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 .
Remarks
Applicant’s amendment dated June 30, 2026 responding to April 1, 2026 Office Action provided in the rejection of claims 1-20. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application and which have been fully considered by the examiner.
Applicant’s arguments, see [page 1, in Remarks], filed June 30, 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-20 have been fully considered. However, upon further consideration, the terminal disclaimers, filed June 30, 2026, are disapproved because the applicant must check either box 1 or 2 (not both). Please resubmit the terminal disclaimers.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 8, 10-14 (hereafter “examined claim”) are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 15-20 (hereafter “patent claim”) of U.S. Patent No. 12,260,364. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because limitations of the patent claim 15 teaches the limitations of the examined claim 8 (see claims comparison table below). The patent claim teaches substantially the same limitations as those recited in the examined claim; with the only difference being terminology such as: the “first location coordinates” in the examined claim that corresponds to the “location coordinates” in the patent claim; “location information for the individual from a computing entity associated with the individual, the location information comprising a current physical location of the individual” in the examined claim that corresponds to the “customer location data from customer computing entities associated with the customer, and based on the customer location data, a first determination of a current physical location of the customer is generated” in the patent claim [i.e. the customer computing entities (plural) which includes at least a computing entity (single) associated with the customer; and in other word, the current physical location of the customer is generated/determined from the received customer location data]; the “determining, based at least in part on the first location coordinates of the known location of the entity and second location coordinates of the current physical location of the individual, a distance between the entity and the individual; determining, based at least in part on the distance, that the individual is located within a proximity of the entity” in the examined claim that corresponds to the “determining, based at least in part on the location coordinates and at least one of the first determination or the second determination, that the customer is within a configurable proximity of the entity” in the patent claim [i.e. Although the limitation “a distance between the entity and the individual” is not explicitly recited in the patent claim, however step of determining- based on the location coordinates (of the known location of the entity) and at least one of the first determination (for the current physical location of the customer)- can produce an output corresponding to the distance between the entity’s location and the customer’s current physical location. Thus, the determining whether the customer is within a configurable proximity of the entity based on the determination between the entity and the customer that corresponds to the determining the individual is located within a proximity of the entity, in the examined claim]. Therefore, Examiner finds these claims to be patentably indistinct from each other.
The examined claims 10-14 recite limitations similar to those of the patent claims 16-20 and are therefore also rejected as dependent therefrom.
This is a non-statutory double patenting rejection.
Examined claim 8
A system comprising:
a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions; and processing hardware communicatively coupled to the non-transitory computer-readable medium, wherein the processing hardware is configured to execute the instructions and thereby perform operations comprising:
receiving shipping data on an item that is to be shipped by an individual;
responsive to receiving the shipping data: identifying first location coordinates of a known location of an entity that can ship the item;
receiving location information for the individual from a computing entity associated with the individual, the location information comprising a current physical location of the individual;
determining, based at least in part on the first location coordinates of the known location of the entity and second location coordinates of the current physical location of the individual, a distance between the entity and the individual; determining, based at least in part on the distance, that the individual is located within a proximity of the entity;
responsive to determining that the individual is located within the proximity of the entity,
having a notification transmitted to the computing entity for display via a user interface notifying the individual of the entity from which the item can be shipped.
Patent claim 15
A system comprising:
a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions; and processing hardware communicatively coupled to the non-transitory computer-readable medium, wherein the processing hardware is configured to execute the instructions and thereby perform operations comprising:
receiving shipping data on an item that is to be shipped by a customer;
responsive to receiving the shipping data: identifying location coordinates of a known location of an entity that can ship the item;
receiving customer location data from at least two customer computing entities of a plurality of customer computing entities associated with the customer, wherein the at least two customer computing entities are distinct from each other;
generating, based on the customer location data, a first determination of a current physical location of the customer and a second determination of the current physical location of the customer;
determining, based at least in part on the location coordinates and at least one of the first determination or the second determination, that the customer is within a configurable proximity of the entity;
responsive to determining the customer is within the configurable proximity of the entity, determining that a parameter for providing an alert is satisfied; and responsive to determining that the parameter is satisfied, having a notification transmitted to at least one of the plurality of customer computing entities for display via a user interface notifying the customer of the entity from which the item can be shipped.
Claims 1-3 (hereafter “examined claim”) are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6-7 (hereafter “patent claim”) of U.S. Patent No. 11,023,846. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because limitations of the patent claim 1 teaches the limitations of the examined claim 1 (see claims comparison table below). The patent claim teaches substantially the same limitations as those recited in the examined claim; with the only difference being terminology such as: the “a first current physical location of the item” in the examined claim that corresponds to the “a current physical location of the item” in the patent claim; “the item is located within a first proximity of the entity” in the examined claim that corresponds to the “the item is located within a first configurable distance of the entity” in the patent claim; the “a second current physical location of an individual” in the examined claim that corresponds to the “a current physical location of customer” in the patent claim; and the “the individual is located within a second proximity of the entity” in the examined claim that corresponds to the “the customer is within a second configurable distance of the entity” in the patent claim. Therefore, Examiner finds these claims to be patentably indistinct from each other.
The examined claims 2-3 recite limitations similar to those of the patent claims 6-7 and are therefore also rejected as dependent therefrom.
This is a non-statutory double patenting rejection.
Examined claim 1
A method comprising:
receiving, by a computer processor, location information for an item, the location information comprising a first current physical location of the item;
determining, by the computer processor and based at least in part on first location coordinates of the first current physical location of the item and second location coordinates of a known location of an entity, a distance between the item and the entity, wherein the known location is other than a delivery address for the item;
determining, by the computer processor and based at least in part on the distance, that the item is located within a first proximity of the entity;
responsive to determining that the item is located within the first proximity of the entity, receiving, by the computer processor and from a computing entity associated with a user, a second current physical location of an individual;
determining, by the computer processor and based at least in part on third location coordinates of the second current physical location of the individual, that the individual is located within a second proximity of the entity;
responsive to determining that the individual is located within the second proximity of the entity, transmitting a notification via a network to the computing entity for display via a user interface, wherein the notification comprises a mechanism via the user interface for the individual to remotely request a delivery of the item at the entity; and
responsive to receiving user input via the user interface requesting the delivery of the item at the entity, facilitating the delivery of the item to the individual at the entity.
Patent claim 1
A method, performed in a carrier system, for delivering an item to a customer at an alternate delivery location based in part on a real- time location of the customer, the method comprising:
receiving location information for the item, the location information indicating a current physical location of the item;
determining a distance between the item and an entity at a location other than a delivery address of the item, based at least in part on first location coordinates of the current physical location of the item and second location coordinates of a known location of the entity;
determining whether the item is located within a first configurable distance of the entity based at least in part on the distance determined from the first location coordinates and the second location coordinates;
responsive to determining that the item is located within the first configurable distance of the entity, requesting a first determination of a current physical location of the customer and a second determination of the current physical location of the customer;
determining whether the customer is within a second configurable distance of the entity based at least in part on the first determination of the current physical location of the customer and the second determination of the current physical location of the customer;
in response to determining that the customer is within the second configurable distance of the entity, transmitting a notification via a network to a customer computing entity for display via a user interface of an application executing on the customer computing entity, wherein the notification comprises a mechanism via the user interface for the customer to remotely request or reject delivery of the item at the entity; and
responsive to receiving user input via the user interface requesting delivery of the item at the entity, facilitating delivery of the item to the customer at the entity.
Claim 15 (hereafter “examined claim”) are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 (hereafter “patent claim”) of U.S. Patent No. 11,720,848. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because limitations of the patent claim 1 teaches the limitations of the examined claim 15 (see claims comparison table below). The patent claim teaches substantially the same limitations as those recited in the examined claim; with the only difference being terminology such as: the “a first current physical location of the item” in the examined claim that corresponds to the “a current physical location of the item” in the patent claim; “the item is located within a first proximity of the entity” in the examined claim that corresponds to the “the item is located within a first configurable proximity of the entity” in the patent claim; the “receiving, from a computing entity associated with a user, a second current physical location of an individual” in the examined claim that corresponds to the “first determination of the current physical location of the customer made based on receiving customer location data from at least two of one or more customer computing entities” [i.e. the customer computing entities (plural) which includes a computing entity (single) associated with the customer. In other word, a current physical location of the customer (corresponds to a second current physical location of the individual) is determined based on the customer location data received from the customer computing entity] in the patent claim; and the “determining, based at least in part on third location coordinates of the second current physical location of the individual, that the individual is located within a second proximity of the entity” in the examined claim that corresponds to the “determining, by the processor, whether the customer is within a second configurable proximity of the entity based at least in part on the first determination of the current physical location of the customer and the second determination of the current physical location of the customer” in the patent claim [i.e. “a second configurable proximity of the entity” is considered as “a second proximity of the entity”; and “second determination of the current physical location of the customer” is considered as “third location coordinates of the second current physical location of the individual”].
In addition, the limitations in the patent claim recite “responsive to determining that one or more parameters for providing the alert are satisfied, transmitting via a network, a notification to the one or more customer computing entities for display via a user interface”; and further specifies that “the determining, that one or more parameters for providing an alert are satisfied based on the determination that the item is located within the first configurable proximity of the entity and the customer is within the second configurable proximity of the entity”. In other words, a condition for transmitting the notification to the customer computing entity is that the alert parameters are satisfied, and those parameters include determining that the customer is within the second configurable proximity of the entity. Accordingly, this limitation can be considered to correspond to the limitation “responsive to determining that the individual is located within the second proximity of the entity, transmitting a notification via a network to the computing entity for display via a user interface” recited in the examined claim.
Therefore, Examiner finds these claims to be patentably indistinct from each other.
This is a non-statutory double patenting rejection.
Examined claim 15
A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by processing hardware, configure the processing hardware to perform operations comprising:
receiving location information for an item, the location information comprising a first current physical location of the item;
determining, based at least in part on first location coordinates of the first current physical location of the item and second location coordinates of a known location of an entity, a distance between the item and the entity, wherein the known location is other than a delivery address for the item;
determining, based at least in part on the distance, that the item is located within a first proximity of the entity;
receiving, from a computing entity associated with a user, a second current physical location of an individual;
determining, based at least in part on third location coordinates of the second current physical location of the individual, that the individual is located within a second proximity of the entity; and
responsive to determining that the individual is located within the second proximity of the entity, transmitting a notification via a network to the computing entity for display via a user interface, wherein the notification comprises a mechanism via the user interface for the individual to remotely request a delivery of the item at the entity.
Patent claim 1
At least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having embodied thereon computer-usable instructions which, when executed by at least one processor, implement a method for establishing a pickup location for an item to be shipped, the method comprising:
determining, by a processor, a current physical location of the item based at least on item location information received via a network and storing the current physical location of the item in a data store as first location coordinates;
determining, by the processor, a location of an entity that receives items for shipping;
determining by the processor, a distance between the item and the entity based at least in part on the first location coordinates of the current physical location of the item and second location coordinates of a known location of the entity;
determining, by the processor, whether the item is located within a first configurable proximity of the entity based at least in part on the distance determined from the item and the entity;
responsive to determining that the item is located within the first configurable proximity of the entity, requesting, by the processor, a first determination of a current physical location of a customer and a second determination of the current physical location of the customer, wherein the first determination of the current physical location of the customer and the second determination of the current physical location of the customer are made based on receiving customer location data from at least two of one or more customer computing entities, a carrier computing entity, or a vehicle associated with the customer that are distinct from each other;
determining, by the processor, whether the customer is within a second configurable proximity of the entity based at least in part on the first determination of the current physical location of the customer and the second determination of the current physical location of the customer and storing 1) the first determination of the current physical location of the customer, 2) the second determination of the current physical location of the customer, and 3) the determination of whether the customer is within the second configurable proximity of the entity in a data store in association with the customer;
determining, by the processor, that one or more parameters for providing an alert are satisfied based on the determination that the item is located within the first configurable proximity of the entity and the customer is within the second configurable proximity of the entity; and
responsive to determining that one or more parameters for providing the alert are satisfied, automatically transmitting, by the processor, a notification via a network to the one or more customer computing entities for display via a user interface notifying the customer of the first configurable proximity of the entity from which the item may be shipped.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if the double patenting rejections are overcome.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Correspondence Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MINH CHAU N NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4242. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8am-4pm.
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, TONIA DOLLINGER can be reached on (571)272-4170. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MINH CHAU NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2459
Prosecution Insights