DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Office Action is in response to the Applicant's amendments and remarks filed12/26/2026. Claims 4-7, 9, 12 were amended. Claims 1-18 are presently pending and presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/26/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites method for processing package pick up on behalf of recipient.
Step 2A – Prong 1
Independent Claims 1 and 16-18 as a whole recite a method of organizing human activity. The limitations from exemplary Claim 1 reciting “sets 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 notifies the proxy or the candidate for the proxy of information about the package.” is a method of managing interactions between people, which falls into the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. The mere recitation of a generic computer (processing system, control unit and communication unit in claim 1; device, and unit in claim 16; computer in claim 17; program, computer and unit in claim 18) does not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Claims 1-18 and their underlining limitations, steps, features and terms, are further inspected by the Examiner under the current examining guidelines, and found, both individually and as a whole, not to include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The limitations are directed to limitations referenced in MPEP 2106.05 that are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Limitations that are not enough include, as a non-limiting or non-exclusive examples, such as: (i) adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions, (ii) insignificant extra solution activity, and/or (iii) generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim recites the additional elements of (processing system, control unit and communication unit in claim 1; device, and unit in claim 16; computer in claim 17; program, computer and unit in claim 18). The processing system, control unit and communication unit in claim 1; device, and unit in claim 16; computer in claim 17; program, computer and unit in claim 18, are recited at a high level of generality and are generically recited computer elements. The generically recited computer elements amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The combination of these additional elements are additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-15 are also directed to same grouping of methods of organizing human activity. The additional elements of the processing system in claims 2-15; communication unit in claim 2-7, 9-15; terminal in claims 4 and 12-13; unmanned vehicle in claims 11, are additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
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 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.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Hasse et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20230245048 - hereinafter Hasse).
Re. claim 1 and 16-18, Hasse discloses:
An information processing system comprising:
a control unit that sets 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 [Hasse; para 0004 shows locker accepting package on behalf of recipient and then provides code to recipient to later obtain package such as “provide parcel locker devices and systems that can automatically obtain information from property management systems, for example including one or more lockers configured to store a parcel received from a carrier on behalf of a recipient; a computerized network interface; and a processor configured to, via the computerized network interface: generate and provide a registration code to the recipient; receive the registration code from the recipient; responsive to receiving the registration code, receive data from a property management system based on the registration code, the data including delivery information for the recipient; and provide notifications of parcel delivery to the recipient”].
a communication unit that notifies the proxy or the candidate for the proxy of information about the package. [Hasse; para 0004 shows notification communicated to recipient with respect to package].
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 2-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasse in view of Parnpuu et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20220180306 - hereinafter Parnpuu).
Re. claim 2, Hasse teaches the information processing system according to claim 1.
Hasse doesn’t teach, Parnpuu teaches:
wherein the communication unit notifies the proxy or the candidate for the proxy of an expected arrival time of the package. [Parnpuu; para 0201 and Fig. 5b].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Parnpuu in the system of Hasse, 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.
Re. claim 3, Hasse in view of Parnpuu teaches the information processing system according to claim 2.
Hasse doesn’t teach, Parnpuu teaches:
wherein the communication unit notifies the proxy or the candidate for the proxy of the expected arrival time of the package according to a time slot of delivery of the package. [Parnpuu; para 0201 and Fig. 5b].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Parnpuu in the system of Hasse, 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.
Re. claim 5, Hasse teaches the information processing system according to claim 1.
Hasse doesn’t teach, Parnpuu teaches:
wherein in a case where the package picked up by the proxy is delivered to the recipient by a delivery person, the communication unit notifies the proxy or the candidate for the proxy of an expected arrival time of the delivery person. [Parnpuu; para 0201 and Fig. 5b].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Parnpuu in the system of Hasse, 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.
Claims 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasse in view of Nandan et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20150330798 - hereinafter Nandan).
Re. claim 4, Hasse teaches the information processing system according to claim 1.
Hasse doesn’t teach, Nandan teaches:
wherein the communication unit receives an expected arrival time of the recipient from an information processing terminal used by the recipient, and notifies the proxy of the expected arrival time. [Nandan; para 0016].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Nandan in the system of Hasse, 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.
Claims 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasse in view of Green et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20210217261 - hereinafter Green).
Re. claim 6, Hasse teaches the information processing system according to claim 1.
Hasse doesn’t teach, Green teaches:
wherein the communication unit notifies the proxy or the candidate for the proxy whether the package is a frozen commodity. [Green; para 0037].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Green in the system of Hasse, 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.
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasse in view of Araki et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20220188766 - hereinafter Araki).
Re. claim 7, Hasse teaches the information processing system according to claim 1.
Hasse doesn’t teach, Araki teaches:
wherein the communication unit notifies the proxy or the candidate for the proxy of whether the package is a commodity that needs to be handled with care. [Araki; para 0198].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Araki in the system of Hasse, 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.
Re. claim 8, Hasse in view of Araki teaches the information processing system according to claim 7.
Hasse doesn’t teach, Araki teaches:
wherein the commodity that needs to be handled with care is at least any of "this side up", "do not stack", "perishable item", or "fragile". [Araki; para 0198].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Araki in the system of Hasse, 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.
Re. claim 9, Hasse teaches the information processing system according to claim 1.
Hasse doesn’t teach, Araki teaches:
wherein the communication unit notifies the proxy of a delivery means of the package. [Araki; para 0198].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Araki in the system of Hasse, 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.
Re. claim 10, Hasse in view of Araki teaches the information processing system according to claim 9.
Hasse doesn’t teach, Araki teaches:
wherein the communication unit notifies the proxy of an instruction of preparation in accordance with the delivery means of the package. [Araki; para 0198].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Araki in the system of Hasse, 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.
Claims 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasse in view of Araki in view of Ali et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20210280074 - hereinafter Ali).
Re. claim 11, Hasse in view of Araki teaches the information processing system according to claim 10.
Hasse doesn’t teach, Ali teaches:
wherein in a case where the delivery means of the package is an unmanned vehicle, the communication unit notifies the proxy to perform landing preparation of the unmanned vehicle. [Ali; para 0070 and 0113].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Ali in the system of Hasse, 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.
Claims 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasse in view of Mishra et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20220309450 - hereinafter Mishra).
Re. claim 12, Hasse teaches the information processing system according to claim 1.
Hasse doesn’t teach, Mishra teaches:
wherein the communication unit receives a notification as to whether pick-up of the package is possible, from an information processing terminal used by the candidate for the proxy. [Mishra; 0059 shows a scoring system that identifies best fit recipient to obtain package].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Mishra in the system of Hasse, 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.
Re. claim 13, Hasse in view of Mishra teaches the information processing system according to claim 12.
Hasse doesn’t teach, Mishra teaches:
wherein when the communication unit receives a notification that the pick-up of the package is impossible from the information processing terminal used by the candidate for the proxy, the communication unit transmits a proxy recruitment for package pick-up to a candidate for the proxy who is different from the candidate for the proxy. [Mishra; 0059-0065].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Mishra in the system of Hasse, 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.
Re. claim 14, Hasse in view of Mishra teaches the information processing system according to claim 13.
Hasse doesn’t teach, Mishra teaches:
wherein in a case where setting of the proxy who is able to pick up the package is impossible, the communication unit notifies the recipient that the delivery of the package is impossible. [Mishra; 0059-0065].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Mishra in the system of Hasse, 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.
Re. claim 15, Hasse in view of Mishra teaches the information processing system according to claim 13.
Hasse doesn’t teach, Mishra teaches:
wherein in a case where setting of the proxy who is able to pick up the package is impossible, the communication unit notifies the recipient to reset the time slot of the delivery of the package. [Mishra; 0059-0065].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include limitation(s) as taught by Mishra in the system of Hasse, 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IBRAHIM EL-BATHY whose telephone number is (571)272-7545. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 7pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shannon Campbell can be reached at 5712725587. 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.
/IBRAHIM N EL-BATHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights