DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6: “The information processing system according to The information processing system according” should read “The information processing system according to claim 2”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “control unit” and “authentication unit” in claim 1/21/23, “communication unit” in claim 2, “keeping device” in claim 13.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1 and 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim(s) 1/21, 22 and 23 is/are directed towards a computer system (i.e. machine), a method (i.e. a process) and computer readable medium (i.e. a manufacture), respectively. Thus, each of the claims fall within one of the four statutory categories. Nevertheless, the claims fall within the judicial exception of an abstract idea.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “approves a candidate for a proxy who is able to pick up a package on behalf of a recipient designated in an address of the package, as the proxy; and performs an authentication process of determining whether a request for pick-up authentication of the package that is delivered is a request from the proxy who is approved”.
The limitations above, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a method of “authenticating a proxy for a package delivery” which is a method of organizing a human activity. That is, the method allows for fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites “control unit” and “authentication unit” (claims 1, 21, 23) and a computer (claim 22). Each of the additional limitations is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional element(s), alone or in combination, do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it/they do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s), alone or in combination, is/are nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception on a general computer
Dependent claim(s) 2 is/are also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because it/they further narrow(s) the abstract idea described in relation to claim 1 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application (a communication unit and information processing terminal used by the candidate are recited at a high level of recitation which amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception in a computer environment) or providing significantly more limitations.
Dependent claim(s) 3 and 5-6 is/are also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because it/they further narrow(s) the abstract idea described in relation to claim 2 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application or providing significantly more limitations.
Dependent claim(s) 4 is/are also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because it/they further narrow(s) the abstract idea described in relation to claim 7 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application (the information processing terminal used by the recipient is recited at a high level of recitation which amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception in a computer environment) or providing significantly more limitations.
Dependent claim(s) 7 is/are also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because it/they further narrow(s) the abstract idea described in relation to claim 5 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application (a storage unit is recited at a high level of recitation which amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception in a computer environment) or providing significantly more limitations.
Dependent claim(s) 8 is/are also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because it/they further narrow(s) the abstract idea described in relation to claim 7 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application or providing significantly more limitations.
Dependent claim(s) 9 is/are also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because it/they further narrow(s) the abstract idea described in relation to claim 7 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application (the information processing terminal used by the recipient and information processing terminals used by the candidate are recited at a high level of recitation which amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception in a computer environment) or providing significantly more limitations.
Dependent claim(s) 10 is/are also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because it/they further narrow(s) the abstract idea described in relation to claim 9 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application or providing significantly more limitations.
Dependent claim(s) 10-11 is/are also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because it/they further narrow(s) the abstract idea described in relation to claim 9 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application or providing significantly more limitations.
Dependent claim(s) 12 is/are also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because it/they further narrow(s) the abstract idea described in relation to claim 9 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application (unmanned aircraft is recited at a high level of recitation which amounts to field of use limitation) or providing significantly more limitations.
Dependent claim(s) 13 is/are also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because it/they further narrow(s) the abstract idea described in relation to claim 1 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application (“wherein when the authentication unit determines that the request for the pick-up authentication of the package is the request from the approved proxy, the control unit controls so that the package is able to be taken out of a keeping device that keeps the package” is recited at a high level of recitation which amounts to apply it limitation) or providing significantly more limitations.
Dependent claim(s) 14 is/are also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because it/they further narrow(s) the abstract idea described in relation to claim 13 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application (“wherein the keeping device is an unmanned vehicle” is recited at a high level of recitation which amounts to field of use limitation. “when the authentication unit determines that the request for the pick-up authentication of the package is the request from the approved proxy, the control unit controls so that the package is able to be taken out of the unmanned vehicle” is recited at a high level of recitation which amounts to apply it limitation) or providing significantly more limitations.
Dependent claim(s) 15 is/are also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because it/they further narrow(s) the abstract idea described in relation to claim 13 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application (“wherein the keeping device keeps the package released from the unmanned vehicle” is recited at a high level of recitation which amounts to field of use limitation) or providing significantly more limitations.
Dependent claim(s) 16 is/are also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because it/they further narrow(s) the abstract idea described in relation to claim 13 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application (“wherein the keeping device includes the authentication unit, and an authentication communication unit that receives information about the authentication from the information processing terminal used by the proxy” is recited at a high level of recitation which amounts to field of use limitation and apply it limitation) or providing significantly more limitations.
Dependent claim(s) 17-18 is/are also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because it/they further narrow(s) the abstract idea described in relation to claim 2/13 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application or providing significantly more limitations.
Dependent claim(s) 19 is/are also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because it/they further narrow(s) the abstract idea described in relation to claim 2 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application (“information processing terminal used by a person who manages the package” is recited at a high level of recitation which amounts to apply it limitation) or providing significantly more limitations.
Dependent claim(s) 20 is/are also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because it/they further narrow(s) the abstract idea described in relation to claim 2 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application or providing significantly more limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, 11, 13-14, 19 and 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(1) as being anticipated by Qiu (US 2020/032749).
As per claim 1/21/22/23, Qiu discloses an information processing system comprising:
a control unit that approves a candidate for a proxy who is able to pick up a package on behalf of a recipient designated in an address of the package, as the proxy ([0027] One aspect of the present disclosure is an information processing system including a vehicle that includes an image capturing device and that delivers a package, and an information processing apparatus that includes a processor configured to determine, in a case where a recipient is not present at a delivery destination of the package, reception of the package by a substitute person present at a residence different from that of the recipient… [0061] FIG. 4 is a diagram illustrating an example of a functional configuration of the center server 1 and the vehicle 2. The center server 1 operates as each unit illustrated in FIG. 4 by computer programs in the memory 102. For example, the center server 1 includes, as functional structural elements, a position information acquisition unit 11, a delivery control unit 12, a vehicle information database (DB) 13, a user information DB 14, and a delivery information DB 15…[0067]… In the case where candidate substitutes are not set by the recipient, the delivery control unit 12 selects the substitute person from users who are registered as contracted to act as a substitute person and registered addresses of whom are within a predetermined range of the delivery destination.); and
an authentication unit that performs an authentication process of determining whether a request for pick-up authentication of the package that is delivered is a request from the proxy who is approved by the control unit ([0084] At the time of handing over of the package, the delivery control unit 25 performs user authentication. For example, the delivery control unit 25 holds, in the delivery information DB 26 described later, the authentication information of the recipient or the substitute person that is notified of by the center server 1, together with the delivery request or the notification of change to substitute reception. At the time of handing over of the package, the delivery control unit 25 urges input of the authentication by outputting a message on the display 207 with a touch panel that is installed near the delivery port for packages while facing outward, for example. In the case where the authentication information that is input matches the authentication information that is stored in the delivery information DB 26, the delivery control unit 25 assumes authentication success, and may allow the recipient or the substitute perform to take out the package, by opening the delivery port for packages, for example.).
As per claim 2, Qiu discloses a communication unit that receives a notification as to whether proxy pick-up of the package is possible from an information processing terminal used by the candidate for the proxy ([0069] For example, in the case where the user selected as the substitute person is able to accept the requested substitute reception, the user transmits a response indicating acceptance of substitute reception from the user terminal to the center server 1. For example, in the case where the user selected as the substitute person is not able to accept substitute reception, the user transmits a response indicating non-acceptance from the user terminal to the center server 1. A response from the user terminal of the user selected as the substitute person is input to the user terminal through a webpage, and is transmitted through HTTP, for example.).
As per claim 3, Qiu discloses wherein when the communication unit receives the notification that pick-up of the package is possible from the information processing terminal used by the candidate for the proxy, the control unit approves the candidate for the proxy as the proxy ([0070] In the case where a response indicating acceptance of substitute reception is received from the user terminal of the user selected as the substitute person, the delivery control unit 12 determines the user as the substitute person, and transmits, to the substitute person terminal, authentication information for authentication of the substitute person and information about the package. ).
As per claim 5, Qiu discloses wherein the communication unit transmits a proxy request to ask for proxy pick-up of the package designated by the recipient ([0068] The delivery control unit 12 transmits, to the user terminal of the selected substitute person, a request for substitute reception. For example, the request for substitute reception includes information about the recipient (such as the name, user identification information, or the like), information about the package (such as the type of package, the size, and the like), a URL of a webpage for responding, a current position of the delivery vehicle, and the like. For example, the request for substitute reception is transmitted by an email or through push distribution.).
As per claim 6, Qiu discloses wherein the communication unit transmits information about the package to the information processing terminal used by the candidate for the proxy ([0068] The delivery control unit 12 transmits, to the user terminal of the selected substitute person, a request for substitute reception. For example, the request for substitute reception includes information about the recipient (such as the name, user identification information, or the like), information about the package (such as the type of package, the size, and the like), a URL of a webpage for responding, a current position of the delivery vehicle, and the like. For example, the request for substitute reception is transmitted by an email or through push distribution.).
As per claim 7, Qiu discloses a storage unit that stores therein one or a plurality of candidates for the proxy set in advance by the recipient, wherein the communication unit transmits the proxy request to ask the candidate for the proxy stored in the storage unit to pick up the package by proxy ([0100] FIG. 7 is a diagram illustrating an example of a candidate substitute specification information table in the center server 1. The candidate substitute specification information table is a table holding information about a candidate substitute specified by the user. The candidate substitute specification information table is stored in the user information DB 14…[0068] The delivery control unit 12 transmits, to the user terminal of the selected substitute person, a request for substitute reception. For example, the request for substitute reception includes information about the recipient (such as the name, user identification information, or the like), information about the package (such as the type of package, the size, and the like), a URL of a webpage for responding, a current position of the delivery vehicle, and the like. For example, the request for substitute reception is transmitted by an email or through push distribution.).
As per claim 11, Qiu discloses wherein the communication unit receives positional information of the candidate for the proxy, and transmits the notification of the proxy recruitment to the candidate for the proxy in accordance with the positional information([0029] According to one aspect of the present disclosure, a memory configured to store user information including an address of a user may be further included, and the processor may select the substitute person from the memory, from users, registered addresses of whom are within a predetermined range of the delivery destination. This enables substitute reception of the package even when the substitute person is not specified by the recipient, and re-deliveries may be reduced… Furthermore, because the substitute person is selected from the users, the registered addresses of whom are within a predetermined range of the delivery destination, a traveling distance to the substitute person for handing over of the package may be reduced, and efficiency is high. For example, in a case where the delivery destination and the address of the substitute person belong to the same apartment building, the vehicle does not have to travel to perform handing over to the substitute person.)
As per claim 13, Qiu discloses wherein when the authentication unit determines that the request for the pick-up authentication of the package is the request from the approved proxy, the control unit controls so that the package is able to be taken out of a keeping device that keeps the package ([0084]… In the case where the authentication information that is input matches the authentication information that is stored in the delivery information DB 26, the delivery control unit 25 assumes authentication success, and may allow the recipient or the substitute perform to take out the package, by opening the delivery port for packages, for example.)
As per claim 14, Qiu discloses wherein the keeping device is an unmanned vehicle, and when the authentication unit determines that the request for the pick-up authentication of the package is the request from the approved proxy, the control unit controls so that the package is able to be taken out of the unmanned vehicle (“[0036] For example, the vehicle 2 is an electric vehicle that is capable of autonomous driving and unmanned driving. In the first embodiment, the vehicle 2 is a vehicle that delivers a package to a predetermined delivery destination.”, “[0084]… In the case where the authentication information that is input matches the authentication information that is stored in the delivery information DB 26, the delivery control unit 25 assumes authentication success, and may allow the recipient or the substitute perform to take out the package, by opening the delivery port for packages, for example.”)
As per claim 19, Qiu discloses wherein when the authentication unit determines that the request for the pick-up authentication of the package is the request from the approved proxy, the communication unit transmits a notification of authentication completion to an information processing terminal used by a person who manages the package ([0133] In S31, the vehicle 2 and the user B meet, and user authentication is performed using the authentication information that the user B received in S24, and the package of the user A is handed over. The vehicle 2 continues capturing by the camera 208 during this time, and urges the user B to place the face and the identification information of the package attached to the package within the viewing angle of the camera 208, by outputting audio or text message such as “please turn your face and transmittal form toward the camera”, for example. In S32, when it is determined that the face of the user B and the identification information of the package are captured, the vehicle 2 stops capturing. [0134] In S33, the vehicle 2 determines completion of handing over of the package, and transmits the delivery completion notification and the captured data to the center server 1. The center server receives the delivery completion notification and the captured data from the vehicle 2 (FIG. 9B, OP204: YES).).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 4 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiu, as disclosed in the rejection of claim 2/7, in view of Wilkinson (US 2020/0193376).
As per claim 4, Qiu discloses wherein the communication unit receives designation information that is designation of the candidate for the proxy (fig. 7, [0100] FIG. 7 is a diagram illustrating an example of a candidate substitute specification information table in the center server 1. The candidate substitute specification information table is a table holding information about a candidate substitute specified by the user. The candidate substitute specification information table is stored in the user information DB 14.).
However, Qiu does not explicitly disclose but Wilkinson discloses that this information is received from an information processing terminal used by the recipient ([0038] In some embodiments, the customer 110 may access, review, and/or update the electronic data in the customer information database 140 and/or the inventory management database 160 via the graphical interface 122 displayed to the customer 110 on the customer computing device 120. The graphical interface 122 may include one or more graphical input fields 124 in the form of menu options and/or sub-interfaces that permit the customer 110 to: manage product orders (e.g., by adding or removing one or more products 190 to or from the order of the customer 110 stored in the inventory management database 160); manage friends and family members of the customer 110 (e.g., by adding or removing one or more friend or family member to or from the list of friends and family members of the customer 110 stored in the customer information database 140);).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitation as taught by Wilkinson in the teaching of Qiu, 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.
As per claim 8, Qiu discloses wherein the communication unit transmits the proxy request to the candidate for the proxy among the candidates for the proxy stored in the storage unit ([0100] FIG. 7 is a diagram illustrating an example of a candidate substitute specification information table in the center server 1. The candidate substitute specification information table is a table holding information about a candidate substitute specified by the user. The candidate substitute specification information table is stored in the user information DB 14…[0068] The delivery control unit 12 transmits, to the user terminal of the selected substitute person, a request for substitute reception. For example, the request for substitute reception includes information about the recipient (such as the name, user identification information, or the like), information about the package (such as the type of package, the size, and the like), a URL of a webpage for responding, a current position of the delivery vehicle, and the like. For example, the request for substitute reception is transmitted by an email or through push distribution.).
However, Qiu does not disclose but Wilkinson discloses that the candidate for the proxy is selected by the recipient ([0034] In one aspect, the customer 110 may then use the graphical interface 122 of his or her computing device 120 to respond to this query by indicating (e.g., by checking one or more appropriate input fields 124 of the graphical interface 122) that the customer 110 agrees to have the first friend or family member selected by the retailer computing device 150 pick up the products 190 for the customer 110.)(please see claim 4 rejection for combination rationale).
As per claim 9, Qiu discloses the communication unit transmits a notification of proxy recruitment to the information processing terminal used by the candidate for the proxy ([0100] FIG. 7 is a diagram illustrating an example of a candidate substitute specification information table in the center server 1. The candidate substitute specification information table is a table holding information about a candidate substitute specified by the user. The candidate substitute specification information table is stored in the user information DB 14…[0068] The delivery control unit 12 transmits, to the user terminal of the selected substitute person, a request for substitute reception. For example, the request for substitute reception includes information about the recipient (such as the name, user identification information, or the like), information about the package (such as the type of package, the size, and the like), a URL of a webpage for responding, a current position of the delivery vehicle, and the like. For example, the request for substitute reception is transmitted by an email or through push distribution.).
However, Qiu does not disclose but Wilkinson discloses wherein upon reception of a proxy support request from the information processing terminal used by the recipient, recruit the substitute ([0039] In some embodiments, the graphical interface 122 is configured with input fields 124 that permit the customer 110 to set and/or modify pick-up and/or alert options for one or more orders placed by the customer 110, as well as for any special instructions for any of the individual products 190 in such orders. For example, the customer 110 may utilize the graphical interface 122 of the customer computing device 120 to: define a specific date on which the products 190 are to be picked up by the friend or family member for the customer from the retail facility 180; define an interval for periodic pick up, by the friend or family member, of the products 190 ordered by the customer 110 from the retail facility 180; and define an identity (e.g., first and last name) of friends or family members of the customer 110 who are authorized (or not authorized) to pick up products 190 at the retail facility 180 for the customer 110.)(please see claim 4 rejection for combination rationale).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiu, as disclosed in the rejection of claim 2/7, in view of Berk (US 2019/0266557).
As per claim 10, Qiu discloses wherein the communication unit transmits the notification of the proxy recruitment (([0100] FIG. 7 is a diagram illustrating an example of a candidate substitute specification information table in the center server 1. The candidate substitute specification information table is a table holding information about a candidate substitute specified by the user. The candidate substitute specification information table is stored in the user information DB 14…[0068] The delivery control unit 12 transmits, to the user terminal of the selected substitute person, a request for substitute reception. For example, the request for substitute reception includes information about the recipient (such as the name, user identification information, or the like), information about the package (such as the type of package, the size, and the like), a URL of a webpage for responding, a current position of the delivery vehicle, and the like. For example, the request for substitute reception is transmitted by an email or through push distribution.).
However, while Qiu disclose sending an incentive to the proxy for accepting the delivery, it does not but Berk discloses sending a notification for recruitment including reward information ([0128] At 706, the service value amount is transmitted to a courier device associated with a courier.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitation as taught by Berk in the teaching of Qiu, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiu, as disclosed in the rejection of claim 9, in view of Hu (Wo 2019042234).
As per claim 12, Qiu discloses the communication unit transmits the notification of the proxy recruitment (paragraph 68).
However, Qiu does not disclose but Hu discloses the proxy is designated to pickup the package from an unmanned aircraft and the proxy is a person who has taken a predetermined training session (“Among them, the delivery personnel should be the trained professionals, the authority to identify and unload the goods.”, “In this embodiment, by limiting the pick-up person, only through the delivery staff, the delivery service quality of the delivery door can be provided by the delivery staff; and the delivery personnel are professionally trained personnel, having the ability to operate the drone, It can avoid damage to the drone caused by improper operation or drone damage to the delivery personnel.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitation above as taught by Hu in the teaching of Qiu, in order to avoid damage to the drone (please see Hu).
Claim(s) 15-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiu, as disclosed in the rejection of claim 2/13, in view of Ali (WO 2021119564).
As per claim 15, Qiu discloses an unmanned vehicle carrying and releasing a package after authentication (paragraph 84).
However, Qiu does not disclose but Ali discloses wherein the keeping device keeps the package released from the unmanned vehicle ([0082] The method of FIG. 6 also includes releasing (606), by the UAV in dependence upon authentication of the receiving zone, the package into the receiving zone. Releasing (606), by the UAV in dependence upon authentication of the receiving zone, the package into the receiving zone may be carried out by the UAV (402) releasing the package (410) into the receiving zone (452) at the delivery destination (450). For example, the package (410) may be released from a grappling hook or other payload carrying mechanism (not shown) onto the landing pad (435) of the recipient device (430). Also, the package (410) may be released from a grappling hook or other payload carrying mechanism (not shown) into a receptacle, such as a bag, box, or locker, disposed in the receiving zone (452). Further, the package (410) may be released from a grappling hook or other payload carrying mechanism (not shown) into an open area delimited by the boundary of the receiving zone.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitation above as taught by Ali in the teaching of Qiu, in order to maintain security of the shared blockchain data structure as a public (i.e., available to other devices) and incorruptible (or tamper evident) ledger (Ali, paragraph 51).
As per claim 16, Qiu in view of Ali discloses all the limitation of claim 15. Qiu discloses the keeping device includes the authentication unit and that the authentication information is used by the proxy and the vehicle ([0084]… In the case where the authentication information that is input matches the authentication information that is stored in the delivery information DB 26, the delivery control unit 25 assumes authentication success, and may allow the recipient or the substitute perform to take out the package, by opening the delivery port for packages, for example.).
However, Qiu does not disclose but Ali discloses authentication communication unit that receives information about the authentication from the information processing terminal used by the proxy ([0004] In some embodiments, authenticating, by the UAV, the receiving zone at the delivery destination includes reading, by the camera, a machine-readable optical label located in the receiving zone, the optical label including at least one of a Quick Response (QR) code and an April Tag, deriving an identification code from the optical label, and comparing the identification code to an assigned code associated with the package. In other embodiments, authenticating, by the UAV, the receiving zone at the delivery destination includes establishing a communication channel with a recipient device disposed in the receiving zone, performing, through the communication channel, a public key infrastructure (PKI) handshake using a public key of a public/private key pair of the recipient device, and exchanging identification data with the recipient device using a session key established by the PKI handshake.)(please see claim 15 rejection for combination rationale).
As per claim 17, Qiu discloses after acceptance, the delivery control unit transmits authentication information to the substitute person terminal, and that vehicle side authentication is performed using the authentication information received (paragraph 68, 100). However, Qiu does not disclose but Ali discloses wherein the communication unit receives identification information transmitted from the information processing terminal used to accept the delivery, and the authentication unit performs authentication, based on the identification information ([0069] In some embodiments, the delivery confirmation instructions (422) further include instructions for reading, by the camera (112), a machine-readable optical label (510) (see FIG. 5) located in the receiving zone (452), the optical label (510) including at least one of a Quick Response (QR) code and an April Tag, deriving an identification code from the optical label (510), and comparing the identification code to an assigned code associated with the package (410). In other embodiments, the delivery confirmation instructions (422) include instructions for establishing a communication channel with a recipient device (430)
(described below) disposed in the receiving zone, performing, through the communication channel, a public key infrastructure (PKI) handshake using a public key of a public/private key pair of the recipient device, and exchanging identification data with the recipient device using a session key established by the PKI handshake. Exchanging identification data with the recipient device (430) using the session key established by the PKI handshake may include sending delivery identification data including at least one of a package identifier, a merchant identifier, a parcel delivery service identifier, and a UAV identifier to the recipient device. Exchanging identification data with the recipient device using the session key established by the PKI handshake may include sending receiving recipient device identification data including at least one of a recipient device identifier, one or more names of registered recipients, location data, and a code word associated with the package (410))(please see claim 15 rejection for combination rationale).
As per claim 18, Qiu discloses the authentication unit authenticates the proxy in the package keeping vehicle ([0070] In the case where a response indicating acceptance of substitute reception is received from the user terminal of the user selected as the substitute person, the delivery control unit 12 determines the user as the substitute person, and transmits, to the substitute person terminal, authentication information for authentication of the substitute person and information about the package. The authentication information for authentication of the substitute person may be one or more among a password, a passcode, a barcode, a QR code, and the like. The authentication information for authentication of the substitute person may be the same information as the authentication information for authentication of the recipient, or may be different information. The information about the package may be identification information of the package, the size, a disposed position inside the vehicle 2, and the like, for example. [0071] Moreover, the delivery control unit 12 transmits, to the vehicle 2, a notification of change to substitute reception indicating that the delivery is changed to substitute reception. For example, in the case where the authentication information is different for the recipient and the substitute person, the authentication information of the substitute person is transmitted to the vehicle 2, together with the notification of change. [0084]… In the case where the authentication information that is input matches the authentication information that is stored in the delivery information DB 26, the delivery control unit 25 assumes authentication success, and may allow the recipient or the substitute perform to take out the package, by opening the delivery port for packages, for example.).)
However, Qiu does not disclose but Ali discloses authentication based on identification information related to the keeping device ([0005] Exchanging identification data with the recipient device using the session key established by the PKI handshake may include sending delivery identification data including at least one of a package identifier, a merchant identifier, a parcel delivery service identifier, and a UAV identifier to the recipient device. Exchanging identification data with the recipient device using the session key established by the PKI handshake may include sending receiving recipient device identification data including at least one of a recipient device identifier, one or more names of registered recipients, location data, and a code word associated with the package.)(please see claim 15 rejection for combination rationale).
As per claim 20, Qiu discloses notifying the recipient of authenticated pickup completion ([0135] In S34, the center server 1 gives an incentive to the user B, who is the substitute person (FIG. 9B, OP205). In S35, the center server 1 transmits the delivery completion notification and the captured data to the recipient terminal 3A (FIG. 9B, OP206). The user A may thereby check that the user B received the package on behalf, and may go to the registered address of the user B to receive the package.). However, Qiu does not disclose but Ali discloses notification of a delivery/authentication result to the recipient ([0012] In some embodiments, generating, by the recipient device, the delivery confirmation data including the image of the package and location data may include generating, based on the delivery identification data, a delivery confirmation report, appending to the delivery confirmation report an image file including the image of the package and the location data, and transmitting the delivery confirmation report to a recipient of the package.)(please see claim 15 rejection for combination rationale).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR ZEROUAL whose telephone number is (571)272-7255. The examiner can normally be reached Flex schedule.
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, Kevin Flynn can be reached at 5712703108. 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.
OMAR . ZEROUAL
Examiner
Art Unit 3628
/OMAR ZEROUAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights