DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the response and amendments filed on 19 January 2026. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1, 13, 19, and 21 have been amended.
Claims 11-12, 14, and 17-18 are cancelled.
Claims 2-10, 15-16, and 20 are original / previously presented.
Claims 1-10, 13, 15-16, and 19-21 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the previous objection of claims 1, 12, 13, and 19, the Applicant has successfully amended and/or cancelled the claims, and accordingly the objection is rescinded.
Regarding the previous 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claim 21, the Applicant has successfully amended the claim, and accordingly the rejection is rescinded.
Regarding the previous 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 11-12, and 17-18, the Applicant has successfully cancelled the claims, and accordingly the rejection is rescinded.
Regarding the Applicant’s arguments filed regarding the previous 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 1-10, 13, 15-16, and 19-21 have been considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible in Step 2A Prong One because “The pending claims do not recite the alleged abstract idea of a commercial interaction under the grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity as alleged in the Office Action, because the recited limitations do not fall within the identified subject matter grouping… MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B) describes commercial or legal interactions as including ‘agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations… None of the process steps of claim 1 pertaining to the management of a delivery to a property highlighted in the Office Action fall under the examples of the commercial or legal interactions sub-grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity” (Remarks pg. 9-10). Examiner disagrees. There are limitations in the independent claims that represent the sub-category of certain methods of organizing human activities: commercial interactions. These limitations include receiving a selection of a courier…, providing an option for enhanced delivery…, receiving confirmation that enhanced delivery is selected…, receiving delivery details…, receiving delivery instructions…, transmitting confirmation that delivery uses the enhanced delivery…, transmitting details of the delivery. A commercial interaction is an exchange between two or more parties regarding an element of commerce. Each of these limitations represent interactions between either a customer, shipper, and/or courier regarding delivery, which is commercial. For example, receiving a selection of a courier is part of a delivery transaction between a customer and a shipper; providing an option for enhanced delivery is an offering by a shipper to a customer for delivery; receiving confirmation that enhanced delivery is selected is a delivery communication between a shipper and a customer; receiving delivery details is a delivery communication between a shipper and a customer; receiving delivery instructions is a delivery communication between a customer and a shipper; transmitting confirmation that delivery uses the enhanced delivery is a delivery communication between a shipper and a courier; and transmitting details of the delivery is a delivery communication between the shipper and the customer. Hence, each of these limitations represent commercial interactions. Furthermore, each of these limitations listed above are also certain methods of organizing human activities: managing personal behavior or interactions between people, since for the same reasons above they represent interactions between either a customer, shipper, and/or courier. Therefore, the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activities and satisfy at least one of the sub-groupings in Step 2A Prong One. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible in Step 2A Prong One because “it is clear that the BRI of the process steps of claim 1 does not include mental processes as alleged in the Office Action…The BRI of the claimed features that is consistent with the specification requires the process steps to be performed by a computing device, rather than through the performance of any mental processes. For example, the specification describes the methods as being implemented by a computer system in response to the execution of program instructions… Nowhere in the specification is there any teaching or suggestion that any of the process steps recited in the claims could be performed by anything other than a device (computing device), such as through mental processes of a human mind” (Remarks pg. 10-11). Examiner disagrees. First, the test in Step 2A Prong One is to determine whether or not there is a judicial exception that is recited in the claims. Per MPEP 2106.05(a) Examiners determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea by (1) identifying the specific limitations in the claim that recites an abstract idea, and (2) determining which limitations fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas. If the identified limitation(s) fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas, it is reasonable to conclude that the claim recites an abstract idea in Step 2A Prong One. Note that Step 2A Prong One is focused on the claims, not the specification. Second, here, it is identified that the individual limitations of the courier entity scheduling a delivery to the property; and determining that the location of the mobile device is within a predetermined distance of the property as drafted are processes that, under its/their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind (i.e. a mental process). Other than reciting at least one computer, one or more processors, at least one memory, at least one non-transitory computer readable medium, a mobile application, nothing in the claim elements preclude these two steps from practically being performed in the mind, or in the mind with the assistance of pen and paper. For example, but for the generic / general purpose computer language, scheduling in the context of this claim encompasses a user manually judging a delivery to the property; and determining in the context of this claim encompasses a user manually observing / evaluating a distance between locations and judging it is within a predetermined distance. Accordingly, these are recited mental processes (observations, evaluations, judgments) that fall within the mental processes grouping in Step 2A Prong One, and the claims recite a judicial exception. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible in Step 2A Prong Two because “Even assuming the claims recite an abstract idea, the claims are not directed to the abstract idea because they integrate any recited abstract idea into a practical application” (Remarks pg. 11). Examiner disagrees. The additional elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computers / general computer components (e.g. at least one computer, one or more processors, at least one memory, at least one non-transitory computer readable medium, a mobile application) applied to a field of use / technology (remote computing); and adding high-level extra-solution and/or post-solution activities (e.g. detecting is data gathering, deleting is electronic record keeping). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible in Step 2A Prong Two because “The claimed embodiments realize improvements to the technology or technical field of securely receiving goods or services. Specifically, the claimed embodiments provide solutions to issues relating to various package delivery options such as requiring customers to wait for deliveries, delivering a package to a locker that is accessible by the customer, leaving a property unlocked to receive a delivery, and using a smart lock to allow limited access to a property by a delivery agent (see, e.g. p. 1 lines 12-33 of the specification)… Amended claim 1 includes the following process steps that operate to realize the improvements… detecting using a mobile application a location of a mobile device of a second user; determining that the location of the mobile device is within a predetermined distance of the property; receiving form the mobile application confirmation once the delivery of the property has been made according to the delivery instructions; deleting a first set of sensitive data…; transmitting to the user details of the delivery; deleting a second set of sensitive data… The combination of these particular process steps allows a user to securely receive a delivery in a trustworthy manner resulting in an improvement to the technology or technical fields of securely receiving goods or services” (Remarks pg. 12). Examiner disagrees. The claims do not provide a technical improvement or improvement to a technical field that is representative of a practical application or significantly more. First, securely receiving goods or services is not a technical field, per se. Instead, securely receiving goods or services represents a business / entrepreneurial process. Second, the technical elements claimed outside of the judicial exception provided in the claims amount to (1) applying the judicial exception by generic / general purpose computers and computer components (e.g. at least one computer, one or more processors, at least one memory, at least one non-transitory computer readable medium, a mobile application), (2) applying the judicial exception to a field of use (mobile computing), and (3) adding high level extra-solution activities (i.e. data gathering, electronic record keeping), each of which are claimed at such a high level of detail they are not sufficient to provide a practical application or significantly more per MPEP 2106.05(f), 2016.05(f) and 2106.05(h). The limitation of detecting using a mobile application a location of a mobile device of a second user is not a technical improvement because this is high level extra-solution data gathering, and routine / well-understood / conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec). See the Applicant’s specification Fig 5-7, pg. 5 ln 20, pg. 11 ln 16-20 describing the additional element of a mobile application, and using mobile device geo-location services at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the technical particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a)). The limitations of determining that the location of the mobile device is within a predetermined distance of the property; receiving form the mobile application confirmation once the delivery of the property has been made according to the delivery instructions; transmitting to the user details of the delivery are not a technical improvement because these are part of the judicial exception merely applying the judicial exception to a field of use (mobile computing) at a high level of detail, which is also routine / well-understood / conventional (see the Applicant’s specification Fig 5-7, pg. 5 ln 20, pg. 11 ln 16-20 describing the additional element of a mobile application, and using mobile device geo-location services at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the technical particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a)). The limitations of deleting a first set of sensitive data…; transmitting to the user details of the delivery; deleting a second set of sensitive data… are not a technical improvement because these are high level extra-solution electronic record keeping, and routine / well-understood / conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular electronic record keeping (Alice). See the Applicant’s specification pg. 6 ln 9-20, pg. 12 ln 10-13, pg. 13 ln 1-9 describing the additional element of deleting sensitive information at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the technical particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a)). The combination of the additional elements does no more together than they do individually. Third, argued features including requiring a customer to wait for deliveries, delivering a package to a locker that is accessible by the customer, leaving a property unlocked to receive a delivery, and using a smart lock are not present in the claimed solution. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). For these reasons, the claims are more directed towards improving a business / economic / entrepreneurial process rather than improving a computer outside of a business use or improving a technical field, i.e. using computers a tool. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible in Step 2B because “Claim 1 includes specific process steps involving multiple communications, the detection of a location, a determination that the location is within a predetermined distance of a property, the deletion of delivery information and the deletion of an identity of the user of a location of the property. These process steps, as discussed below, are not routine and conventional. Furthermore, the claimed process steps are highly specific to a particular method of managing secure delivery” (Remarks pg. 13). Examiner disagrees. Each of the additional element limitation steps are routine, well-understood, or conventional, as outlined in the rejection in Step 2B. First, regarding detecting, using a mobile application, a location of a mobile device of a second user, see the Applicant’s specification Fig 5-7, pg. 5 ln 20, pg. 11 ln 16-20 describing the additional element of a mobile application, and using mobile device geo-location services at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the technical particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Second, regarding deleting a first set of sensitive data related to the property or the delivery, wherein the first set of sensitive data includes the delivery instructions; and deleting a second set of sensitive data related to the property or the delivery, wherein the second set of sensitive data includes an identity of the first user or a location of the property, these steps are claimed at a high level of generality, and/or as insignificant extra-solution activities (e.g. data storage, electronic record keeping) representing computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular electronic record keeping (Alice). Also see the Applicant’s specification pg. 6 ln 9-20, pg. 12 ln 10-13, pg. 13 ln 1-9 describing the additional element of deleting sensitive information at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the technical particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Third, the Applicant also argues steps involving multiple communications, however the activities regarding receiving and transmitting (e.g. receiving from a first user a selection of a courier entity; receiving confirmation from a first user that the enhanced delivery mode is selected; receiving from the courier entity delivery details; receiving delivery instructions from the first user; transmitting to the courier entity confirmation that the delivery uses the enhanced delivery mode; receiving from the mobile application confirmation once the delivery to the property has been made according to the delivery instructions; transmitting to the user details of the delivery) are part of the judicial exception in Step 2A Prong One. Regardless, each of these receiving and transmitting steps are claimed at such a high level of detail they also represent insignificant extra-solution activities (e.g. data gathering) and computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec), sending messages over a network (OIP Techs), a computer receives and sends information over a network (buySAFE), recording a customer’s order (Apple), presenting offers and gathering statistics (OIP Techs). See the Applicant’s specification Fig 5-7, pg. 5 ln 20, pg. 11 ln 16-20 describing the additional element of a mobile application at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the technical particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Fourth, determining that the location is within a predetermined distance of a property also part of the judicial exception in Step 2A Prong One. Since each of the additional element steps are routine, well-understood, or conventional; and their combination does not add anything that is not already present when the steps are considered individually, this does not provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. This argument is not persuasive.
Regarding the previous 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 11-12, and 17-18, the Applicant has successfully cancelled the claims, and accordingly the rejection is rescinded.
Regarding the Applicant’s arguments filed regarding the previous 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 1-10, 13, 15-16, and 19-21 have been considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the rejection should be withdrawn because “Hanlon relates to a system and method for item delivery to a location secured by smart locks. The Examiner considers Hanlon to disclose all the steps of method claim 1 except: (a) deleting a first set of sensitive data related to the property and/or the delivery; and (b) deleting a second set of sensitive data related to the property and/or the delivery. The Examiner considers steps (a) and (b) above to be disclosed by Andrews” (Remarks pg. 14). Examiner disagrees. These steps are taught by Kelly and Andrews in combination with Hanlon. Step (a) of deleting sensitive data related to the property or delivery, wherein the first set of sensitive data includes the delivery instructions is shown to be obvious in view of Kelly (see Kelly Fig 9C, ¶[0059], ¶[0071-73] teaching deleting the delivery agent access key received to enter the secured area on the agent’s route from the authorized access key list after opening the lock to the secured area). Step (b) of deleting a second set of sensitive data related to the property or the delivery, wherein the second set of sensitive data includes an identity of the first user or a location of the property is shown to be obvious in view of Andrews (see Andrews ¶[0029-31], ¶[0049] teaching limiting the use and deleting any recipient personal, private and/or sensitive stored information (e.g. recipient addresses and PII data stored in association for parcel deliveries) for a specific delivery / time period / revokable period during delivery / use in an access condition, so that it is later unable to be accessed by a fulfiller that accessed the address information of the user). This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the rejection should be withdrawn because “Andrews does not disclose the specific ordering of steps provided in the claimed invention: 1. First, deleting a first set of sensitive data (specifically delivery information), whilst retaining other sensitive data to allow the system to notify the user of the delivery. 2. Second, transmitting to the user details of the delivery. 3. Deleting the remaining sensitive data (specifically the identity of the user and location of the property” (Remarks pg. 15). Examiner disagrees. First, nothing in the claim language of independent claims 1, 13, and 19 limits these features to this particular sequence. There is no language in the claims that states that the step of transmitting to the user details of the delivery must occur after deleting a first set of sensitive data or before deleting a second set of sensitive data; or deleting a first set of sensitive data and deleting a second set of sensitive data cannot occur at the same time. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Second, Broadest reasonable interpretation of a first set of sensitive data and a second set of sensitive data where the claims define what makes the first and second set different (e.g. wherein the first set of sensitive data includes the delivery instructions; wherein the second set of sensitive data includes an identify of the first user or a location of the property) associates these limitations to separate sets of data instead of a sequence. See Applicant specification pg. 13 “The terms ‘first’ and ‘second’ may be reversed without changing the scope of the disclosure. That is, an element termed a ‘first’ element’ may instead be termed a ‘second’ element and an element termed a ‘second’ element may instead be considered a ‘first’ element”. Third, these features as claimed are taught by the combination of Hanlon, Kelly, and Andrews. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Hanlon teaches transmitting to the user details of the delivery (Hanlon ¶[0028], ¶[0067] details delivery information is provided to the recipient after the item is safely delivered and scanned; delivery confirmation can also include video or image of the carrier leaving the door from a smart doorbell). Kelly teaches deleting a first set of sensitive data related to the property or the delivery, wherein the first set of sensitive data includes the delivery instructions (Kelly Fig 9C, ¶[0059], ¶[0071-73] details deleting the delivery agent access key received to enter the secured area on the agent’s route from the authorized access key list after opening the lock to the secured area). Andrews teaches deleting a second set of sensitive data related to the property or the delivery, wherein the second set of sensitive data includes an identity of the first user or a location of the property (Andrews ¶[0029-31], ¶[0049] details limiting the use and deleting any recipient personal, private and/or sensitive stored information (e.g. recipient addresses and PII data stored in association for parcel deliveries) for a specific delivery / time period / revokable period during delivery / use in an access condition, so that it is later unable to be accessed by a fulfiller that accessed the address information of the user). This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the rejection should be withdrawn because “Andrews does not disclose (4) that this information is deleted from a mobile device of a courier” (Remarks pg. 15). Examiner disagrees. Nothing in the claim limitation “deleting a second set of sensitive data related to the property or the delivery, wherein the second set of sensitive data includes an identity of the first user or a location of the property” explicitly states where the step of deleting is occurring. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Andrews teaches the claim 1 limitation of deleting a second set of sensitive data related to the property or the delivery, wherein the second set of sensitive data includes an identity of the first user or a location of the property, because Andrews ¶[0029-31], ¶[0049] details limiting the use and deleting any recipient personal, private and/or sensitive stored information (e.g. recipient addresses and PII data stored in association for parcel deliveries) for a specific delivery / time period / revokable period during delivery / use in an access condition, so that it is later unable to be accessed by a fulfiller that accessed the address information of the user. Since Andrews teaches that claim language, this argument is not persuasive.
Priority
This application 18/872,003 filed on 5 December 2024 is a national stage entry of PCT/EP2023/065238 filed on 7 June 2023, which claims priority from United Kingdom of Great Britan and Northern Ireland application GB2208346.3 filed on 7 June 2022 and application GB2301826.0 filed on 9 February 2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 5 December 2024 has been acknowledged by the Office.
Drawings
The drawings received on 29 January 2026 have been acknowledged by the Office.
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 1-10, 13, 15-16, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-10, 13, 15-16, and 19-21:
Step 1:
Claims 1-10, 15-16 recite a method; claim 13 recites a system; and claims 19-21 recite a non-transitory computer readable storage device. Since the claims recite either a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, the claims satisfy Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Framework in MPEP 2106 and the 2019 Patent Examination Guidelines (PEG). Analysis proceeds to Step 2A Prong One.
Step 2A – Prong One:
Claims 1-10, 13, 15-16, and 19-21 recite an abstract idea. Independent claims 1, 13, and 19 recites as part of a transaction, receiving from a first user a selection of a courier entity; the courier entity scheduling a delivery to the property; providing the first user with an option for using an enhanced delivery mode; receiving confirmation from a first user that the enhanced delivery mode is selected; receiving from the courier entity delivery details; receiving delivery instructions from the first user; transmitting to the courier entity confirmation that the delivery uses the enhanced delivery mode; determining that the location of the [courier] is within a predetermined distance of the property; receiving from the [courier] confirmation once the delivery to the property has been made according to the delivery instructions; transmitting to the user details of the delivery. The claims as a whole recite methods of organizing human activities, and individual limitations also recite mental processes.
First, the limitations of as part of a transaction, receiving from a first user a selection of a courier entity; the courier entity scheduling a delivery to the property; providing the first user with an option for using an enhanced delivery mode; receiving confirmation from a first user that the enhanced delivery mode is selected; receiving from the courier entity delivery details; receiving delivery instructions from the first user; transmitting to the courier entity confirmation that the delivery uses the enhanced delivery mode; determining that the location of the [courier] is within a predetermined distance of the property; receiving from the [courier] confirmation once the delivery to the property has been made according to the delivery instructions; transmitting to the user details of the delivery are certain methods of organizing human activities. For instance, these limitations represent the sub-groupings of commercial interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions. For example, commercial interactions includes receiving a selection of a courier…, providing an option for enhanced delivery…, receiving confirmation that enhanced delivery is selected…, receiving delivery details…, receiving delivery instructions…, transmitting confirmation that delivery uses the enhanced delivery…, transmitting details of the delivery…; managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people includes receiving selection of a courier…, scheduling a delivery to the property…, providing an option for enhanced delivery…, receiving confirmation that enhanced delivery is selected…, receiving delivery details…, receiving delivery instructions…, transmitting confirmation that delivery uses the enhanced delivery…, determining the location is within a predetermined distance…, receiving confirmation once the delivery has been made…, transmitting details of the delivery…; and following rules or instructions includes receiving a selection of a courier…, scheduling a delivery to the property…, providing an option for enhanced delivery…, receiving confirmation that enhanced delivery is selected…, receiving delivery details…, receiving delivery instructions…, transmitting confirmation that delivery uses the enhanced delivery…, determining the location is within a predetermined distance…, receiving confirmation once the delivery to the property has been made according to the delivery instructions, transmitting details of the delivery. The presence of generic computer components such as at least one computer, one or more processors, at least one memory, at least one non-transitory computer readable medium, a mobile application does not preclude the steps from reciting certain methods of organizing human activities, since the number of people involved in the activities is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping and instead it is based on whether an activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (e.g. commercial interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, following rules or instructions) regardless of the recitation of generic computer components or other machinery in its ordinary capacity, then it falls within the ‘Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity’ grouping of abstract ideas.
Second, the limitations of the courier entity scheduling a delivery to the property; and determining that the location of the mobile device is within a predetermined distance of the property as drafted are processes that, under its/their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind (i.e. mental processes) but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting at least one computer, one or more processors, at least one memory, at least one non-transitory computer readable medium, a mobile application, nothing in the claim elements preclude these steps from practically being performed in the mind, or in the mind with the assistance of pen and paper. For example, but for the generic / general purpose computer language, scheduling in the context of this claim encompasses a user manually judging a delivery to the property; and determining in the context of this claim encompasses a user manually observing / evaluating a distance between locations and judging it is within a predetermined distance. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (e.g. an observation, evaluation, judgment) but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the ‘Mental Processes’ grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. Analysis proceeds to Step 2A Prong Two.
Step 2A – Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. First, claims 1, 13, and 19 as a whole merely describes how to generally ‘apply’ the concept of certain methods of organizing human activities in a computer environment. The claimed computer components (i.e. at least one computer, one or more processors, at least one memory, at least one non-transitory computer readable medium, a mobile application) are recited at a high-level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform manual processes. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic / general purpose computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2016.05(f). Accordingly, 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.
Next, the additional element of mobile in the limitations (e.g. detecting, using a mobile application, a location of a mobile device of a second user; determining that the location of the mobile device is within a predetermined distance of the property; receiving from the mobile application confirmation once the delivery to the property has been made according to the delivery instructions) does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e. remote / mobile computing), and as such does not provide integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(h). Hence, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Next, the additional element of detecting and its steps of detecting, using a mobile application, a location of a mobile device of a second user are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for subsequent determining), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity and not a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the mobile application, mobile device (general computer component, general computer) is only being used as a tool in the detecting, which is also not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f). Also, reciting a mobile application and mobile device does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e. remote / mobile computing), and as such does not provide integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(h). Note that there are no particular technical steps regarding detecting more than using computers as a tool to perform an otherwise manual process (i.e. observing location). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Next, the additional element of deleting and its steps of deleting a first set of sensitive data related to the property or the delivery, wherein the first set of sensitive data includes the delivery instructions; deleting a first set of sensitive data related to the property or the delivery including the delivery instructions; deleting a second set of sensitive data related to the property or the delivery, wherein the second set of sensitive data includes an identity of the first user or a location of the property; deleting a second set of sensitive data related to the property or the delivery including an identity of the first user or a location of the property are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of maintaining data for the scheduled delivery), and amount to mere electronic record keeping, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity and not a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the computer / processor (generic computer) is only being used as a tool in the deleting, which is also not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f). Note that there are no particular technical steps regarding deleting more than using computers as a tool to perform an otherwise manual process (i.e. writing / erasing information). Accordingly, 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.
Also, while identified above as an organizing human activity in Step 2A Prong One, note that the steps of receiving (e.g. receiving from a first user a selection of a courier entity; receiving confirmation from a first user that the enhanced delivery mode is selected; receiving from the courier entity delivery details; receiving delivery instructions from the first user; receiving from the mobile application confirmation once the delivery to the property has been made according to the delivery instructions) are each recited at a high level of generality and also amount to mere data gathering or transmitting data, which are forms of insignificant extra-solution activity and not a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the computer / processor, mobile application (generic computer, general computer component) are only being used as a tool in the receiving, which is also not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f). Note that there are no particular technical steps regarding receiving more than using computers as a tool to perform otherwise manual processes (i.e. obtaining information). Accordingly, this element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Also, while identified above as an organizing human activity in Step 2A Prong One, note that the steps of transmitting (e.g. transmitting to the courier entity confirmation that the delivery uses the enhanced delivery mode; transmitting to the user details of the delivery) are each recited at a high level of generality (as a general means of sending data associated with scheduling and confirmation), and also amount to mere transmitting data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity and not a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the computer / processor (generic computer) is only being used as a tool in the transmitting, which is also not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f). Note that there are no particular technical steps regarding transmitting more than using computers as a tool to perform otherwise manual processes (i.e. sharing / communicating information). Accordingly, this element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computers / general computer components (at least one computer, one or more processors, at least one memory, at least one non-transitory computer readable medium, a mobile application) applied to a field of use / technology (remote computing); and adding high-level extra-solution and/or post-solution activities (data gathering, electronic record keeping). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. Hence, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Analysis proceeds to Step 2B.
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using at least one computer, one or more processors, at least one memory, at least one non-transitory computer readable medium, a mobile application to perform receiving selection of a courier…, scheduling a delivery to the property…, providing an option for enhanced delivery…, receiving confirmation that enhanced delivery is selected…, receiving delivery details…, receiving delivery instructions…, transmitting confirmation that delivery uses the enhanced delivery…, determining the location is within a predetermined distance…, receiving confirmation once the delivery has been made…, transmitting details of the delivery amounts to no more than mere instructions to ‘apply’ the exception using generic computers. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e. mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more.
As discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element regarding mobile does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e. remote / mobile computing). The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e. generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use does not provide integration into a practical application in Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Furthermore, see the Applicant’s specification Fig 5-7, pg. 5 ln 20, pg. 11 ln 16-20 describing the additional element of a mobile application, and using mobile device geo-location services at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the technical particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more.
As discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements regarding the detecting are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for subsequent determining), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e. adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception does not provide integration into a practical application in Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The use of the computer (i.e. mobile application, mobile device ) in these steps merely represents using a generic / general purpose computer as a tool, and a general linkage to a field of use / technology (i.e. remote computing) and is not indicative of an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f), MPEP 2106.05(h). Furthermore, these detecting steps are also claimed at a high level of generality, and/or as insignificant extra-solution activities (e.g. data gathering) representing computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec). Furthermore, see the Applicant’s specification Fig 5-7, pg. 5 ln 20, pg. 11 ln 16-20 describing the additional element of a mobile application, and using mobile device geo-location services at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the technical particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more.
As discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements regarding the deleting are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of maintaining data for the scheduled delivery), and amount to mere electronic record keeping. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e. adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception does not provide integration into a practical application in Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The use of the computer (i.e. computer / processor) in these steps merely represents using a generic / general purpose computer as a tool, and is not indicative of an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, these deleting steps are also claimed at a high level of generality, and/or as insignificant extra-solution activities (e.g. data storage) representing computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular electronic record keeping (Alice). See the Applicant’s specification pg. 6 ln 9-20, pg. 12 ln 10-13, pg. 13 ln 1-9 describing the additional element of deleting sensitive information at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the technical particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more.
Also, as discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the Step 2A Prong One organizing human activity elements regarding the receiving are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data), and also amounts to the extra-solution activity of data gathering, which is not a practical application or an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The use of the computer (i.e. computer / processor, mobile application) in these steps merely represents using a generic / general purpose computer as a tool, and generally linking use of the judicial exception to a field of use (remote computing) and is not indicative of an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and MPEP 2106.05(h). Furthermore, these receiving steps are also claimed at a high level of generality, and/or as insignificant extra-solution activities (e.g. data gathering) representing computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec), sending messages over a network (OIP Techs), a computer receives and sends information over a network (buySAFE), recording a customer’s order (Apple), presenting offers and gathering statistics (OIP Techs). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more.
Also, as discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the Step 2A Prong One organizing human activity elements regarding the transmitting are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of transmitting data for the confirmation / scheduled delivery), and also amounts to the extra-solution activity of transmitting data, which is not a practical application or an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The use of the computer (i.e. computer / processor, mobile application) in these steps merely represents using a generic / general purpose computer as a tool. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, these transmitting steps are also claimed at a high level of generality, and/or as insignificant extra-solution activities (e.g. transmitting data) representing computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec), sending messages over a network (OIP Techs), a computer receives and sends information over a network (buySAFE). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more.
The claims do not improve another technology or technical field. Instead the claims represent a generic implementation of organizing human activities ‘applied’ by generic / general purpose computers, generally ‘applied’ to a field of use, and using general computer components in extra-solution capacities such as data gathering. The claims do not provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the user of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. At best, the claims are more directed towards solving a business / economic / entrepreneurial problem (i.e. how to deliver based on a customer’s request with sensitive information related to the property), that is tangentially associated with a technology element (e.g. remote computing), rather than solving a technology based problem. See MPEP 2106.05(a). The claims do not improve the functioning of a computer itself. The claims are more directed towards improving a business / economic / entrepreneurial process rather than improving a computer outside of a business use, i.e. using computers a tool. The claims do not apply the judicial exception with or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction to a particular article to a different state or thing. The claims do not add a specific limitation other than what is well understood, routine, and conventional in a way that confines the claim to a particular useful application.
Viewing the claim limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at each of the claim limitations individually, both with respect to the independent claims 1, 13, 19, and further considering the addition of dependent claims 2-12, 15-18, and 20-21. Note that the combination of limitations and claim elements add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately, simply reciting implementation as performed by using generic computers / general computer components, see Alice (2014), and does not provide a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of various computer components to achieve a technical improvement, see BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC (2016). Hence, the ordered combination of elements does not provide significantly more. With respect to the dependent claims:
Dependent claim 2: The limitation wherein the delivery details are received from the courier entity using an application programming interface (API) represents an additional element that is not indicative of a practical application or significantly more, as extra-solution data gathering / data transmission and a general linkage to technology (i.e. API). Note that there are no particular technical details regarding API. Furthermore, this receiving step here is claimed at a high level of detail, and represents computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. Furthermore, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec), sending messages over a network (OIP Techs). See the Applicant’s specification pg. 9 ln 24-33, pg. 10 ln 22-27, pg. 11 ln 23-25 describing receiving and communicating details via API at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the technical particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more. For the reasons described above with respect to the independent claims, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 3 and 15: The limitation wherein the confirmation to the courier entity that the delivery uses the enhanced delivery mode is transmitted using an application programming interface (API) represents an additional element that is not indicative of a practical application or significantly more, as extra-solution data transmission and a general linkage to technology (i.e. API). Note that there are no particular technical details regarding API. Furthermore, this transmitting step here is claimed at a high level of detail, and represents computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. Furthermore, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec), sending messages over a network (OIP Techs). See the Applicant’s specification pg. 9 ln 24-33, pg. 10 ln 22-27, pg. 11 ln 23-25 describing receiving and communicating details via API at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the technical particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more. For the reasons described above with respect to the independent claims, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 4 and 16: The limitation wherein the delivery instructions received from the first user include data describing how to gain access to the property merely narrows the previously recited abstract idea limitations. For the reasons described above with respect to the independent claims, these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than an abstract idea.
Dependent claim 5: The limitation wherein the data describing how to gain access to the property include any one or more of: a PIN code for a door lock; a location of a key; and or a one-time code merely narrows the previously recited abstract idea limitations. For the reasons described above with respect to the independent claims, these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than an abstract idea.
Dependent claim 6: The limitation transmitting to the mobile device of the second user the delivery instructions in response to determining that the location of the mobile device is within a predetermined distance of the property is further directed to a method of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior or interaction between people, following rules or instructions) described in the independent claims. The recitation of the mobile device is a computer component recited at a high level of generality and amounts to ‘applying’ the abstract idea on a generic computer and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a technology / field of use (remote computing / mobile). Furthermore, note that the activity of transmitting here is claimed at a high level of detail, and also represents computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. Furthermore, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec), sending messages over a network (OIP Techs). Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 7: The limitation wherein the delivery instructions are transmitted in response to the current time being within a delivery window is further directed to a method of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior or interaction between people, following rules or instructions) described in the independent claims. Furthermore, note that the activity of transmitting here is claimed at a high level of detail, and also represents computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. Furthermore, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec), sending messages over a network (OIP Techs). Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 8: The limitation wherein the delivery window is defined as part of the courier entity scheduling the delivery to the property merely narrows the previously recited abstract idea limitations. For the reasons described above with respect to the independent claims, these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than an abstract idea.
Dependent claim 9: The limitation wherein providing the first user with an option for using an enhanced delivery mode is sent using email or short message service (SMS) represents an additional element that is not indicative of a practical application or significantly more, as extra-solution data transmission and a general linkage to technology (i.e. Internet, SMS). Note that there are no particular technical details regarding SMS or email transmission. Furthermore, this sending step here is claimed at a high level of detail, and represents computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. Furthermore, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec), sending messages over a network (OIP Techs). See the Applicant’s specification Fig 5, pg. 8 ln 29-30 describing sending an SMS offering the AnyLock upgrade; and Fig 13 ln 15-26 describing using SMS / email with the AnyLock service that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the technical particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more. For the reasons described above with respect to the independent claims, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 10: The limitation wherein the email or SMS includes a universal resource locator (URL) represents an additional element that is not indicative of a practical application or significantly more, further limiting the extra-solution data transmission with a general linkage to technology (i.e. Internet). Note that there are no particular technical details regarding the URL. Furthermore, see the Applicant’s specification Fig 5, pg. 9 ln 20-22 describing the use of a web module URL sent to the customer that this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the technical particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more. For the reasons described above with respect to the independent claims, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 20: The limitations the delivery details are received from the courier entity using an application programming interface (API); and the confirmation to the courier entity that the delivery uses the enhanced delivery mode is transmitted using an API represent additional elements that are not indicative of a practical application or significantly more, as extra-solution data gathering / data transmission and a general linkage to technology (i.e. API). Note that there are no particular technical details regarding API. Furthermore, these receiving / transmitting steps here are claimed at a high level of detail, and represents computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. Furthermore, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec), sending messages over a network (OIP Techs). See the Applicant’s specification pg. 9 ln 24-33, pg. 10 ln 22-27, pg. 11 ln 23-25 describing receiving and communicating details via API at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the technical particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Similar to the independent claims, these recitations do not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and are not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 21: First, the limitation wherein: the delivery instructions include property include any one or more of: a PIN code for a door lock; a location of a key; and or a one-time code merely narrows the previously recited abstract idea limitations. Second, the limitations of the instructions further cause the one or more processors to transmit to the mobile device of the second user the delivery instructions in response to determining that the location of the mobile device is within a predetermined distance of the property; and the delivery instructions are transmitted in response to the current time being within a delivery window are further directed to a method of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior or interaction between people, following rules or instructions) described in the independent claims. The recitation of the processors and mobile device are computer components recited at a high level of generality and amounts to ‘applying’ the abstract idea on a generic computer and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a technology / field of use (remote computing / mobile). Furthermore, note that the transmitting here is claimed at a high level of detail, and also represents computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. Furthermore, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec), sending messages over a network (OIP Techs). Similar to the independent claims, these recitations do not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and are not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore claims 1, 13, 19, and the dependent claims 2-10, 15-16, and 20-21 and all limitations taken both individually and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor do they include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claims 1-10, 13, 15-16, and 19-21 are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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 non-obviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4-8, 13, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication 2021/0366217 A1 to Hanlon in view of US patent application publication 2002/0046173 A1 to Kelly in view of US patent application publication 2022/0253791 A1 to Andrews et al.
Claim 1:
Hanlon, as shown, teaches the following:
A method implemented by at least one computer for managing a secure delivery to a property, the method comprising:
as part of a transaction, receiving from a first user a selection of a courier entity (Hanlon Fig 3, ¶[0027], ¶[0039] details the customer ordering an item from an online retailer requesting smart home delivery, and providing a code for the carrier to access a smart home / smart lock as part of the carrier delivery);
the courier entity scheduling a delivery to the property (Hanlon Fig 4, ¶[0027], ¶[0052] details providing the delivery information to the delivery network / USPS, and associating the item with a route which a carrier is assigned along which the delivery point is located);
providing the first user with an option for using an enhanced delivery mode (Hanlon ¶[0027], ¶[0040-41] details the user selects a delivery method which may include smart home delivery);
receiving confirmation from a first user that the enhanced delivery mode is selected (Hanlon Fig 3, ¶[0041], ¶[0045] details recognizing whether smart home delivery was requested by the user and if it was then appending / updating / generating a new recipient identifier, and the user can create or provide an access code in response to the request when home delivery is selected, i.e. a received confirmation);
receiving from the courier entity delivery details (Hanlon ¶[0040] details the delivery options are provided by a distribution network such as the USPS; also ¶[0053] details the carrier scans the identifier to determine the item has a record for smart home delivery and obtains any other information encoded in the readable code, e.g. identifier, delivery point, recipient, service class, i.e. the carrier entity receives from their identifier the delivery details);
receiving delivery instructions from the first user (Hanlon ¶[0027], ¶[0040], ¶[0057] details the customer user provides delivery instructions and authorizations e.g. a code / permission for the delivery agent to access the smart home / smart lock to deliver the item);
transmitting to the courier entity confirmation that the delivery uses the enhanced delivery mode (Hanlon ¶[0041], ¶[0049], ¶[0053] details appending an encoded identifier on the package that indicates smart home delivery, the courier scans the identifier to determine the item has a record for smart home delivery);
detecting, using a mobile application, a location of a mobile device of a second user (Hanlon ¶[0049], ¶[0054], ¶[0071] details determining the carrier mobile delivery device determining its location by its geolocation circuit / GPS and software);
determining that the location of the mobile device is within a predetermined distance of the property (Hanlon ¶[0049], ¶[0054-55] details determining the mobile delivery device is within a geofence or at a particular location in proximity to the smart lock);
receiving from the mobile application confirmation once the delivery to the property has been made according to the delivery instructions (Hanlon ¶[0067], ¶[0070] details the carrier using the mobile device to scan the item after placing it in the house for delivery confirmation, and the device uses software);
With respect to the following:
deleting a first set of sensitive data related to the property or the delivery, wherein the first set of sensitive data includes the delivery instructions;
Hanlon, as shown in ¶[0027], ¶[0040], ¶[0045] details the delivery instructions include a one-time permission code / access code used by the delivery personal for entry / unlocking a smart home (sensitive data related to the property or the delivery, wherein the first set of sensitive data includes the delivery instructions); highly suggesting but not explicitly stating deleting the first set of sensitive data related to the property or the delivery. However, Kelly teaches this limitation, deleting the delivery agent access key received to enter the secured area on the agent’s route from the authorized access key list after opening the lock to the secured area (Kelly Fig 9C, ¶[0059], ¶[0071-73]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include deleting a first set of sensitive data related to the property or the delivery, wherein the first set of sensitive data includes the delivery instructions as taught by Kelly with the teachings of Hanlon, with the motivation that “this prevents an unscrupulous delivery agent from later using the delivery agent access key to pilfer” (Kelly ¶[0073]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include deleting a first set of sensitive data related to the property or the delivery, wherein the first set of sensitive data includes the delivery instructions as taught by Kelly in the system of Hanlon, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Hanlon (in view of Kelly) also teaches the following:
transmitting to the user details of the delivery (Hanlon ¶[0028], ¶[0067] details delivery information is provided to the recipient after the item is safely delivered and scanned; delivery confirmation can also include video or image of the carrier leaving the door from a smart doorbell); and
Hanlon does not explicitly state, but Andrews teaches the following:
deleting a second set of sensitive data related to the property or the delivery, wherein the second set of sensitive data includes an identity of the first user or a location of the property (Andrews ¶[0029-31], ¶[0049] details limiting the use and deleting any recipient personal, private and/or sensitive stored information (e.g. recipient addresses and PII data stored in association for parcel deliveries) for a specific delivery / time period / revokable period during delivery / use in an access condition, so that it is later unable to be accessed by a fulfiller that accessed the address information of the user).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include deleting a second set of sensitive data related to the property or the delivery, wherein the second set of sensitive data includes an identity of the first user or a location of the property as taught by Andrews with the teachings of Hanlon in view of Kelly, with the motivation of “enhanced personal privacy protection for recipients” and “managed control over user information” (Andrews ¶[0030]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include deleting a second set of sensitive data related to the property or the delivery, wherein the second set of sensitive data includes an identity of the first user or a location of the property as taught by Andrews in the system of Hanlon in view of Kelly, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 4:
Hanlon in view of Kelly in view of Andrews, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 1. Hanlon also teaches the following:
wherein the delivery instructions received from the first user include data describing how to gain access to the property (Hanlon ¶[0040], ¶[0045-46] details the user providing delivery instructions and delivery information, which includes an access code provided how to access the smart home / lock).
Claim 5:
Hanlon in view of Kelly in view of Andrews, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 4. Hanlon also teaches the following:
wherein the data describing how to gain access to the property include any one or more of: a PIN code for a door lock; a location of a key; and or a one-time code (Hanlon ¶[0033], ¶[0047] details the code for the smart home / smart lock can be entered on a keypad, and is a one-time code).
Claim 6:
Hanlon in view of Kelly in view of Andrews, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 1. Hanlon also teaches the following:
transmitting to the mobile device of the second user the delivery instructions in response to determining that the location of the mobile device is within a predetermined distance of the property (Hanlon ¶[0049], ¶[0054] details only communicating the access code to the carrier device when the device us within a geofence or at a particular location in proximity to the smart lock of the delivery location).
Claim 7:
Hanlon in view of Kelly in view of Andrews, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 6. Hanlon also teaches the following:
wherein the delivery instructions are transmitted in response to the current time being within a delivery window (Hanlon ¶[0054], ¶[0056] details the geofence confirmation rule (i.e. only send the access code when within the proximity of a geofence of the delivery location / smart home / smart lock) is also limited to during normal business hours or when the carrier would be expected to be traversing the delivery route).
Claim 8:
Hanlon in view of Kelly in view of Andrews, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 7. Hanlon also teaches the following:
wherein the delivery window is defined as part of the courier entity scheduling the delivery to the property (Hanlon ¶[0054], ¶[0056] details the geofence confirmation rule (i.e. only send the access code when within the proximity of a geofence of the delivery location / smart home / smart lock) is also limited to during normal business hours or when the carrier would be expected to be traversing the delivery route).
Claim 13:
Claim 13 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 1 and therefore claim 13 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning presented above for claim 1.
Claim 19:
Claim 19 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 1 and therefore claim 19 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning presented above for claim 1.
Claim 21:
Hanlon in view of Kelly in view of Andrews, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 19. Hanlon also teaches the following:
the data describing how to gain access to the property include any one or more of: a PIN code for a door lock; a location of a key; and or a one-time code (Hanlon ¶[0033], ¶[0047] details the code for the smart home / smart lock can be entered on a keypad, and is a one-time code);
the instructions further cause the one or more processors to transmit to the mobile device of the second user the delivery instructions in response to determining that the location of the mobile device is within a predetermined distance of the property (Hanlon ¶[0049], ¶[0054] details only communicating the access code to the carrier device when the device us within a geofence or at a particular location in proximity to the smart lock of the delivery location); and
the delivery instructions are transmitted in response to the current time being within a delivery window (Hanlon ¶[0054], ¶[0056] details the geofence confirmation rule (i.e. only send the access code when within the proximity of a geofence of the delivery location / smart home / smart lock) is also limited to during normal business hours or when the carrier would be expected to be traversing the delivery route).
Claims 2-3, 15-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication 2021/0366217 A1 to Hanlon in view of US patent application publication 2002/0046173 A1 to Kelly in view of US patent application publication 2022/0253791 A1 to Andrews et al., as applied to claims 1 and 19 above, and further in view of US patent application publication 2020/0027295 A1 to Bigert et al.
Claim 2:
Hanlon in view of Kelly in view of Andrews, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 1. Hanlon does not explicitly state, but Bigert teaches the following:
wherein the delivery details are received from the courier entity using an application programming interface (API) (Bigert ¶[0086-90], ¶[0115] details the delivery company using REST API to look up the order ID from the tracking ID, create a delivery from the order, and schedule the delivery, and details delivery companies are granted access to digital locks through an API).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the delivery details are received from the courier entity using an application programming interface (API) as taught by Bigert with the teachings of Hanlon in view of Kelly in view of Andrews, with the motivation to “enable access to a property by a delivery courier without compromising security” (Bigert ¶[0001]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the delivery details are received from the courier entity using an application programming interface (API) as taught by Bigert in the system of Hanlon in view of Kelly in view of Andrews, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 3:
Hanlon in view of Kelly in view of Andrews, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 1. Hanlon does not explicitly state, but Bigert teaches the following:
wherein the confirmation to the courier entity that the delivery uses the enhanced delivery mode is transmitted using an application programming interface (API) (Bigert ¶[0083-85], ¶[0117-119] details customer places an order on the site, confirms in the app that the delivery will be accepted in their home and confirmation that the lock that it is accepted using the API GlueFederation, and the site calls REST API to add a delivery tracking ID to the order).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the confirmation to the courier entity that the delivery uses the enhanced delivery mode is transmitted using an application programming interface (API) as taught by Bigert with the teachings of Hanlon in view of Kelly in view of Andrews, with the motivation to “enable access to a property by a delivery courier without compromising security” (Bigert ¶[0001]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the confirmation to the courier entity that the delivery uses the enhanced delivery mode is transmitted using an application programming interface (API) as taught by Bigert in the system of Hanlon in view of Kelly in view of Andrews, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 15:
Hanlon in view of Kelly in view of Andrews in view of Bigert, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 2. Bigert also teaches the following:
wherein the confirmation to the courier entity that the delivery uses the enhanced delivery mode is transmitted using an API (Bigert ¶[0083-85], ¶[0117-119] details customer places an order on the site, confirms in the app that the delivery will be accepted in their home and confirmation that the lock that it is accepted using the API GlueFederation, and the site calls REST API to add a delivery tracking ID to the order).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the confirmation to the courier entity that the delivery uses the enhanced delivery mode is transmitted using an application programming interface (API) as taught by Bigert with the teachings of Hanlon in view of Kelly in view of Andrews (in view of Bigert), with the motivation to “enable access to a property by a delivery courier without compromising security” (Bigert ¶[0001]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the confirmation to the courier entity that the delivery uses the enhanced delivery mode is transmitted using an application programming interface (API) as taught by Bigert in the system of Hanlon in view of Kelly in view of Andrews (in view of Bigert), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 16:
Hanlon in view of Kelly in view of Andrews in view of Bigert, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 2. Hanlon also teaches the following:
wherein the delivery instructions received from the first user include data describing how to gain access to the property (Hanlon ¶[0040], ¶[0045-46] details the user providing delivery instructions and delivery information, which includes an access code provided how to access the smart home / lock).
Claim 20:
Hanlon in view of Kelly in view of Andrews, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 19. Hanlon does not explicitly state, but Bigert teaches the following:
the delivery details are received from the courier entity using an application programming interface (API) (Bigert ¶[0086-90], ¶[0115] details the delivery company using REST API to look up the order ID from the tracking ID, create a delivery from the order, and schedule the delivery, and details delivery companies are granted access to digital locks through an API); and
the confirmation to the courier entity that the delivery uses the enhanced delivery mode is transmitted using an API (Bigert ¶[0083-85], ¶[0117-119] details customer places an order on the site, confirms in the app that the delivery will be accepted in their home and confirmation that the lock that it is accepted using the API GlueFederation, and the site calls REST API to add a delivery tracking ID to the order).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the delivery details are received from the courier entity using an application programming interface (API); and the confirmation to the courier entity that the delivery uses the enhanced delivery mode is transmitted using an API as taught by Bigert with the teachings of Hanlon in view of Kelly in view of Andrews, with the motivation to “enable access to a property by a delivery courier without compromising security” (Bigert ¶[0001]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the delivery details are received from the courier entity using an application programming interface (API); and the confirmation to the courier entity that the delivery uses the enhanced delivery mode is transmitted using an API as taught by Bigert in the system of Hanlon in view of Kelly in view of Andrews, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication 2021/0366217 A1 to Hanlon in view of US patent application publication 2002/0046173 A1 to Kelly in view of US patent application publication 2022/0253791 A1 to Andrews et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of “Easter 2019: SMS Marketing Inspiration For Driving Sales To Your Shopify Store” <https://ecommercefastlane.com/easter-2019-sms-marketing-inspiration-for-driving-sales-to-your-shopify-store/> (<https://web.archive.org/web/20210928225808/https://ecommercefastlane.com/easter-2019-sms-marketing-inspiration-for-driving-sales-to-your-shopify-store/> captured on 28 September 2021 using the Wayback Machine) to Hutt.
Claim 9:
Hanlon in view of Kelly in view of Andrews, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 1. With respect to the following:
wherein providing the first user with an option for using an enhanced delivery mode is sent using email or short message service (SMS).
Hanlon, as shown in ¶[0040] details providing delivery methods for a user to select, one of which includes smart home delivery (i.e. an enhanced delivery mode), but does not explicitly state that providing the first user with an option for using an enhanced delivery mode is sent using email or short message service SMS. However, Hutt teaches this limitation, providing user an option for a free shipping (i.e. an enhanced delivery mode) through an SMS message that includes a hyperlink URL (Hutt ‘5 Easter SMS Shopping Cart Recovery Copy / Paste Automations’ section text “Still need some time, {FirstName}? That’s okay, that’s why we have an extended Free Shipping offer just for you until April 24: https://brand.smsb/xXX”, ‘5 Easter SMS Customer Reactivation Copy / Paste Automations’ section text “Haven’t seen you in a while, {First Name}! Thought you might like our new arrivals, get them with the Easter Free Shipping promo on our website here: https://brand.smb.co/xXX”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein providing the first user with an option for using an enhanced delivery mode is sent using email or short message service (SMS) as taught by Hutt with the teachings of Hanlon in view of Kelly in view of Andrews, with the motivation of “Speed and convenience in communication” (Hutt ‘Here’s the thing though…’ section beginning “85% of customers prefer texting over email or phone…”). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein providing the first user with an option for using an enhanced delivery mode is sent using email or short message service (SMS) as taught by Hutt in the system of Hanlon in view of Kelly in view of Andrews, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 10:
Hanlon in view of Kelly in view of Andrews in view of Hutt, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 9. Hutt also teaches the following:
wherein the email or SMS includes a universal resource locator (URL) (Hutt ‘5 Easter SMS Shopping Cart Recovery Copy / Paste Automations’ section text “Still need some time, {FirstName}? That’s okay, that’s why we have an extended Free Shipping offer just for you until April 24: https://brand.smsb/xXX”, ‘5 Easter SMS Customer Reactivation Copy / Paste Automations’ section text “Haven’t seen you in a while, {First Name}! Thought you might like our new arrivals, get them with the Easter Free Shipping promo on our website here: https://brand.smb.co/xXX” details providing user an option for a free shipping (i.e. an enhanced delivery) through an SMS message that includes a hyperlink URL).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the email or SMS includes a universal resource locator (URL) as taught by Hutt with the teachings of Hanlon in view of Kelly in view of Andrews (in view of Hutt), with the motivation of “Speed and convenience in communication” (Hutt ‘Here’s the thing though…’ section beginning “85% of customers prefer texting over email or phone…”). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the email or SMS includes a universal resource locator (URL) as taught by Hutt in the system of Hanlon in view of Kelly in view of Andrews (in view of Hutt), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Additional Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US patent application publication 2022/0138667 A1 to Cain JR details managing transport data expiration.
US patent application publication 2019/0197470 A1 to Endo details an information processing device that deletes unneeded delivery logs after determination is made that the user has received the package (Endo ¶[0016]).
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 BRIAN TALLMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3198. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5.
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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at (571) 270-1833. 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.
BRIAN TALLMAN
Examiner
Art Unit 3628
/BRIAN A TALLMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/MICHAEL P HARRINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628