DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Applicant Remarks and Amendments filed on 12/09/2025.
Claims 1 and 32-34 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 2 and 15-17 have been canceled.
Claims 1, 3-14, and 18-31 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claims 32-34 are allowed.
This action is made FINAL.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 10, filed 12/09/2025, with respect to the claim objection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of Claim 33 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see Pages 11-14, filed 12/09/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of Claims 1-21, 23-31, and 35 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Examiner notes the step of “issuing an alert if the location of the device and the stored location for the NFC device of the particular property or receptacle do not match” would integrate the abstract idea into practical application because it improves a technical field as discussed in the specification (see Paragraph [0174] of Published Specification). However, as currently written, this limitation is a contingent limitation in a method claim. Therefore, this limitation is not required, and therefore, it does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application as it is outside the scope of claim. See MPEP 2111.04 II – “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. If the claimed invention requires the first condition to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires step A. If the claimed invention requires both the first and second conditions to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires both steps A and B… See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system claims. In Schulhauser, both method claims and system claims recited the same contingent step. When analyzing the claimed method as a whole, the PTAB determined that giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation, "[i]f the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed" (quotation omitted). Schulhauser at 10. When analyzing the claimed system as a whole, the PTAB determined that "[t]he broadest reasonable interpretation of a system claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, still requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur." Schulhauser at 14. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
In order to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, Examiner respectfully suggests that the limitation of issuing an alert step in Claim 1 to recite as “in response to determining that the location of the device and the stored location for the NFC device of the particular property or receptacle do not match, issuing an alert”. Examiner also notes that there are multiple dependent claims such as Claims 7, 12, 20, 21, 22, 28, and 30 recite different alerts and appropriate correction is required to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection identified below.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 14-15, filed 12/09/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 rejections of Claims 1-31 and 33-35 have been fully considered and persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 rejections of Claims 1-31 and 33-35 have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 7-8, 12, 20-24, 28, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 7, 12, and 20-22 recite the limitation "an alert" and Claim 1 also recites the limitation “an alert”. It is unclear if the alerts recited in Claims 7, 12, 20-22, 28, and 30 are the same alert from Claim 1. For examining purposes, the alerts recited in Claims 7, 12, 20-22, 28, and 30 are interpreted to be the different alert from Claim 1 such as “an alert” in Claim 7 is interpreted to be “a second alert”, “an alert” in Claim 12 is interpreted to be “a third alert”, “an alert” in Claim 20 is interpreted to be “a fourth alert”, “an alert” in Claim 21 is interpreted to be “a fifth alert”, “the alert” in Claim 22 is interpreted to be “the fifth alert”, “an alert” in Claim 28 is interpreted to be “a sixth alert”, and “an alert” in Claim 30 is interpreted to be “a seventh alert”. Claim 8 and Claims 23 and 24 depend from Claim 7 and Claim 22, respectively and inherit deficiency of their parent claims. Therefore, Claims 7-8, 12, 20-24, 28, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite.
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 1-21, 23-31, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-21, 23-31, and 35 are directed to one of the four statutory categories (process, machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter) since the claimed invention falls into “a process” (a method for assisting in delivery or collection of a plurality of mail pieces and monitoring the delivery/collection of the plurality of mail pieces), “a machine” (a system and device for assisting in delivery or collection of a plurality of mail pieces and monitoring the delivery/collection of the plurality of mail pieces), and “an article of manufacture” (a computer program product for assisting in delivery or collection of a plurality of mail pieces and monitoring the delivery/collection of the plurality of mail pieces) categories.
Regarding Claims 1-21, 23-31, and 35, the claim invention is directed to a judicial exception to patentability, an abstract idea.
Claim 1 recites the following limitations:
A method for performing at least one of assisting in delivery or collection of a plurality mail pieces, monitoring delivery of the plurality of mail pieces, or monitoring collection the plurality of mail pieces, each mail piece being delivered to or collected from a respective property or receptacle having a respective address or identifier, the method comprising:
using …, to determine a location during at least one of a delivery round or a collection round, …, and …;
using at least one …, … boundary data defining … regions to obtain a respective boundary defining a respective … region for each property or receptacle;
determining, using …, whether … is within a particular … region for a particular property or receptacle for which a particular mail piece is to be delivered or collected;
… in accordance with, or as part of, a delivery/collection protocol, wherein the delivery/collection protocol includes checking whether there is a match between the location of … and a stored location for … of the particular property or receptacle;
issuing at least one communication or performing at least one action using … in response to the presence of … in the particular … region; and
issuing an alert if the location of … and the stored location for … of the particular property or receptacle do not match.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The limitations for Claim 1 described above are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover concepts that involve commercial interactions. The limitations of determining, obtaining, and issuing at least one communication or performing at least one action in response to the presence of the user/carrier in the particular region, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover concepts that involve a commercial interaction. Therefore, other than reciting a generic computerized system, a generic database, and generic user devices, nothing in the claim elements preclude anything outside the grouping of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”. Accordingly, this claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites additional elements – “a device, which includes or is connected to location-determining circuitry”, “database, which stores”, “the location-determining circuitry”, “the device”, “geofence”, “wherein the device comprises a handheld device and a near-field communication (NFC) device reader”, “wherein the location-determining circuitry comprises Global Positioning System (GPS) circuitry”, “communicating, by the device, with an NFC device of the particular property or receptacle”, and “the NFC device”. The additional elements “geofence” and “communicating, by the device, with an NFC device of the particular property or receptacle” in the claim limitation represent mere generally linking of the use of the judicial exception (the abstract idea) to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of determining, obtaining, and issuing at least one communication or performing at least one action in response to the presence of the user/carrier in the particular region by using generic computer components. The claimed computer components are recited at high level of generality and merely invoked as a tool to perform a process for assisting and monitoring the delivery or collection of a plurality of mail pieces (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer component is not a practical application. Accordingly, alone and 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. This claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim 1 does 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 elements of using a computer system to perform a process for assisting and monitoring the delivery or collection of a plurality of mail pieces amount to no more than how to generally “apply” the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and representing mere generally linking of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and representing mere generally linking of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. As a result, this claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 35 recites the following limitations:
A computer program product comprising computer-readable instructions that are executable to perform a method according to claim 1.
Claim 35 is a product claim according to method Claim 1. As a result, Claim 35 is rejected as described in Claim 1.
Claims 3-6 and 9-10 are directed to substantially the same abstract idea as Claim 1 and are rejected for substantially the same reasons. The additional recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the additional recited limitations of the claims further narrow the abstract idea. These dependent claims further narrow the abstract idea of Claim 1 such as by defining “wherein the particular property or receptacle comprises at least one of a residential or business property, a house, an apartment, an office, a site, a depot, a mail box, a post box, or a locker” in Claim 3, by defining “wherein the at least one communication comprises information indicating how selected mail pieces are to be delivered or collected for a selected property or receptacle” in Claim 4, by defining “wherein the information comprises at least one of: information concerning a drop-off/pick-up location for the particular mail piece, information concerning which door of the particular property or receptacle to use, an entry code, information concerning a hazard information concerning a recipient or a sender, information concerning events that are scheduled, or contact information of the recipient, the sender, or a different user” in Claim 5, by defining “wherein the information is set by the recipient, the sender, or the different user” in Claim 6, by defining “wherein the at least one communication comprises or forms part of a delivery/collection protocol” in Claim 9, and by defining “wherein the delivery/collection protocol includes a workflow to be performed by a user” in Claim 10.
Step 2A, Prong 2: These dependent claims do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because they do not recite additional elements.
Step 2B: These dependent claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because they do not recite additional elements. Therefore, these claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 7-8, 11-14, 18-21, and 23-31 are directed to substantially the same abstract idea as Claim 1 and are rejected for substantially the same reasons. The additional recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the additional recited limitations of the claims further narrow the abstract idea. These dependent claims further narrow the abstract idea of Claim 1 such as by defining “wherein the communication comprises an alert in response to determining that the location does not match the particular … region for the particular mail piece” in Claim 7, by defining “wherein the location is determined by … in response to input indicating that the particular mail piece has been delivered or collected” in Claim 8, by defining “wherein the workflow includes at least one of: taking a photograph of at least one of the particular mail piece or the particular property or receptacle, placing … in proximity to, or otherwise in communicating with, …, or obtaining a signature or other confirmation from a recipient, a sender, or a different user” in Claim 11, by defining “further comprising providing an alert by … in response to at least one part of the workflow not being completed or the workflow being incorrect” in Claim 12, by defining “wherein a first number of properties or receptacles include …, and the method further comprising using … to communicate with …” in Claim 13, by defining “wherein the information or other information is stored by … and the method further comprising obtaining the information or the other information by communication between … and …” in Claim 14, by defining “wherein for at least oneClaim 18, by defining “further comprising: displaying a list of properties or receptacles within a current … region using …; or indicating, using …, selected mail pieces to be delivered/collected for the current … region” in Claim 19, by defining “further comprising: determining whether … is expected to be present for the particular property or receptacle; and issuing an alert if communication with … does not occur, or outputting a confirmation if communication with … does occur” in Claim 20, by defining “further comprising issuing an alert or … or crossing a selected boundary” in Claim 21, by defining “further comprising monitoring speed of movement of … or of … and placing or maintaining … in the transit mode in response to the monitored speed of movement being indicative of driving” in Claim 23, by defining “further comprising placing or maintaining … in response to user or …” in Claim 24, by defining “further comprising providing route information to a user via …” in Claim 25, by defining “further comprising sending at least one message to a mail piece recipient/sender or other user in response to the location being within the particular … region or within a further, associated … region” in Claim 26, by defining “wherein the further associated … region is defined by a further boundary that is more distant from the particular property or receptacle than a particular boundary corresponding to the particular property or receptacle” in Claim 27, by defining “wherein the at least … comprise an alert or comprises delivery/collection information” in Claim 28, by defining “further comprising sending data to or receiving the data from … by …, wherein … is configured to at least one of: monitor delivery/collection of a selected plurality of mail pieces, monitor performance, provide delivery/collection instructions, or provide route information” in Claim 29, by defining “further comprising; monitoring progress of selected deliveries/collections of the selected mail pieces; and issuing an alert if times between particular successive deliveries/collections are longer than expected or if … or … diverges from an expected route” in Claim 30, and by defining “wherein … comprises or is configured to communicate with … or other …” in Claim 31.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Claims 7-8, 11-14, 18-21, and 23-31 do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application. Claims 7, 18, and 26-27 recite an additional element – “geofence”, Claims 8 and 25 recites an additional element – “the device”, Claim 11 recites additional elements – “the device” and “a Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) device or other communication device”, Claim 12 recites an additional element – “the device”, Claims 13- 14 and 16-17 recite additional elements – “a communication device” and “the device”, Claims 15 and 20 recite an additional element – “the communication device”, Claim 19 recites additional elements – “the device” and “geofence”, Claim 21 recites additional elements – “entering the device into a delivery/collection mode in response to the device at least one of passing through a selected geofence region”, Claim 23 recites additional elements – “the device”, “the delivery/collection vehicle”, and “the device in the transit mode”, Claim 24 recites additional elements – “the device in the transit mode automatically”, Claim 28 recites an additional element – “one message”, Claim 29 recites additional elements – “a remote server” and “the device”, Claim 30 recites additional elements – “a vehicle” and “the device”, and Claim 31 recites additional elements – “a drone” and “delivery/collection vehicle”. The additional elements “geofence”, “a drone”, and “delivery/collection vehicle” in the claim limitation represent mere generally linking of the use of the judicial exception (the abstract idea) to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). Other additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The limitations of these dependent claims do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application because individually or in combination, these additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on a practicing the abstract idea and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B: Claims 7-8, 11-14, 18-21, and 23-31 do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 7-8, 11-14, 18-21, and 23-31 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 elements of using a computer system to perform a process for assisting and monitoring the delivery or collection of a plurality of mail pieces amount to no more than how to generally “apply” the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and representing mere generally linking of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and representing mere generally linking of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, these claims are not patent eligible.
Novelty/Non-Obviousness
Claims 1, 3-14, 18-31, and 35 would be allowable over prior art of record; however, they remain rejected under other statues. After having performed an updated search of prior art, including all feature limitations of amended independent claims 1 and 35, the references fail to teach or suggest alone, or in combination with other art, independent claims 1 and 35 in their entirety; and in particular, “communicating, by the device, with an NFC device of the particular property or receptacle in accordance with, or as part of, a delivery/collection protocol, wherein the delivery/collection protocol includes checking whether there is a match between the location of the device and a stored location for the NFC device of the particular property or receptacle” and “issuing an alert if the location of the device and the stored location for the NFC device of the particular property or receptacle do not match” in combination with other claim limitations, as recited in Claim 1, similarly in Claim 35.
Regarding the novelty/non-obviousness of the invention, the closet prior art was found to be Hanlon. Hanlon teaches systems and methods for delivering items to smart receptacles or location secured by smart locks. In light of the claim amendments, Examiner updated the search, did not find new prior art for the limitation described above, and found that the next closest prior art is Hanlon in view of McLellan. McLellan teaches a system and method for using a mobile device to assist with the efficient and secure delivery of item. McLellan also discloses checking whether there is a match between stored delivery location and the location of the mobile delivery device via geofence and issuing an alert if the location mismatches. However, Hanlon in view of McLellan fails to disclose “communicating, by the device, with an NFC device of the particular property or receptacle in accordance with, or as part of, a delivery/collection protocol, wherein the delivery/collection protocol includes checking whether there is a match between the location of the device and a stored location for the NFC device of the particular property or receptacle” and “issuing an alert if the location of the device and the stored location for the NFC device of the particular property or receptacle do not match” as recited in Claims 1 and 35. As a result, neither alone nor in combination, do the references teach the amended limitations described above.
Examiner concludes that the references mentioned above, alone or in combination, fail to teach independent claims 1 and 35, in their entirety.
By virtue of their dependence on novel/non-obvious claim 1, claims (3-14 and 18-31) are novel/non-obvious, respectively.
REASONS FOR ALLOWANCE
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Examiner knows of no art which teaches or suggests alone, or in combination with other art, independent claims 32-34 in their entirety; and in particular, “determine that the device is in a transit mode and preventing issuance of the alert or preventing entry into the delivery/collection mode when the device is in the transit mode during which a particular user or a delivery/collection vehicle is travelling between, to, or from selected properties or receptacles” and “comparing a drone location of the drone or a different location of the other delivery/collection vehicle at a time of a selected delivery/collection of a selected mail piece to a corresponding geofence region” in combination with other claim limitations, as recited in Claim 32, and “communicate with an NFC device of the particular property or receptacle in accordance with, or as part of, a delivery/collection protocol, wherein the delivery/collection protocol includes checking whether there is a match between the location of the device and a stored location for the NFC device of the particular property or receptacle” and “issue an alert if the location of the device and the stored location for the NFC device of the particular property or receptacle do not match”, as recited in Claim 33 and similarly in Claim 34.
For Claim 32, the closest prior art was found to be Hanlon in view of McLellan and Hess in the previous rejection. Hanlon teaches systems and methods for delivering items to smart receptacles or location secured by smart locks. McLellan teaches a system and method for using a mobile device to assist with the efficient and secure delivery of item. McLellan also discloses comparing the location of the mobile delivery device to the delivery location. Hess teaches a system and method for geo-certifying delivery of items. In light of the claim amendments, Examiner updated the search, did not find new prior art for the limitation described above, and found that the next closest prior art is Hanlon in view of McLellan, Hess, and Fadell et al. (US 2015/0145643 A1; hereinafter, “Fadell”). Fadell teaches a system and method for securely handling a delivery of a package by a deliverer at a smart environment that includes a plurality of smart devices. Fadell also discloses “a delivery drone”. However, the combination of references fails to teach “determine that the device is in a transit mode and preventing issuance of the alert or preventing entry into the delivery/collection mode when the device is in the transit mode during which a particular user or a delivery/collection vehicle is travelling between, to, or from selected properties or receptacles” and “comparing a drone location of the drone or a different location of the other delivery/collection vehicle at a time of a selected delivery/collection of a selected mail piece to a corresponding geofence region” as recited in Claim 32.
For Claims 33 and 34, see Novelty//Non-Obviousness section described above for reasons for allowance as Claims 33 and 34 are system claims corresponding to method Claim 1.
Examiner concludes that the references mentioned above, alone or in combination, fail to teach independent claims 32, 33, and 34, in their entirety.
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 TAYAR M KYU whose telephone number is (571)272-3419. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00 am - 6:00 pm.
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, Jeffrey Zimmerman can be reached at 571-272-4602. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/T.M.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/GEORGE CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628