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 filed10/2/2025. Claims 1 was amended. Claims 2-18 are new. Claims 1-18 are presently pending and presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/2/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
In regards to rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101: Applicant’s arguments, filed 10/2/2025, with respect to claims 1-18 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
In regards to Applicant’s arguments that “Examiner rejected the claimed invention as being “directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.” Applicant has amended the application to include multiple physical items (i.e., locker, applications, transporter) that interact with software to move physical components”, (see remarks , pg. 2).
Examiner respectfully disagrees, the current claims are not statutory because they are directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite method for delivery and pickup of an order at a locker, which is a method of managing interactions between people, which falls into the methods of organizing human activity grouping as individuals with database can coordinate pickup and delivery of lockers to provide parcel to recipient. The computing elements such as “computer-implemented system, network, automated transporter, interface, application, computer-readable medium of claim 1; computer-implemented, network, interface, application, automated transporter, smart lock, server of claim 8; computer-implemented locker apparatus, network, automated transporter, mover, server, controller, signal, smart lock management server of claim 13” 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. Therefore, elements being analyzed for significantly more are mere generic computer components being implemented to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Response to Prior Art Arguments
Applicant's prior art arguments filed 10/2/2025 are moot in light of the newly cited Wolter and Ruth.
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 delivery and pickup of an order at a locker.
Step 2A – Prong 1
Independent Claims 1, 8 and 13 as a whole recite a method of organizing human activity. The limitations from exemplary Claim 1 reciting “receiving a first set of coordinates that identifies a delivery address for a package, based on scanning a barcode label on the package that contains; receiving a second set of coordinates to determine a current location of delivery person at the time of scan just before leaving the package at a recipient's door; comparing the first set of coordinates with the second set of coordinates; and based on the comparison, displaying a notification to leave the package at the current location or to not leave the package at the current location; updating the delivery address for the package prior to delivery when the delivery person receives notification of an updated delivery address for the delivery package after scanning the barcode label on the package at time of delivery; and sending a notification to the delivery person to deliver the package to the updated delivery address” 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 (computer-implemented system, network, automated transporter, interface, application, computer-readable medium of claim 1; computer-implemented, network, interface, application, automated transporter, smart lock, server of claim 8; computer-implemented locker apparatus, network, automated transporter, mover, server, controller, signal, smart lock management server of claim 13) 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 (computer-implemented system, network, automated transporter, interface, application, computer-readable medium of claim 1; computer-implemented, network, interface, application, automated transporter, smart lock, server of claim 8; computer-implemented locker apparatus, network, automated transporter, mover, server, controller, signal, smart lock management server of claim 13). The computer-implemented system, network, automated transporter, interface, application, computer-readable medium of claim 1; computer-implemented, network, interface, application, automated transporter, smart lock, server of claim 8; computer-implemented locker apparatus, network, automated transporter, mover, server, controller, signal, smart lock management server of claim 13, 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 2-7, 10-12 and 14-18 are also directed to same grouping of methods of organizing human activity. The additional elements of the computer-implemented system in claims 2-7; transporter in claims 2, 5, 12, 15 and 17-18; application in claims 4, 6, 10-11; computer-readable medium of claim 4-7; computer-implemented in claims 9-12; computer-implemented locker apparatus in claims 14-18; mover in claim 14; controller in claim 17; conveyer, linear actuator, robotic arm and crane of claim 2, 12 and 14; display in claim 7; text, email and application notification of claim 10; one-time code, QR code, biometric identifier and mobile device credential of claim 16, 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.
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 1-8, 10, 12-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolter et al (US Patent No. 10657486 - hereinafter Wolter) in view of Ruth et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20190300259 - hereinafter Ruth).
Re. claim 1, Wolter teaches:
A computer-implemented system for controlling delivery and pickup of an order using a network-controlled locker system, the system comprising:
a locker having a first internal identifier, a first external identifier associated with the first internal identifier, and at least one door secured by a lock having a secured and an unsecured position; [Wolter; Fig. 2 shows a locker with compartments secured by pin access].
at least one interface adapted to receive and transmit data in communication with a first party application and a second party application; [Wolter; Col. 6 lines 1-21 shows communication interface such as “may allow their courier devices 128 to respond with their location information, while those who are not interested in being activated may keep their location information private by not responding. In some examples, the courier application 132, the service computing device 102, the sender device 122, and/or the container 112 may communicate with each other based on one or more APIs (application programming interfaces) over the one or more networks”].
one or more servers in secure communication with the at least one interface, the locker, and the lock, the one or more servers having: [Wolter; Col. 6 lines 1-26].
a first instruction embodied in a non-transitory computer readable medium, the first instruction operable to receive an order identifier from the first party application through the at least one interface; [Wolter; Col. 17 line 10-43].
a second instruction embodied in the non-transitory computer readable medium, the second instruction operable to assign the first external identifier of the locker to the order identifier and provide the assignment to the first party application; [Wolter; Col.14 lines 33-59].
a third instruction embodied in the non-transitory computer readable medium, the third instruction operable to transmit a command to the transporter to move the locker from the drop-off point to the pickup point; [Wolter; Fig. 5 elements 504 and 506, also shown in Col. 20 lines 30-36].
a fourth instruction embodied in the non-transitory computer readable medium, the fourth instruction operable to generate a first authentication credential associated with the order identifier; [Wolter; Fig. 5 element 512 also shown in Col. 20 lines 30-36].
a fifth instruction embodied in the non-transitory computer readable medium, the fifth instruction operable to transmit the first external identifier of the locker identifier and the first authentication credential to the second party application; [Wolter; Fig. 5 also shown in Col. 20 lines 30-36].
a sixth instruction embodied in the non-transitory computer readable medium, the sixth instruction operable to receive a second authentication credential and a second internal identifier of the locker; [Wolter; Col. 20 lines 30-36].
a seventh instruction embodied in the non-transitory computer readable medium, the seventh instruction operable to switch the lock from a secured position to an unsecured position if the first internal identifier matches the second internal identifier and the first authentication credential matches the second authentication credential. [Wolter; Col. 20 lines 23-36].
Wolter doesn’t teach, Ruth teaches:
an automated transporter configured to move the locker between a drop-off point and a pickup point wherein the locker is accessible to a first party at the drop-off point and a second party at the pickup point; and [Ruth; ¶47 shows transport container transported by an automated transport container].
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 Ruth in the system of Wolter, 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 2, Wolter in view of Ruth teaches the computer-implemented system of claim 1.
Wolter doesn’t teach, Ruth teaches:
wherein the transporter comprises a conveyor, linear actuator, robotic arm, or crane. [Ruth; ¶112]. Please see motivation to combine Wolter in view of Ruth presented in claim 1 above.
Re. claim 3, Wolter in view of Ruth teaches the computer-implemented system of claim 1.
Wolter teaches:
wherein the authentication credential is the order identifier. [Wolter; Col. 4 lines 1-18].
Re. claim 4, Wolter in view of Ruth teaches the computer-implemented system of claim 1.
Wolter teaches:
further comprising an eighth instruction embodied in the non-transitory computer readable medium, the eighth instruction operable to transmit a message to the second party application identifying the locker is at the pickup location. [Wolter; Fig. 5 element 510 also shown in Col. 20 lines 30-36]
Re. claim 5, Wolter in view of Ruth teaches the computer-implemented system of claim 1.
Wolter teaches:
further comprising a ninth instruction embodied in the non-transitory computer readable medium, the ninth instruction operable to transmit a command the transporter to move the locker from the pickup point to the drop-off point after a predetermined passage of time after completion of the seventh instruction. [Wolter; Fig. 5 also shown in Col. 20 lines 30-36]
Re. claim 6, Wolter in view of Ruth teaches the computer-implemented system of claim 1.
Wolter teaches:
further comprising a tenth instruction embodied in the non-transitory computer readable medium, the tenth instruction operable to transmit the first external identifier of the locker identifier to the second party application. [Wolter; Fig. 5 also shown in Col. 20 lines 30-36]
Re. claim 7, Wolter in view of Ruth teaches the computer-implemented system of claim 1.
Wolter teaches:
further comprising a eleventh instruction embodied in the non-transitory computer readable medium, the eleventh instruction operable to transmit the first external identifier of the locker identifier to a public display. [Wolter; Fig. 2 shows container with display labeled as 212, Fig. 5 and Col. 20 lines 30-36].
Re. claim 8,
Computer method of claim 8 substantially mirrors the computer system of claim 1.
Re. claim 10, Wolter in view of Ruth teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 8.
Wolter teaches:
further comprising transmitting a message to the second party that the order is available for pickup via text, email, or application notification. [Wolter; Fig. 5 element 510 also shown in Col. 20 lines 30-36]
Re. claim 12,
Computer method of claim 12 substantially mirrors the computer system of claim 2.
Re. claim 13,
Computer-implemented locker apparatus of claim 13 substantially mirrors the computer system of claim 1.
Re. claim 14,
Computer-implemented locker apparatus of claim 14 substantially mirrors the computer system of claim 2.
Re. claim 15, Wolter in view of Ruth teaches the Computer-implemented locker apparatus of claim 13.
Wolter teaches:
wherein the transporter comprises a removable bin or box sized to carry packaged orders. [Wolter; Col. 10 lines 14-29 shows container removed from within the receptacle such as “Nth courier 126(N) may be selected by the delivery module 144 to remove the container 112 from the receptacle 160 on whichever public transport vehicle 156 the container 112 is currently located, and deliver the container 112 the rest of the way to the delivery location”].
Re. claim 17, Wolter in view of Ruth teaches the Computer-implemented locker apparatus of claim 13.
Wolter teaches:
wherein the controller is further configured to transmit the state of the lock and transporter status to the server. [Wolter; Col. 11 lines 31-67].
Claims 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolter in view of Ruth in view of Wang et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20260030631 - hereinafter Wang).
Re. claim 9, Wolter in view of Ruth teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 8.
Wolter doesn’t teach, Wang teaches:
wherein the authentication credential comprises a one-time code, QR code, biometric identifier, or mobile device credential. [Wang; ¶100-¶101 shows use of biometric feature that is stored to identify the target object].
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 Wang in the system of Wolter, 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 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolter in view of Ruth in view of Adell et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20240257042 - hereinafter Adell).
Re. claim 11, Wolter in view of Ruth teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 8.
Wolter doesn’t teach, Adell teaches:
further comprising updating order status in the first party application upon completion of pickup. [Adell; ¶48].
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 Adell in the system of Wolter, 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 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolter in view of Ruth in view of Brady et al (US Patent Application Publication No. 20180024554 - hereinafter Brady).
Re. claim 18, Wolter in view of Ruth teaches the locker apparatus of claim 13.
Wolter doesn’t teach, Adell teaches:
wherein the locker is configured to automatically return the transporter to a transporter station when the lock is returned to a secured position. [Brady; ¶86].
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 Brady in the system of Wolter, 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 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, Nathan Uber can be reached at 571-270-3923. 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 3628