such that if a particular package is, in fact, delayed for delivery, the 10% discount will be applied); and
linking the updated dynamically updated customized content to the customized content code, wherein the updated dynamically updated customized content is output to the intended recipient in response to the intended recipient scanning the customized content code (Gillen [0124], [0222] where a consignor has established an account generic parameter or custom content advertisement (e.g., a 5% discount), the consignor may also establish event-specific parameters or custom content advertisements (e.g., a 10% discount where shipments are delayed). In such instances, according to certain embodiments, the event-specific custom content will take priority over the account generic content, such that if a particular package is, in fact, delayed for delivery, the 10% discount will be applied).
Claim 10.
Gillen in view of Otto, Pacey, and Gavriliu teaches all the elements of claim 9, as shown above. Additionally, Gillen discloses:
wherein the dynamically updated customized content comprises a first set of customized content, and further comprising: receiving updated event data associated with an event occurring after a package having the shipping label is received by an intended recipient (Gillen [0124], [0222] where a consignor has established an account generic parameter or custom content advertisement (e.g., a 5% discount), the consignor may also establish event-specific parameters or custom content advertisements (e.g., a 10% discount where shipments are delayed). In such instances, according to certain embodiments, the event-specific custom content will take priority over the account generic content, such that if a particular package is, in fact, delayed for delivery, the 10% discount will be applied);
generating a second set of customized content based on the updated event data (Gillen [0124], [0222] where a consignor has established an account generic parameter or custom content advertisement (e.g., a 5% discount), the consignor may also establish event-specific parameters or custom content advertisements (e.g., a 10% discount where shipments are delayed). In such instances, according to certain embodiments, the event-specific custom content will take priority over the account generic content, such that if a particular package is, in fact, delayed for delivery, the 10% discount will be applied); and
updating the dynamically updated customized content with the second set of customized content, wherein the second set of customized content is output to the intended recipient in response to the intended recipient scanning the customized content code (Gillen [0124], [0222] where a consignor has established an account generic parameter or custom content advertisement (e.g., a 5% discount), the consignor may also establish event-specific parameters or custom content advertisements (e.g., a 10% discount where shipments are delayed). In such instances, according to certain embodiments, the event-specific custom content will take priority over the account generic content, such that if a particular package is, in fact, delayed for delivery, the 10% discount will be applied).
Claim 11.
Gillen in view of Otto, Pacey, and Gavriliu teaches all the elements of claim 11 as shown above in claim 4.
Claim 12.
Gillen in view of Otto, Pacey, and Gavriliu teaches all the elements of claim 12 as shown above in claim 5.
Claim 15.
Gillen in view of Otto, Pacey, and Gavriliu teaches all the elements of claim 15 as shown above in claim 8.
Claim 16.
Gillen in view of Otto, Pacey, and Gavriliu teaches all the elements of claim 15, as shown above. Additionally, Gillen discloses:
wherein the dynamically updated customized content comprises a first set of dynamically customized content, and wherein the operations further comprise: receiving event data associated with an event occurring after shipping the package to a location associated with the user (Gillen [0124], [0222] where a consignor has established an account generic parameter or custom content advertisement (e.g., a 5% discount), the consignor may also establish event-specific parameters or custom content advertisements (e.g., a 10% discount where shipments are delayed). In such instances, according to certain embodiments, the event-specific custom content will take priority over the account generic content, such that if a particular package is, in fact, delayed for delivery, the 10% discount will be applied.);
generating a second set of customized content based on updated event data (Gillen [0124], [0222] where a consignor has established an account generic parameter or custom content advertisement (e.g., a 5% discount), the consignor may also establish event-specific parameters or custom content advertisements (e.g., a 10% discount where shipments are delayed). In such instances, according to certain embodiments, the event-specific custom content will take priority over the account generic content, such that if a particular package is, in fact, delayed for delivery, the 10% discount will be applied.); and
updating the dynamically customized content with the second set of customized content, wherein the user receives the updated dynamically customized content in response to scanning the customized content code after receipt of the package instead of the first dynamically customized content (Gillen [0124], [0222] where a consignor has established an account generic parameter or custom content advertisement (e.g., a 5% discount), the consignor may also establish event-specific parameters or custom content advertisements (e.g., a 10% discount where shipments are delayed). In such instances, according to certain embodiments, the event-specific custom content will take priority over the account generic content, such that if a particular package is, in fact, delayed for delivery, the 10% discount will be applied).
Claim 17.
Gillen in view of Otto, Pacey, and Gavriliu teaches all the elements of claim 17 as shown above in claim 4.
Claim 18.
Gillen in view of Otto, Pacey, and Gavriliu teaches all the elements of claim 18 as shown above in claim 5.
Claim(s) 6, 13, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gillen in view of Otto, Pacey, and Gavriliu further in view of Chennavasin et al. (U.S. 10,832,290 B1), hereinafter Chennavasin.
Claim 6.
Gillen in view of Otto, Pacey, and Gavriliu teaches all the elements of claim 1, as shown above. However, Gillen does not disclose the following limitation, but Chennavasin does:
analyze the package-related data by a machine learning component (Chennavasin (Col. 25 Lines 18-37) a machine learning system may be trained to determine a promotion score and may be used to determine a probability value that a specific consumer is likely to purchase the promotion based on the data inputs of the specific consumer);
The known technique using machine learning to determine a promotion score of Chennavasin, as shown above, is applicable to the ranking of attractiveness of advertisements of Gillen (Gillen [0034], [0122]) as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are determining the best advertisement to send to a particular consumer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of using machine learning to determine a promotion score of Chennavasin to advertisement ranking of Gillen would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Chennavasin to the teaching of Gillen would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such machine learning features into promotion ranking systems. Further, applying machine learning to Gillen, would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more efficient evaluation of different promotions based on the individual user being targeted rather than evaluating the generic effectiveness of an advertisement.
Gillen discloses:
predict a plurality of content of interest to the user based on the analysis (Gillen [0034], [0122] ranking the attractiveness of advertisements); and
select the initial customized content from the plurality of content, the selected initial customized content including a promotion having a highest predicted likelihood of being utilized by the user (Gillen [0034] highest ranked work product is selected).
Claim 13.
Gillen in view of Otto, Pacey, Gavriliu, and Chennavasin teaches all of the elements of claim 13 as shown above in claim 6.
Claim 19.
Gillen in view of Otto, Pacey, Gavriliu, and Chennavasin teaches all of the elements of claim 19 as shown above in claim 6.
Claim(s) 14 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gillen in view of Otto, Pacey, and Gavriliu, further in view of Ivester et al. (U.S. P.G. Pub. 2019/0130352 A1), hereinafter Ivester.
Claim 14.
Gillen in view of Otto, Pacey, and Gavriliu teaches all the elements of claim 1, as shown above. However, Gillen does not disclose the following limitation, but Ivester does:
authenticating the user using credential associated with the user (Ivester [0023], [0054] authentication code provided separate from the package); and
providing access to the dynamically updated customized content linked to the customized content code in response to successful authentication of the user, wherein the user is denied access to the dynamically updated customized content in response to a failure to authenticate the user (Ivester [0023], [0054] message service may prompt the recipient for the authorization code in response to the receiving the message request, prior to transmitting the video message data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the access of hyperlinked content by a recipient of a package of Gillen by including an authentication of the recipient as taught by Ivester. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to prevent persons other than the intended recipient from accessing the video, as suggested by Ivester (Ivester [0023], [0051], [0054] prevent persons other than the intended recipient from accessing the video).
Claim 20.
Gillen in view of Otto, Pacey, Gavriliu, and Ivester teaches all the elements of claim 20 as shown above in claim 14.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT M TUNGATE whose telephone number is (571)431-0763. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 - 4:30 EST.
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.
/SCOTT M TUNGATE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628