DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 were previously pending and subject to a non-final rejection dated October 30, 2025. A Response was submitted on February 25, 2026 amending claims 1, 15-16 and 18. Therefore, claims 1-20 are currently pending and subject to the following final rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Remarks on Pages 7-11 of the Response, regarding the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but are not found persuasive.
On Pages 8-9 of the Response, in arguing that the claims do not recite a certain method of organizing human activity, Applicant argues “The presently claimed invention does not recite or require pricing, financial transactions, contractual relationships, marketing activity, or regulation of human interactions. Instead, the amended claims, whether it be the server (claim 1), the terminal (claim 15) or the method (claim 18), are directed to a computer-implemented data processing technique that generates a minimum unit shipping address and selectively inserts or suppresses delimiters according to identifier-type rules to resolve data boundary ambiguity arising during computerized address comparison within a spatially constrained waybill layout. The claimed operations are performed by a data processing unit and address a technical problem occurring in computerized processing of structured address data, namely misreading and miscomparison caused by ambiguous character sequences and layout limitations. Although shipping information may originate from commercial activity, merely operating in a delivery-service environment does not render the claimed invention a commercial interaction. Methods of organizing human activity are limited to claims that recite practices that govern business or legal relationships between people. The claimed invention is not directed to relationships between people. The claims neither organize human activity nor govern human behavior but instead recite machine-executed processing that modifies how address data is structured and interpreted by a computer system.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s assertion that “Methods of organizing human activity are limited to claims that recite practices that govern business or legal relationships between people”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) explaining that “the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the ‘certain methods of organizing human activity’ grouping. It is noted that the number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping. Instead, the determination should be based on whether the activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings.” (emphasis added).
Examiner further notes that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “computerized address comparison within a spatially constrained waybill layout”, “modifies how address data is structured and interpreted by a computer system”, and “resolve data boundary ambiguity arising during computerized address comparison within a spatially constrained waybill layout”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Examiner further notes that the high-level recitation of “a server” and “a data processing unit” (e.g., in claim 1) does not take the claims out of the grouping of a certain method of organizing human activity. As noted above, many of the features “a technical problem occurring in computerized processing of structured address data, namely misreading and miscomparison caused by ambiguous character sequences and layout limitations” are not recited in the claims. Thus, in light of Paragraph [0015] of Applicant’s PG Publication explaining that “The present disclosure… generates a simplified shipping address from a shipping address and generates output data that allows a delivery person to easily confirm the generated simplified shipping address”, the claims recite a certain method of organizing human activity (e.g., commercial interaction).
On Page 9 of the Response, Applicant argues “With the revisions as indicated above, Applicants point out that the independent claims have been revised to clarify a practical application that overcomes the physical constraints of a waybill system to support delivery service. Overcoming such physical system constraints require steps that cannot be performed in a human mind. These revisions, with the existing claim language indicating the utilization of a ‘server’, ‘terminal’, and a method ‘executed by a program code stored in a computer-readable recording medium’ helps to further distinguish the claims from an abstract idea. Also, the claimed delimiter insertion and suppression rules cannot practically be performed in the human mind because they depend on automated processing of structured address identifiers within computer memory during electronic comparison operations. For this reason, Applicants believe that Step 2A, Prong One is satisfied and the independent claims are not directed to a judicial exception and qualify as eligible subject matter.”
Examiner respectfully notes that the previous non-final rejection and the final rejection below categorize the claims as reciting a certain method of organizing human activity, and not a mental process. Thus, Applicant’s arguments regarding the claimed invention “cannot practically be performed in the human mind” are moot. Lastly, as noted above, the recitation of generic computer components recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., “the utilization of a ‘server’, ‘terminal’, and a method ‘executed by a program code stored in a computer-readable recording medium’”) does not take the claims out of the grouping of an abstract idea.
On Page 9 of the Response, Applicant further argues “Even if the clarifications are considered insufficient to overcome the rejection at Step 2A Prong One, the analysis of the claims as a whole under Step 2A Prong Two of what may otherwise be a judicial exception, should conclude that the inventions are practical applications that remove the independent claims from the judicial exceptions. Taking into consideration all of the claim limitations and how the limitations interact with each other, the improvements in technical data processing for optimizing and printing data within the physically limited recording space of a waybill qualify as eligible subject matter.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes it is unclear what technical improvement is being alleged in the abstract idea of optimizing data. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) “a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine that the claim improves technology or a technical field.” Lastly, examiner notes that “technical data processing for….printing data within the physically limited recording space of a waybill” is not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Thus, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive.
On Page 10 of the Response, Applicant further agues “In addition, the claimed delimiter insertion and suppression rules prevent generation of ambiguous address strings that would otherwise require repeated comparison operations and storage of redundant address entries, reducing processor comparison operations and memory utilization during computerized address processing. By preventing ambiguous machine comparisons and avoiding unnecessary duplication of address data, the claimed invention inherently reduces processor comparison operations and memory utilization during automated data processing. Essentially, the present amendments further emphasize that the claimed invention addresses a technological problem occurring in computer processing of shipping address data.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees that “avoiding unnecessary duplication of address data” addresses a technological problem. That is, merely providing less data for processing is not an improvement to the processor or memory itself.
On Page 10 of the Response, Applicant further argues “Additionally, referring to USPTO Subject Matter Eligibility Example 40, Applicants respectfully submit that both the example and the present invention apply specific rule-based processing to restructure data into a format that enables more reliable computer processing. Example 40 is directed to adaptive monitoring of network traffic data using computer-implemented rules that dynamically reorganize and analyze data to improve network performance and computer system operation. The claimed invention is directed to computer-implemented restructuring of shipping address data through generation of minimum unit addresses and delimiter control rules that reduce ambiguity and data length during computerized processing and comparison. They are analogous because they both apply specific technical rules to transform data structures in a manner that improves computer operation, where reducing ambiguity prevents erroneous computer comparisons and reducing data length decreases memory usage and processing overhead, thereby improving computer system operation.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes Claim 1 of Example 40 recites the combination of additional elements of collecting at least one of network delay, packet loss, or jitter relating to the network traffic passing through the network appliance, and collecting additional Netflow protocol data relating to the network traffic when the collected network delay, packet loss, or jitter is greater than the predefined threshold. The claimed method limits collection of additional Netflow protocol data to when the initially collected data reflects an abnormal condition, which avoids excess traffic volume on the network and hindrance of network performance. This provides a specific improvement over prior systems, resulting in improved network monitoring. Here, no such collecting at least one of network delay, packet loss, or jitter relating to the network traffic passing through the network appliance is being claimed, such that the method limits collection of additional Netflow protocol data to when the initially collected data reflects an abnormal condition, which avoids excess traffic volume on the network and hindrance of network performance. It is further unclear how “restructuring of shipping address data” is analogous to limiting the collection of additional Netflow protocol data to when the initially collected data reflects an abnormal condition, which avoids excess traffic volume on the network and hindrance of network performance. Lastly, as noted above merely providing less data for processing is not an improvement to the processor or memory itself, and certainly not similar to improved network monitoring.
On Page 11 of the Response, in discussing Step 2A, Prong Two, Applicant argues “The amended claims integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application by reciting specific machine-implemented processing that resolves data boundary ambiguity and reduces address data length to improve computerized comparison, storage, and processing operations, and therefore satisfy Step 2A, Prong Two.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees and as discussed above, “specific machine-implemented processing” does not take the claims out of the grouping of an abstract idea; and that the “machine-implemented processing” recited at a high-level of generality amounts to “apply it.” “[R]esolv[ing] data boundary ambiguity and reduces address data length” recites the abstract idea, and that the “machine-implementation” amounts to “apply it.” Thus, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive.
On Page 11 of the Response, Applicant further argues “Even if it is assumed that the amended claims recite an abstract idea under Step 2A, the claims nevertheless integrate any such concept into significantly more than the alleged abstract idea and satisfy Step 2B. The claimed invention does not merely manipulate data or organize information; it is directed to a specific machine-implemented technique. Generating a minimum unit shipping address constrained by a spatially limited waybill layout, determining duplicates, inserting or suppressing delimiters based on identifier type, and applying different delimiters to prevent data boundary ambiguity all resolve ambiguity arising during computerized comparison of address data structures. This constitutes a technical solution to a computer processing problem (and an improvement to computer functionality in accordance with MPEP § 2106.05(a)), the problem being machine misinterpretation of address identifiers, ambiguity during automated comparison, and inefficient storage and processing caused by the ambiguity. The amended claims amount to significantly more than any alleged abstract idea and satisfy Step 2B of the § 101 analysis.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons discussed above. “Generating a minimum unit shipping address constrained by a spatially limited waybill layout, determining duplicates, inserting or suppressing delimiters based on identifier type, and applying different delimiters to prevent data boundary ambiguity all resolve ambiguity arising during…comparison of address data structures” recite the abstract idea. That it is done in a “machine-implemented” technique, and “computerized”, merely amounts to “apply it.” It is further unclear what specific “computer functionality” is being improved. Rather, solving “misinterpretation of address identifiers”, “ambiguity during automated comparison”, and “inefficient storage and processing caused by the ambiguity” by providing better data is not an improvement to the computer itself. Thus, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive.
Applicant’s Remarks on Pages 11-14 of the Response, regarding the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are found persuasive in view of the amended claims.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “output unit that displays” in independent claim 15.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-14 recite a server (i.e., a machine), claims 15-17 recite a terminal (i.e., a machine), and claims 18-20 recite method (i.e., a process). Therefore, the claims all fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One
Claims 1 recite the functions of preventing misreading and miscomparing of a shipping address by: generating a minimum unit shipping address in which a shipping address of shipping data is simplified to be accommodated within a spatially limited layout of a waybill, and determining whether the minimum unit shipping address is duplicated to generate a simplified shipping address, wherein the minimum unit shipping address includes at least one character included in an identifier of the shipping address, add a delimiter to distinguish between different types of identifiers included in at least one of the generated minimum unit shipping address and the generated simplified shipping address, provided that the delimiter is not added between identifiers respectively extracted from a road name and a serial number, or from a road name, a serial number, and a branch street name, thereby minimizing a data length of the simplified shipping address within the spatially limited layout, and wherein, when numbers that are different types of identifiers are arranged consecutively, add a different delimiter from the delimiter used between identifiers to resolve a data boundary ambiguity between the consecutive numbers.
Claim 15 recites functions of preventing misreading and miscomparing of a shipping address by: displaying a simplified shipping address in which a shipping address of shipping data is simplified to be accommodated within a spatially limited layout of a waybill, providing for modifying the simplified shipping address, wherein the simplified shipping address is generated by determining whether a minimum unit shipping address, in which the shipping address of the shipping data is simplified, is duplicated, and the minimum unit shipping address includes at least one character included in an identifier of the shipping address, wherein the simplified shipping address is generated by adding a delimiter to distinguish between different types of identifiers included in at least one of a generated minimum unit shipping address and the simplified shipping address, provided that the delimiter is not added between identifiers respectively extracted from a road name and a serial number, or from a road name, a serial number, and a branch street name, thereby minimizing a data length of the simplified shipping address within the spatially limited layout and wherein, when numbers that are different types of identifiers are arranged consecutively, the simplified shipping address is generated by adding a different delimiter from the delimiter used between identifiers to resolve a data boundary ambiguity between the consecutive numbers.
Claim 18 recites the process supporting delivery service by misreading and miscomparing of a shipping address, by: generating a minimum unit shipping address in which a shipping address of shipping data is simplified to be accommodated within a spatially limited layout of a waybill; determining whether the generated minimum unit shipping address is duplicated to generate a simplified shipping address; and generating output data for outputting the generated simplified shipping address, wherein the generated minimum unit shipping address includes at least one character included in an identifier of the shipping address, wherein the generating of the simplified shipping address further includes adding a delimiter to distinguish between different types of identifiers, wherein the delimiter is not added between identifiers respectively extracted from a road name and a serial number, or from a road name, a serial number, and a branch street name, thereby minimizing a data length of the simplified shipping address within the spatially limited layout, and wherein, when numbers that are different types of identifiers are arranged consecutively, the method includes adding a different delimiter from the delimiter used between identifiers to resolve a data boundary ambiguity between the consecutive numbers.
The claims as a whole recite a certain method of organizing human activity. The limitations recited above, under broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a certain method of organizing human activity, e.g., commercial interactions. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1, 15 and 18 as a whole amount to: “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
The claims recite the additional elements of: (i) a server comprising: a data processing unit (claim 1), (ii) a output unit (claim 15), (iii) a user interface (claim 15), and (iv) program code stored in a computer-readable recording medium (claim 18)
The additional elements listed above, are recited at a high-level of generality such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, they each amount 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, claims 1, 15, and 18 are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in claims 1, 15 and 18 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, 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 discussed above 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 claims add significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, claims 1, 15, and 18 are ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-6, 8-10, 12-14, and 17 further recite details which merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitiaitions. For these reasons, as described above with respect to claims 1 and 15 respectively, these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, claims 2-6, 8-10, 12-14, and 17 are also ineligible.
Claim 7 recites when there is no building name in the shipping address, matching the shipping address to a building name storage to acquire the building name corresponding to the shipping address - which narrows the previously recited abstract idea. The additional element unencompassed by the abstract idea includes a building name database. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional element merely serves as a generic computer component on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include limitations sufficient, either alone or in combination, to amount to significantly more than the claimed abstract idea because the aforementioned additional element merely serves as a generic computer component on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 11 recites generating the simplified shipping address based on the data generated according to the user input - which narrows the previously recited abstract idea. The additional element unencompassed by the abstract idea includes training a generation model (that performs the generating). The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional element merely serves as a generic computer component on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include limitations sufficient, either alone or in combination, to amount to significantly more than the claimed abstract idea because the aforementioned additional element merely serves as a generic computer component on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 16 recites generating modified data by allowing a user to modify at least one of the displayed simplified shipping address and a generation model of the simplified shipping address - which narrows the previously recited abstract idea. The additional element unencompassed by the abstract idea includes a data processing unit (that performs the generating). The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional element merely serves as a generic computer component on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include limitations sufficient, either alone or in combination, to amount to significantly more than the claimed abstract idea because the aforementioned additional element merely serves as a generic computer component on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 19 recites transmitting the output data and printing the output data - which narrows the previously recited abstract idea. The additional element unencompassed by the abstract idea includes a printing device and printing the output data through the printing device.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The additional element listed above, 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)).
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, claim 19 is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, claim 19 does not recite any additional elements and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong, the additional element amounts 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, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional element discussed above 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 19 is ineligible.
Claim 20 recites transmitting the output data to a delivery person and displaying the output data through the delivery person - which narrows the previously recited abstract idea. The additional element unencompassed by the abstract idea includes a delivery person terminal.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The additional element listed above, 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)).
Accordingly, the additional element, 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, claim 20 is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, claim 20 does not recite any additional elements and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong, the additional element amounts 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, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional element discussed above 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 20 is ineligible.
Allowable over the Prior Art
Claims 1-20 are allowable over the prior art. The closet prior art includes:
WO 2020141777 to Kim et al. (hereinafter “Kim”). Kim discloses that the destination address abbreviating unit 120 extracts feature points from the destination address and sets the abbreviated address of the package based on the feature points. The abbreviated address is a brief summary of the destination address so that the courier can easily check the destination address from the waybill attached to the package.
KR 20050047776A to Koh et al. (hereinafter “Koh”). Koh discloses extracting an address corresponding to the address code and checking whether the corresponding address is a predetermined duplicate address with reference to the duplicate address information.
KR 20010063574A to Hae (hereinafter “Hae”). Hae discloses (X) ID name (X) can be divided into separate items, that is, separately separated using the DATA delimiters, and that Symbolic Numeric Character Combination (TXT) 20 is a symbol or word which is a combination of one or more special symbols, numbers, alphabets, and Korean foreign language characters except for special symbols already used as data delimiters (1) and (2).
Kim, Koh, Hae, and the other previously cited references fail to teach or suggest, “add a delimiter to distinguish between different types of identifiers included in at least one of the generated minimum unit shipping address and the generated simplified shipping address, provided that the delimiter is not added between identifiers respectively extracted from a road name and a serial number, or from a road name, a serial number, and a branch street name, thereby minimizing a data length of the simplified shipping address within the spatially limited layout, and wherein, when numbers that are different types of identifiers are arranged consecutively, the data processing unit is configured to add a different delimiter from the delimiter used between identifiers to resolve a data boundary ambiguity between the consecutive numbers” in combination with the other claim limitations, as recited in claim 1 (and similarly in claims 15 and 18).
Prior Art
The following is prior art not cited but considered relevant:
“Old and New System” by Living in Korea, dated June, 2020 (hereinafter “Living in Korea”). Living in Korea discloses two separate address systems existing in Korea. The older system, sometimes translated as the land-lot number address resembles that used in North Korea and Japan. It is ordered from largest to smallest units and based on dividing by city and neighborhood. Sometimes called the road name address, the new system resembles addresses in North America and Europe as it is based on street names.
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 Rupangini Singh whose telephone number is (571)270-0192. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5.
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 (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