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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 20, 2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-3, 5-21 were previously pending, and claims 1-3, 5, 9, 11-15, and 17-20 subject to a final rejection dated December 19, 2025. In the RCE, submitted on March 20, claims 1, 5, and 17 were amended. Therefore, claims 1-3, 5-21 are currently pending, claims 6-8, 10, 16, and 21 are withdrawn, and claims 1-3, 5, 9, 11-15, and 17-20 are subject to the following non-final rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Remarks on Page 10 of the RCE, regarding the previous claim objection have been fully considered and are found persuasive in view of the amended claims.
Applicant’s Remarks on Page 11 of the RCE, regarding the previous claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are found persuasive in view of the amended claims.
Applicant’s Remarks on Pages 10-13 of the RCE, regarding the previous claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, have been fully considered but are only found persuasive in-part, for claims1-3, 5, 9, 11-15, and 20; and are moot in view of the amended rejection.
On Page 13 of the RCE, Applicant argues “Bouzit-Benbernou, Saunders, and Irwin do not cure these deficiencies in Torres…As should be appreciated from the foregoing discussion of independent claim 1, independent claim 17 also patentably distinguishes over the asserted references.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes Bouzit-Benbernou teaches the newly added claim language as discussed below in the detailed rejection.
Applicant’s Remarks on Pages 13-14 of the RCE, regarding the previous claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but are not found persuasive.
On Pages 13-14 of the RCE, Applicant argues “the claims do not recite an abstract idea. For example, amended claim 1 recites, among other things, ‘displaying a select-a-locker-size page including at least a signature selection field for indicating selecting whether a signature is required for the package, storage selection sections for selecting a size of storage area, and at least one availability indicator indicating the number of storage areas that can accept small packages that are available; receiving a selection of whether the signature is required for the package via the signature selection field, and a selection of the size of storage area via the storage selection sections; determining, based on the selection received via the signature selection field, whether a signature is required for the package; determining, based on the barcode and the selection of the size of storage area, a locker in which to place the package; and displaying an indication of in which locker to place the package.’ These limitations recite specific interactive user interface features, including a signature selection field and at least one availability indicator that indicates a number of available storage areas, that are tied to a physical storage system with a plurality of storage areas. Such features do not comprise certain methods of organizing human activity and therefore the claims do not recite an abstract idea.” displaying a select-a-locker-size page including at least a signature selection field for indicating selecting whether a signature is required for the package, storage selection sections for selecting a size of storage area, and at least one availability indicator indicating the number of storage areas that can accept small packages that are available; receiving a selection of whether the signature is required for the package via the signature selection field, and a selection of the size of storage area via the storage selection sections; determining, based on the selection received via the signature selection field, whether a signature is required for the package; determining, based on the barcode and the selection of the size of storage area, a locker in which to place the package; and displaying an indication of in which locker to place the packag
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that “displaying… selecting whether a signature is required for the package, storage selection sections for selecting a size of storage area, and at least one availability indicator indicating the number of storage areas that can accept small packages that are available; receiving a selection of whether the signature is required for the package… and a selection of the size of storage area via the storage selection sections; determining, based on the [received] selection…, whether a signature is required for the package; determining, based on the …code and the selection of the size of storage area, a locker in which to place the package; and displaying an indication of in which locker to place the package” are limitations that recite a certain method of organizing human activity (e.g., commercial interactions and managing personal behavior - including following rules or instructions).
Examiner notes that the limitations of “select-a-locker-size page” including at least “a signature selection field”, and a barcode, are recited at a high-level of generality such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive.
On Page 14 of the RCE Applicant further argues “even if the claims are somehow found to recite an abstract idea, which Applicant does not concede, the claims are nevertheless patent-eligible because the claims integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application. The Office Action (p. 7) alleges ‘it is unclear which specific technology is being referred to as 'package storage technology', which is allegedly being improved.’ The specific technology being improved is the storage system recited in the claims, which includes a plurality of storage areas, a processor system, and an interactive user interface. The amended claims recite a specific improvement to this storage system: the system determines a number of available storage areas and displays at least one availability indicator indicating that number on a select-a-locker-size page, together with a signature selection field. This enables the storage system to present real-time quantitative storage availability information through a structured interface, improving how the storage system manages and allocates its plurality of storage areas for incoming packages.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes, similar to Trading Technologies, it appears Applicant is reciting a business process improvement of “determin[ing[ a number of available storage areas and display[ing[ a t least on availability indicator indicating that number” and “present[ing] real-time quantitative storage availability information…, improving how the storage system manages and allocates its plurality of storage areas for incoming packages” and not an improvement in any claimed computer or technology (i.e., pages, fields or interfaces) as alleged . See MPEP 2106.05(a)(II) (“in Trading Technologies…the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology). Thus, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 17 has been amended to recite “providing an indication of the locker in which to place the package….wherein the indication includes at least one availability indicator indicating a number of storage areas that are available to accept the package”. The above bolded language is new matter.
Examiner initially notes that while there is no haec verba requirement, newly added claim limitations must be supported in the specification through express, implicitly, or inherent disclosure (MPEP 2183). Further, when an explicit limitation in a claim "is not present in the written description whose benefit is sought it must be shown that a person of ordinary skilled would have understood, at the time the patent application was filed, that the description requires the limitation," Hyatt v. Boone, 146 F.3d 1348,1353, 47 USPQ2d 1128, 1131 (Fed. Cir. 1998), MPEP 2163.
Examiner notes Paragraph [0328] of Applicant’s PG Publication and Fig. 27 (annotated below), discloses that page 2700 shows locker identifier 2702, which provides support for “providing an indication of the locker in which to place the package...”
PNG
media_image1.png
495
669
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Paragraph [0327] of Applicant’s PG Publication and Fig. 26 (annotated below) disclose that availability indicators 2607 a-d are texts showing the number of available storage areas of different sizes in storage selection sections 2606 a-d, which provides support for “at least one availability indicator indicating a number of storage areas that are available to accept the package”.
PNG
media_image2.png
454
695
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, the specification does not provide support for Fig. 27’s 2702 “indication” of the locker including Fig. 26’s 2607 a-d “at least one availability indicator”, as claimed. Claims 18-19 are rejected by virtue of dependency.
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 1-3, 5, 9, 11-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-3, 5, 9, 11-15 and 20 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine), and claims 17-19 are directed to a method (i.e., a process). Therefore, claims 1-3, 5, 9, 11-15, and 17-20 all fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One
Claim 1 recites a system comprising: a plurality of storage areas, capturing a code on a package, and in response to capturing the code, displaying the code; determining a number of storage areas that can accept small packages that are available; displaying a selecting of whether ta signature is required for the package, storing selection sections for selecting a size of storage area, and at least one availability indicator indicating the number of storage areas that can accept small packages that are available; receiving a selection of whether the signature is required for the package, and a selection of the size of storage area via the storage selection sections; determining, based on the received selection whether the signature is required for the package, whether a signature is required for the package; determining, based on the code and the selection of the size of storage area, a locker in which to place the package; and displaying an indication of in which locker to place the package.
The limitations recited above recite the abstract idea of a certain method of organizing human activity (e.g., commercial interactions, following rules or instructions). Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The mere recitation of generic computer components (i) a processor system including at least one processor, (ii) a memory system storing one or more machine instructions, which when implemented by the processor system, causes the processing system to perform a method; (iii) code is a barcode, (iv) displaying an interactive user interface on a display, wherein displaying the interactive user interface comprises displaying: at least a window for viewing the barcode that was captured; the barcode is displayed on the display; and (v) a select-a-locker-size page including a (signature selection) field, are recited at a high-level of generality, and do not take the claims out of the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 as a whole merely recite the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
The claim recites the additional elements of: (i) a processor system including at least one processor, (ii) a memory system storing one or more machine instructions for an interactive user interface, which when implemented by the processor system, causes the processing system to perform a method; (iii) code is a barcode, (iv) displaying an interactive user interface on a display, wherein displaying the interactive user interface comprises displaying: at least a window for viewing the barcode that was captured; the barcode is displayed on the display; and (v) a select-a-locker-size page including a (signature selection) field.
The additional element of (i) a processor system including at least one processor, is recited at a high-level of generality (See Para. 122 of Applicant’s PG Publication disclosing the computer system including a processor system, and Para. 111 disclosing processor 210) such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional element of (ii) a memory system storing one or more machine instructions for an interactive user interface, which when implemented by the processor system, causes the processing system to perform a method, is recited at a high-level of generality (See Paras. 269 of Applicant’s PG Publication disclosing the user interface that presents pages, and Pars. 127-128 disclosing a memory system ) such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional element of (iii) the code is a barcode is recited at a high-level of generality (See Para. 324 of Applicant’s PG Publication disclosing a barcode on a package label) such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional element of (iv) displaying an interactive user interface on a display, wherein displaying the interactive user interface comprises displaying: at least a window for viewing the barcode that was captured; the barcode is displayed on the display (See Para. 319 of Applicant’s PG Publication disclosing a screenshot of page that includes a camera view of a mailing label that includes a barcode) such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional element of (v) a select-a-locker-size page including a (signature selection) field, is recited at a high-level of generality (See Fig. 26 of Applicant’s PG Publication disclosing a screenshot of page that includes the available locker sizes and a signature selection section) such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements amount to no more than reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Dependent claims 5 and 20 merely recites details that narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations. For these reasons, as described above with respect to claim 1, these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, claims 5 and 20 are also ineligible.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Claim 2 recites the additional element of a camera for capturing the barcode, which is recited at a high-level of generality such that, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., pre-solution activity), such as mere data gathering (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, the camera for capturing the barcode, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element of a camera for capturing the barcode, amounts to no more than: insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., pre-solution activity), such as mere data gathering (See MPEP 2106.05(g)), and is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., pre-solution activity), such as mere data gathering (See MPEP 2106.05(g)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Additionally the camera is recited at a high-level of generality and performs generic computer functions of capturing the barcode (i.e., electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document,) that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). Additionally, Para. 170 of Applicant’s PG Publication, generically discloses the camera at a high-level of generality.
Therefore, the camera for capturing the barcode, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, claim 2 is ineligible.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Claim 3 recites the additional element of an optical recognition module that recognizes barcode, which is recited at a high-level of generality such that, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., pre-solution activity), such as mere data gathering (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, an optical recognition module that recognizes barcode, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element of an optical recognition module that recognizes barcode, amounts to no more than: insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., pre-solution activity), such as mere data gathering (See MPEP 2106.05(g)), and is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., pre-solution activity), such as mere data gathering (See MPEP 2106.05(g)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Additionally, the optical recognition module that recognizes barcode is recited at a high-level of generality and performs generic computer functions of recognizing a barcode (i.e., electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document) that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). Additionally, Para. 243 of Applicant’s PG Publication, generically discloses Optical Character Recognizing (OCRing) the image.
Therefore, the optical recognition module that recognizes barcode, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, claim 3 is ineligible.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Claim 9 recites indicating a locker number indicating that the package has been picked up – which merely narrows the previously recited abstract idea. Claim 9 recites the additional element of a page (for a user to user-access) and a link, which are recited at a high-level of generality such that when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements amount to no more than “apply it”, and are not a practical application of the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., merely invoking the generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, claim 9 is ineligible.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Claim 11 further narrows the abstract idea by finding a resident including at least an input for entering user information and a list of users having information that matches the information entered. Claim 11 recites the additional elements of a page for finding a resident and including a keypad for entering user information, which are recited at a high-level of generality (See Para. 314 of Applicant’s PG Publication disclosing a page for delivery service to search for an intended recipient, and Para. 125 disclosing a keypad), such that when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, the page and keypad, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element of a page and a keypad, amounts to no more than “apply it”, and is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., merely invoking the generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the page and keypad, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, claim 11 is ineligible.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Claim 12 further narrows the abstract idea by providing one or more fields for adding a resident. Claim 12 recites the additional elements of the page having a link (that can be activated), which is recited at a high-level of generality (See Paras. 317-318 of Applicant’s PG Publication disclosing the add recipient link), such that when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, page having a link (that can be activated), when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element of page having a link (that can be activated), amounts to no more than “apply it”, and is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., merely invoking the generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, page having a link (that can be activated), do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, claim 12 is ineligible.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Claim 13 further narrows the abstract idea by handling residents not found in the list. Claim 13 recites the additional elements of the page having a link (that can be activated), which is recited at a high-level of generality (See Paras. 317-318 of Applicant’s PG Publication disclosing the add recipient link), such that when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, page having a link (that can be activated), when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element of page having a link (that can be activated), amounts to no more than “apply it”, and is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., merely invoking the generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, page having a link (that can be activated), do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in claim 13 is eligible.
Claims 14 and 15 recites details in the claim limitations which merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitiaitions. For these reasons, described above with respect to claims 1 and 13 respectively, these judicial exceptions, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, claims 14 and 15 are ineligible.
Step 2A, Prong One
Claim 17 recites a method comprising: capturing a code on a package, displaying the code that was captured; determining whether the package has been picked up; displaying an indication of a locker number and an indication that the package has been picked up; in response to capturing the code: displaying the code; determining, based on the code, a locker of a plurality of lockers in which to place the package; and providing an indication of the locker in which to place the package having the code, after the code is captured, wherein the indication includes at least one availability indicator indicating a number of storage areas that are available to accept the package..
The limitations recited above recite the abstract idea of a certain method of organizing human activity (e.g., commercial interactions, following rules or instructions). Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The mere recitation of generic computer components (i) capturing a barcode via a barcode capture device; that the code is a barcode, (ii) displaying, via a machine, an interactive user interface on a display, the displaying of the user interface including at least displaying a window for viewing a barcode that was captured by the barcode capture device, the interactive user interface the machine including a processor system having at least a processor and a memory system including one or more instruction for implementing the interactive user interface; and (iii) a page (for a user to user-access) and a link, are recited at a high-level of generality, and do not take the claims out of the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 17 as a whole: (i) merely recite the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; or (ii) adds insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., pre-solution activity, such as mere data gathering) to the judicial exception (See MPEP2106.05(g)).
The claim recites the additional elements of (i) capturing a barcode via a barcode capture device; that the code is a barcode, (ii) displaying, via a machine, an interactive user interface on a display, the displaying of the user interface including at least displaying a window for viewing a barcode that was captured by the barcode capture device, the interactive user interface the machine including a processor system having at least a processor and a memory system including one or more instruction for implementing the interactive user interface; and (iii) a page (for a user to user-access) and a link.
The additional element of (i) capturing a barcode via a barcode capture device, and that the code is a barcode, is recited at a high-level of generality (See Para. 324 of Applicant’s PG Publication disclosing barcode scanner) such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than: insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., pre-solution activity), such as mere data gathering (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The additional element of (ii) displaying, via a machine, an interactive user interface on a display, the displaying of the user interface including at least displaying a window for viewing a barcode that was captured by the barcode capture device, the interactive user interface the machine including a processor system having at least a processor and a memory system including one or more instruction for implementing the interactive user interface, is recited at a high-level of generality such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional element of (iii) a page (for a user to user-access) and a link, are recited at a high-level of generality such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements amount to no more than reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; or amounts to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., pre-solution activity), such as mere data gathering. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)), or adding insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., pre-solution activity), such as mere data gathering does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Additionally capturing a barcode via a barcode capture device; that the code is a barcode is recited at a high-level of generality and performs generic computer functions of capturing data (i.e., electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document,) that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). Additionally, Para.324 of Applicant’s PG Publication, generically discloses a barcode capture device.
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Claim 18 recites the additional element of the barcode capture device is a handheld user device, which is recited at a high-level of generality (See Para. 195 of Applicant’s PG Publication disclosing the handheld device), such that when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, the handheld device generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (capturing device) (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, the handheld device, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element of a handheld device amounts generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (capture devices) and is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the handheld device, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in claim 18 is eligible.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Claim 19 recites the additional element of the handheld device is a mobile phone, which is recited at a high-level of generality (See Para. 62 of Applicant’s PG Publication disclosing the portable electronic device as a mobile device), such that when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, the mobile phone generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (handheld devices) (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, the mobile phone, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element of the mobile phone amounts generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (handheld devices) and is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the mobile phone, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in claim 19 is eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0193733 to Bouzit-Benbernou (hereinafter “Bouzit-Benbernou”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0067943 to Saunders et al. (hereinafter “Saunders”), and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0144428 to Iwrin et al. (hereinafter “Irwin”).
In regard to claim 17, Bouzit-Benbernou discloses a method comprising: capturing a barcode on a package (Paras. 50 and 71) (For entering the identification code of the shipment and retrieving the specific information associated with the shipment, the delivery agent then scans the identification code 42 on parcel 40… the parcel bears a standard identification means 42 of any kind such as a barcode (or other type of codes).)
Bouzit-Benbernou discloses in response to capturing the barcode: determining, based on the barcode, a locker of a plurality of lockers in which to place the package (Abst., Paras. 56, 71) ) (A system….. several lockable compartments of different sizes (i.e., of the plurality of lockers)….The identification code 42 is printed…as a barcode on a postal sticker…and affixed to the parcel 40 by the sender… For entering the identification code of the shipment and retrieving the specific information associated with the shipment, the delivery agent then scans the identification code 42 on parcel 40 (i.e., in response to capturing the barcode: determining based on the barcode)… the electronic locker unit automatically indicates to the delivery agent, in lighting at least a sign 29 i, an appropriate compartment (i.e., a locker in which to place the package).)
Bouzit-Benbernou discloses in response to capturing the barcode: providing an indication of the locker in which to place the package having the barcode, after the barcode is captured (Paras. 56, 71) (The identification code 42 is printed…as a barcode on a postal sticker…and affixed to the parcel 40 by the sender… For entering the identification code of the shipment and retrieving the specific information associated with the shipment, the delivery agent then scans the identification code 42 on parcel 40 (i.e., after the barcode is captured)… the electronic locker unit automatically indicates to the delivery agent, in lighting at least a sign 29 i, an appropriate compartment (i.e., providing an indication of the locker in which a plurality of lockers to place the package having the barcode).)
Bouzit-Benbernou discloses wherein the indication includes at least one availability indicator indicating a number of storage areas that are available to accept the package (Para. 58) (At least one luminous sign 29 I (i.e., wherein the indication includes) is lighted for suggesting at least an appropriate compartment (i.e., a number of storage areas that are available to accept the package) according to the parcel size and weight. Alternatively, the global image of the electronic locker unit with the suggested available compartments (i.e., a number of storage areas that are available to accept the package) highlighted is displayed on the monitor. If the parcel is really heavy, compartments (i.e., a number of storage areas that are available) located close to the ground are favored for an easier lifting).
Bouzit-Benbernou does not explicitly disclose or teach, however, Saunders teaches the capturing a barcode of Bouzit-Benbernou is via a barcode capture device (Fig. 1; Para. 33) (mobile device 100 (i.e., via a barcode capture device) viewing one or more barcodes 212, 214 on a display 210… The display 210 may be an active display, such as a screen or monitor…a camera 123 on the mobile device 100 has lines of sight 216 that include the barcodes 212, 214. In other words, the camera 123 is able to view and capture images of one or more barcodes 212, 214).
Bouzit-Benbernou does not explicitly disclose or teach, however, Saunders teaches displaying, via a machine, an interactive user interface on a display, the displaying of the interactive user interface including at least displaying a window for viewing the barcode that was captured by the barcode capture device, the machine including a processor system having at least a processor and a memory system including one or more instruction for implementing the interactive user interface (Fig. 1; Para. 33, 49-50 and 54) (mobile device 100 (i.e., via a machine) viewing one or more barcodes 212, 214 on a display 210 (i.e., displaying an interactive user interface on a display)… The display 210 may be an active display, such as a screen or monitor (i.e., interactive user interface)…a camera 123 on the mobile device 100 has lines of sight 216 that include the barcodes 212, 214. In other words, the camera 123 is able to view and capture images of one or more barcodes 212, 214 (i.e., displaying a window for viewing a barcode that was captured by the barcode capture device)… The mobile device 100 comprises a number of components such as a main processor 102 that controls the overall operation of the mobile device 100 (i.e., the machine including a processor system having at least a processor)… The mobile device 100 also includes an operating system 134 and software components 136 to 146 which are described in more detail below. The operating system 134 and the software components 136 to 146 that are executed by the main processor 102 are typically stored in a persistent store such as the flash memory 108, which may alternatively be a read-only memory (ROM) or similar storage element (i.e., and a memory system including one or more instruction for implementing the interactive user interface).).
Bouzit-Benbernou does not explicitly disclose or teach, however, Saunders teaches in response to capturing the barcode: displaying, via the machine, the barcode on the interactive user interface (Fig. 1; Para. 33) (mobile device 100 (i.e., via the machine) viewing one or more barcodes 212, 214 on a display 210… The display 210 may be an active display, such as a screen or monitor…a camera 123 on the mobile device 100 has lines of sight 216 that include the barcodes 212, 214. In other words, the camera 123 is able to view and capture images of one or more barcodes 212, 214 (i.e., displaying, via the machine, the barcode on the interactive user interface).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the scanning from the delivery agent in Bouzit-Benbernou to include the display features of Saunders to provide ease of use for the delivery agent to see what they are scanning.
Bouzit-Benbernou in view of Saunders does not explicitly disclose or teach, however, Irwin teaches determining whether the package has been picked up (Paras. 111-112) (After opening the door 136 of the storage receptacle 132… the storage unit 100 requests confirmation by the user that he picked-up the item in the designated storage receptacle 132. The storage unit 100 receives confirmation that the user picked-up the item….).
Bouzit-Benbernou in view of Saunders does not explicitly disclose or teach, however, Irwin teaches the displaying a page for a user to access, the page indicating a locker number and having a link to indicate that the package has been picked up (Paras. 111-112, 117-120) (…the process 300C for requesting confirmation of item pick-up begins at block 322C by prompting the user to pick-up the item. This prompt may be (i.e., page), for example, in addition to an indication of which storage receptacle 132 contains the item (i.e., locker number), and in addition to opening of the storage receptacle 132 containing the item…. the storage unit 100 prompts the user to confirm the pick-up of the item (i.e., having a link to indicate that the package has been picked up)…)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the confirmation prompt of Irwin in the electronic locker unit of Bouzi-Benbrernou in view of Sanders in order to confirm that the item was actually picked-up.
In regard to claim 18, Bouzit-Benbernou does not explicitly disclose or teach, however, Saunders teaches wherein the barcode capture device is a handheld user device (Fig. 1; Para. 33) (mobile device 100 (i.e., handheld user device) viewing one or more barcodes 212, 214 on a display 210… The display 210 may be an active display, such as a screen or monitor…a camera 123 on the mobile device 100 has lines of sight 216 that include the barcodes 212, 214. In other words, the camera 123 is able to view and capture images of one or more barcodes 212, 214 (i.e., the barcode capture device).)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the scanning from the delivery agent in Bouzit-Benbernou to include the device features of Saunders to provide ease of use for the delivery agent to see what they are scanning.
In regard to claim 19, , Bouzit-Benbernou does not explicitly disclose or teach, however, Saunders teaches wherein handheld user device is a mobile phone (Fig. 1; Para. 33) (mobile device 100 (i.e., handheld user device is a mobile phone) viewing one or more barcodes 212, 214 on a display 210…)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the scanning from the delivery agent in Bouzit-Benbernou to include the device features of Saunders to provide ease of use for the delivery agent to see what they are scanning.
Allowable over Prior Art
Claims 1-3, 5, 9, 11-15 and 20 are allowable over the prior art, but rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as discussed above. The prior art fails to disclose, teach, or suggest “receiving a selection of whether the signature is required for the package via the signature selection field, and a selection of the size of storage area via the storage selection sections; determining, based on the selection received via the signature selection field, whether a signature is required for the package” in ordered combination with the other limitations in claim 1. The closest prior art includes:
Bouzit-Benbernou discloses an identification code is printed, as a barcode on a postal sticker and affixed to the parcel by the sender. For entering the identification code of the shipment and retrieving the specific information associated with the shipment, the delivery agent then scans the identification code on parcel, and the electronic locker unit automatically indicates to the delivery agent, in lighting at least a sign, an appropriate compartment.
Saunders discloses a mobile device viewing one or more barcodes on a display. The display may be an active display, such as a screen or monitor, and a camera on the mobile device has lines of sight that include the barcodes. In other words, the camera is able to view and capture images of one or more barcodes.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0186840 to Torres et al. (hereinafter “Torres”). Torres discloses available lockers may include small, medium, large, and extra-large. If all medium lockers are presently in use, then the locker system may only permit selection of small, large, and extra-large lockers.
Irwin discloses a user is prompted to scan an identifier on the item, for example, a barcode. After receiving data from the scanning of the identifier, the process advances to decision state where it determines whether a user signature is required. If a signature is required, the storage unit prompts the user to provide a signature.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0120529 to Faaborg (hereinafter “Faaborg”). Faaborg discloses a carrier employee may position a package such that a scanner next to a user's front door can scan a barcode on the package. The arrangement may determine that a user signature is required for this package and display a message on a user's mobile phone to provide a signature.
Prior Art
The following prior art, made of record and not relied upon, is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0027261 to Motoyama (hereinafter “Motoyama”). Motoyama discloses receiving a request to store an item at a locker facility; determining a first plurality of locker compartments that are available for storing items at a first locker facility and determining whether, based at least in part on the item-physical dimension of the item and locker-physical-dimensions of each locker compartment from the first plurality of locker compartments that are available for storing items, one or more first locker compartments from the first plurality of locker compartments are available.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rupangini Singh whose telephone number is 571-270-0192. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, 9:30 AM – 6:30 PM.
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 on Monday – Friday at (571) 272-5587. 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.
/RUPANGINI SINGH/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights