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 the Claims
Claims 1-20 were previously pending and subject to a non-final office action mailed 03/27/2025. Claims 1-2, 6-10, 17 and 19 were amended; claims 5 and 13-14 were cancelled, and claims 21-23 were added in a reply filed 06/27/2025. Therefore claims 1-4, 6-12 and 15-23 are currently pending and subject to the final office action below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/27/2025 was considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/27/2025 in regards to section 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that claim 1 recites “a specific technical process involving the generation, encoding, physical disposition, and use of machine-readable identifiers to manage asynchronous item tracking workflows. Claim 1 sets forth instructions to "generate an identifier to be used in association with future transit of an item, the identifier not associated with the transit of the item at a time of generation of the identifier; encode the identifier into a Quick Response (QR) code, cause disposition of the QR code on a physical medium, the physical medium to be distributed via a distribution channel prior to an association of the identifier with the item; access a request based on a scan of the QR code , the request including the identifier; determine whether the identifier is associated with the item; after a determination that the identifier is not associated with the item, cause display of a first user interface for association of the identifier with the item; and after a determination that the identifier is associated with the item, cause display of a second user interface to present transit information corresponding to the item…Under Step 2A, Prong 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, claim 1 does not recite a judicial exception. The claim is directed to a technological process that uses a generated identifier encoded into a machine-readable QR code and physically disposed on a medium for later scan-based system interaction. The process conditionally presents one of two different user interfaces depending on whether the identifier has been associated with an item at the time of scanning. These features define a real-time, physical-digital interaction model that cannot be abstracted into mental processing, mathematical operations, or organizing human activity." (remarks p. 7). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner respectfully argues that claim 1 doesn’t recites a specific technical process but rather an abstract process because reading information from barcode/QR code is an abstract process that does not improve computer functionality (please see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A), “using a marking (i.e. barcode) affixed to the outside of a mail object to communicate information about the mail object, i.e., the sender, recipient, and contents of the mail object, Secured Mail Solutions LLC v. Universal Wilde, Inc., 873 F.3d 905, 911, 124 USPQ2d 1502, 1506 (Fed. Cir. 2017)“). Therefore, communicating information via a QR code is not a technological process or improvement. As such, the claims are not patent eligible.
In addition, the subsequent limitation “determine whether the identifier is associated with the item” and “the conditional display of distinct user interfaces in response to that determination” does not integrate the alleged abstract idea into a technical process because such determination is an abstract process which the computer is simply automating. Said determination is a generic use of a computer which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (please see MPEP (f) “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea”). Therefore, reading information from a QR code and determining which information to display is an abstract process which the claims are merely applying on a computer network. As such, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they fail to improve the computer or a technical field.
Applicant argues that the claims are analogous to claim 2 of example 36 because “In that example, the claim recited a system using RFID scanning to update inventory levels in response to detected item movement. The USPTO concluded that the claim was not directed to a judicial exception because the operations recited (including the use of physical RFID tags and their real-time interaction with inventory databases) described a technological improvement to inventory systems. Similarly, claim 1 recites use of machine-readable QR codes disposed on physical media to drive a logistics control flow for asynchronous item association, with system behavior conditioned on real-time determinations. Like the claim in Example 36, claim 1 does not merely automate a conventional process, but rather defines a system architecture that enables workflows not previously achievable with existing tools.” (Remarks p. 8).
Examiner respectfully argues that the current claims are distinguishable from claim 2 of example 36. As argued above, using machine readable QR codes disposed on physical media is an abstract idea and does not provide any improvement to a system. In addition, the subsequent limitation “determine whether the identifier is associated with the item” and “the conditional display of distinct user interfaces in response to that determination” does not integrate the alleged abstract idea into a technical process because such determination is an apply it instructions. It is a generic use of a computer which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (please see MPEP (f) “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea”). Therefore, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they fail to improve on the computer or a technical field.
Furthermore, claim 2 of example 36 was eligible because at the time of the invention, using a high-resolution video camera array with overlapping views to track items of inventory was not well-understood, routine and conventional. The memory and processor in combination with the high-resolution video camera array with predetermined overlapping views that reconstructs the 3D coordinates of the item of inventory using overlapping images of the item and prior knowledge of the location and field of view of the camera provides significantly more than the abstract idea of using data collection techniques to manage inventory. In contrast, as argued above, scanning and reading information from a barcode/QR code is an abstract idea as found in the Secured Mail Solutions. As such, determining which information to display based on the scanned information is simply further limiting the abstract idea and do not improve the computer or a technical field. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Applicant argues that “Even if the claim were viewed as invoking a judicial exception, it is integrated into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2. The limitations reciting "encode the identifier into a Quick Response (QR) code" and "cause disposition of the QR code on a physical medium, the physical medium to be distributed via a distribution channel prior to an association of the identifier with the item "are not nominal or post-solution activity. They implement a distribution model that decouples identifier generation from item association, allowing for scalable, asynchronous tracking. The subsequent limitations "determine whether the identifier is associated with the item ", and the conditional display of distinct user interfaces in response to that determination, further tie system behavior to real-world item status, reinforcing the integration of any alleged idea into a technical process.” (remarks p. 8). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner respectfully argues that the implementing a distribution model that decouples identifier generation from item association, allowing for scalable, asynchronous tracking is more of a business process than a technical improvement. This process does not improve the technical field or the computer itself by improving how the process is done but rather simply delays the time when the association happens. But regardless when the association happens, the technology how the association is done is still the same. Furthermore, at the time of the invention, navigating to a website based on the information associated/encoded in a QR code is well understood, routine and conventional as shown in theWikipedia.com (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QR_code (see attached). Therefore, the claims do not improve a technical field or a computer but merely apply an abstract idea in a generic computer environment.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks p. 8-9, filed 06/27/2025, with respect to 112b rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112b rejection of claim 9 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks p. 9-11, filed 06/27/2025, with respect to 102/103 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 102/103 rejection of claim 9 has been withdrawn.
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 1-4, 6-12 and 15-23 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 1/17/19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “generate an identifier to be used in association with future transit of an item, the identifier not associated with the transit of the item at a time of generation of the identifier; encode the identifier into a Quick Response (QR) code; cause disposition of the QR code on a physical medium, the physical medium to be distributed via a distribution channel prior to association of the identifier with the item; access a request, the request including an identifier; determine whether the identifier is associated with an item for delivery; after a determination that the identifier is not associated with the item, cause display of the identifier with the item; and after a determination that the identifier is associated with the item, cause display of transit information corresponding to the item.”
The limitations above, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a method of organizing a human activity. That is, the method allows for commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) and 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 recites “a scan of a Quick Response (QR) code”, “QR code” and “first user interface” and “second user interface” (claim 1/17), “interface circuitry”, “machine readable instructions” (claim 17) and no additional elements in claim 19. 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 elements, alone or in combination, 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 is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements, alone or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements, alone or in combination, are nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception on a general computer.
Dependent claim 2-4, 6 and 22 are also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because they further narrow the abstract idea described in relation to claim 1 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application (the physical medium is recited at a high level of generality which amounts to field of use) or providing significantly more limitations.
Dependent claim 7-9/18/20 are also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because they further narrow the abstract idea described in relation to claim 1 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application or providing significantly more limitations.
Dependent claim 10-11 are also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because they further narrow the abstract idea described in relation to claim 1 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application (additional QR code is recited at a high level of generality which amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception in a computer environment and generally links the abstract idea to field of technology) or providing significantly more limitations.
Dependent claim 12 and 15-16 are also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because they further narrow the abstract idea described in relation to claim 1 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application (QR code of claim 12 and 15 is recited at a high level of generality which amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception in a computer environment and generally links the abstract idea to field of technology) or providing significantly more limitations.
Dependent claim 21/23 are also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because they further narrow the abstract idea described in relation to claim 1 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application (first user interface is recited at a high level of generality which amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception in a computer environment and generally links the abstract idea to field of technology) 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) 1-2, 6, 12-17 and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Carnicero (US 11,301,802).
As per claim 1/17/19, Carnicero discloses a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium comprising instructions to cause programmable circuitry to at least: interface circuitry (17:19-44);
generate an identifier to be used in association with future transit of an item, the identifier not associated with the transit of the item at a time of generation of the identifier (17:59-18:3, an identifier of an order is generated that is associated with a future return of an item in the order, the identifier is not associated with the particular transit with any of the items at the time of generation until the user selects which item will be);
encode the identifier into a Quick Response (QR) code 17:59-18:3, an identifier of an order is generated that is associated with a future return of an item in the order, the identifier is not associated with the particular transit with any of the items at the time of generation until the user selects which item will be);
cause disposition of the QR code on a physical medium, the physical medium to be distributed via a distribution channel prior to association of the identifier with the item (5:39-44, “FIG. 1 depicts the order 104 being associated with first code data 110(1), which in some implementations may include a scannable code, such as a bar code or QR code. An indication of the first code data 110(1) may be attached to or otherwise associated with a container or other packaging materials for the order 104. For example, a label presenting a QR code may be affixed to a box containing an order 104.” The QR code label is affixed to the package shipped to the customer before the customer is able to associated the identifier with the return of the item);
access a request based on a scan of a Quick Response (QR) code, the request including an identifier of the QR code (5:55-6:6, “The first code data 110(1) and second code data 110(2) may enable the user 108 to initiate a return process for one or more items 102 using a portable computing device having a display of limited size, without requiring interaction with a user interface presenting the items 102. For example, the user device 106 may include a smartphone or another type of portable computing device. Due to the limited size of the display area associated with the user device 106, if the user 108 were to navigate to a website associated with the order 104 and view a list of the items 102 that were ordered, significant interaction with the user interface may be necessary to initiate a return process.”);
determine whether the identifier is associated with an item for delivery (6:63-8:30, after the order QR code is scanned, the system determines if a return was already started to allow the user to cancel the return, if not the system allows the user to associate an item with the return);
after a determination that the identifier is not associated with the item, cause display of a first user interface for association of the identifier with the item (6:63-8:30, after the order QR code is scanned, the system determines if a return was already started to allow the user to cancel the return, if not the system allows the user to associate an item with the return); and
after a determination that the identifier is associated with the item, cause display of a second user interface to present transit information corresponding to the item (6:63-8:30, after the order QR code is scanned, the system determines if a return was already started to allow the user to cancel the return or continue with the return, if not the system allows the user to associate an item with the return).
As per claim 2, Carnicero discloses wherein the physical medium is a transit package (3:21-35, the QR code is printed on a label and affixed to a package).
As per claim 6, Carnicero discloses wherein the QR code is printed on a sticker that is to be affixed directly onto the item (3:21-35, the QR code is printed on a label and affixed to a package).
As per claim 12, Carnicero discloses wherein the instructions cause the programmable circuitry to associate the QR code with a user-initiated action (6:63-8:30, after the order QR code is scanned, the system determines if a return was already started to allow the user to cancel the return or continue with the return, if not the system allows the user to associate an item with the return).
As per claim 15, Carnicero discloses wherein the QR code is associated with transit information. (6:63-8:30, the QR code is associated with the return status of the item).
As per claim 16, Carnicero discloses wherein the programmable circuitry is to facilitate execution of the user-initiated action (6:63-8:30, the system allows the user to associate the QR code with the return).
As per claim 21, Carnicero discloses wherein the first user interface is to include directions to a user to associate the identifier with the item (6:63-8:30, the user interface directs the user to associate an item with the QR code identifier).
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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carcinero, as rejected in claim 2, in further view of McDaniel (US 12,020,597).
As per claim 3, Carcinero does not disclose but Mcdaniel discloses wherein the transit package is separate from a previous package in which the item was shipped (3:39-54, a return label is peeled from the shipping package to be placed on a return package).
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 Mcdaniel in the teaching of Carcinero, in order to provide a combined mailing label and return label which is less expensive and which is easier to manufacture (1:34-35).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Canicero, as rejected in claim 2, in further view of “No package, No problem”, published by usps.com, on Sept. 17, 2019, hereinafter “link”.
As per claim 4, Carnicero does not disclose but Link discloses wherein the transit package is a polybag (page 1).
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 Link in the teaching of Carnicero, 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) 7-10, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carnicero, as rejected in claim 1, in further view of McBride (US 11144868).
As per claim 7/18/20, Carnicero discloses a second user interface displaying a return status of an item (7:24-46). However, Carnicero does not disclose but McBride discloses wherein the instructions cause the programmable circuitry to: determine a transit plan for the item and cause display of the second user interface to provide the transit information based on a transit status of the item relative to the transit plan (fig. 1-2, col.1: 20 to col. 2: 15, the system determines the transit plan for a shipment).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitations above as taught by McBride in the teaching of Carnicero, in order to determine exemplary projected routes, delivery dates, times and rates for multiple carriers and multiple delivery services/methods (please see McBride abstract).
As per claim 8, Carnicero in view of McBride disclose all the limitations of claim 7. Carnicero does not disclose but McBride further discloses wherein: the transit plan includes an intermediate destination between an initial location of the item and a final destination (col. 18:40-49); and the instructions cause the programmable circuitry to, in response to a change in the transit status, cause display of the intermediate destination on the second user interface (fig. 1-2, col. 1:20 to col. 2:15) (please see claim 7 rejection for combination rationale).
As per claim 9, Carnicero in view of McBride disclose all the limitations of claim 7. Carnicero does not disclose but McBride further discloses wherein the instructions cause the programmable circuitry to: determine the item has reached the final destination; and cause display of product information using the second user interface (fig. 1-2, col. 1:20 to col. 2:15, col. 18:40-49, the location of the package is tracked and the information is displayed on the map) (please see claim 7 rejection for combination rationale).
As per claim 10, Klausner in view of McBride disclose all the limitations of claim 9. Carcinero does not disclose but McBride further discloses wherein the product information includes one or more of: a description of the item; a name of a person who initiated the transit of the item; a reason for the transit of the item; a link to initiate a refund for a value of the item; an additional QR code; or information from a receipt (fig. 1-2, col. 2:1-44, col. 18:40-49, the location/date and time of the package is tracked and the information is displayed on the map. Therefore, the location/date and time of the receipt of the package at destination will be shown) (please see claim 7 rejection for combination rationale).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carcinero, as rejected in claim 1, in further view of Friesen (US 2024/0338711).
As per claim 11, Carcinero discloses wherein: the transit information includes one or more of: an address; a shipping label (3:21-35); or an additional QR code.
However, Carcinero does not disclose but Friesen discloses the instructions cause the programmable circuitry to determine a type of transit information to provide based on a delivery service selected to transport the item (fig. 2b, paragraph 45-46).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitations above as taught by Friesen in the teaching of Carcinero, in order to receive, from a customer device, selection of an item to return as a drive-up return (please see Friesen abstract).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carcinero, as rejected in claim 21, in further view of “try it details”, published by feelitstore.com on September 28, 2023, hereinafter “Try it”.
As per claim 22, Carcinero does not disclose but Try it discloses wherein the physical medium is a sticker, and the directions instruct the user to affix the sticker to the item (page, the return instructions instructs the user to peel off the return label and stick on a return box).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitations above as taught by Try it in the teaching of Carcinero, 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) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carcinero, as rejected in claim 21, in further view of Klausner (US 2019/0392445).
As per claim 23, Carcinero discloses a user interface where the user associates a return item with the order. While Carcinero highly suggests that the user interface includes the name of the retail store that shipped the package with the return shipping label, Carcinero does not explicitly disclose but Klausner discloses wherein the distribution channel is associated with the identifier, and the first user interface includes information identifying the distribution channel (fig. 7c, paragraph 110, the return page shows the name of the online retail store the item was bought).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitations above as taught by Klausner in the teaching of Carcinero, 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
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 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, Resha Desai can be reached at (571) 270-7792. 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 3628