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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 10 and 20 recites the limitation "the group consisting" in lines 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1, 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite “detecting an intended delivery address of a package with said package scanning mobile application, wherein said intended delivery address of the package includes a tag selected from the group consisting of a barcode tag and an RFID tag; scanning said tag by said scanner for said detecting of said intended delivery address; comparing said intended delivery address of the package to said location of the deliverer; alerting the deliverer when said intended delivery address of the package is different from said location of the deliverer; displaying said location of the deliverer as a starting location; and displaying said intended delivery address as a destination location.”
The recited limitations above are a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation done by a human using generic computer components under mental process (human using pen and paper). That is nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed by a human using generic computer components. For example, “providing”, “detecting”, “scanning”, “comparing”, “alerting”, “displaying” and “displaying” in the context of this claim encompasses the user to manually determine a wrong address delivery for a package.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the following additional elements- a “electronic computing device”, “scanner”, “location module” and a “interface” to perform the above recited steps. The computer elements recited at a high-level of generality (generic computer elements performing a generic computer function of receiving information, identifying solutions and determining what should be presented to a user) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, the additional elements recited do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using the computer elements to perform the steps of claims 1, 10 and 20 amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
The limitations of the dependent claims 2-9 and 11-19, further describe the identified abstract idea. In addition, the limitations of claims 2-3, 5-9, 12-13 and 15-19 define how the ticket is compared and the price is determined which further describes the abstract idea. The generic computer component of claims 4, 11 and 14 (interface, GPS) merely serve as the generic computer component and the functions performed by the generic computer components essentially amount to the abstract idea identified above. None of the dependent claims when taken separately in combination with each dependent claims parent claim overcome the above analysis and are therefore similarly rejected as being ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mclellan et al. referred herein as Mclellan (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0357848).
As to claim 1, Mclellan teaches a system comprising:
a handheld electronic computing device having a package scanning mobile application including a location module for identifying a location of a deliverer and a scanner having a scanner software; (para 49 and 52)
wherein said package scanning mobile application detects an intended delivery address of a package; (para 52)
wherein said intended delivery address of the package includes a tag selected from the group consisting of a barcode tag and an RFID tag; (para 49 and 52)
wherein said detecting of said intended delivery address includes scanning said tag by said scanner; (para 49, 52 and 66)
wherein said package scanning mobile application compares said intended delivery address of the package to said location of the deliverer; (para 13, 22 and 39-40)
further wherein said package scanning mobile application provides an alert when said intended delivery address of the package is different from said location of the deliverer. (para 39 and 51-52)
As to claim 2, Mclellan teaches the system of claim 1 as discussed above.
Mclellan further teaches:
wherein said alert is selected from the group consisting of one or more of a visual alert, an audible alert, a vibration alert, and a text message alert. (para 116)
As to claim 8, Mclellan teaches the system of claim 1 as discussed above.
Mclellan further teaches:
wherein said alert is a first text message and a second message selected from the group consisting of an audio message and a vibration alert. (para 116 and 135)
As to claim 9, Mclellan teaches the system of claim 1 as discussed above.
Mclellan further teaches:
wherein said text message indicates a wrong address delivery. (para 135)
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3-7 and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mclellan et al. referred herein as Mclellan (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0357848) in view of Mcbride et al. referred herein as Mcbride (U.S. Patent No. 11,144,868).
As to claims 10 and 20, Mclellan teaches a system and method comprising:
a handheld electronic computing device having a package scanning mobile application including a location module for identifying a location of a deliverer, a scanner having a scanner software, and a directions interface; (para 49 and 52)
wherein said package scanning mobile application detects an intended delivery address of a package; (para 13, 22 and 39-40)
wherein said intended delivery address of the package includes a tag selected from the group consisting of a barcode tag and an RFID tag; (para 49 and 52)
wherein said detecting of said intended delivery address includes scanning said tag by said scanner; (para 49 and 52)
wherein said package scanning mobile application compares said intended delivery address of the package to said location of the deliverer; (para 49 and 52)
wherein said package scanning mobile application provides an alert when said intended delivery address of the package is different from said location of the deliverer; (para 39 and 51-52)
Mclellan does not teach:
wherein said directions interface is displayed by said package scanning mobile application;
further wherein said directions interface displays said location of the deliverer as a starting location and displays said intended delivery address as a destination location
However, Mcbride teaches:
wherein said directions interface is displayed by said package scanning mobile application; (col 4 lines 19-41 and fig. 1)
further wherein said directions interface displays said location of the deliverer as a starting location and displays said intended delivery address as a destination location. (col 4 lines 19-41 and fig. 1)
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to present the user with a map in Mclellan as taught by Mcbride. Motivation to do so comes knowledge taught by Mcbride that doing so would facilitate user interactively to obtain details regarding tracking status.
As to claims 3 and 13, Mclellan teaches all the limitations of claims 2 and 12 as discussed above.
Mclellan does not teach:
wherein said package scanning mobile application having a digital map display for showing directions from said location of the deliverer to said intended delivery address of the package.
However, Mcbride teaches:
wherein said package scanning mobile application having a digital map display for showing directions from said location of the deliverer to said intended delivery address of the package. (col 4 lines 19-41 and fig. 1)
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to present the user with a map in Mclellan as taught by Mcbride. Motivation to do so comes knowledge taught by Mcbride that doing so would facilitate user interactively to obtain details regarding tracking status.
As to claims 4 and 14, Mclellan in view of Mcbride teach all the limitations of claims 3 and 13 as discussed above.
Mclellan further teaches:
wherein said location module is a GPS location tracker. (para 43 and 58)
As to claims 5 and 15, Mclellan in view of Mcbride teach all the limitations of claims 4 and 14 as discussed above.
Mclellan further teaches:
wherein said intended delivery address of the package is prestored in said package scanning mobile application. (para 52)
As to claims 6 and 16, Mclellan in view of Mcbride teach all the limitations of claims 5 and 15 as discussed above.
Mclellan does not teach:
wherein said digital map display having a first indicia showing said location of the deliverer and a second indicia showing said intended delivery address of the package.
However, Mcbride teaches:
wherein said digital map display having a first indicia showing said location of the deliverer and a second indicia showing said intended delivery address of the package. (fig. 1, show the delivery address and the origin address for the package)
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to present the user with a map in Mclellan as taught by Mcbride. Motivation to do so comes knowledge taught by Mcbride that doing so would facilitate user interactively to obtain details regarding tracking status.
As to claim 11, Mclellan in view of Mcbride teach all the limitations of claim 10 as discussed above.
Mclellan does not teach:
wherein said directions interface displays real time movements of said location of the deliverer.
However, Mcbride teaches:
wherein said directions interface displays real time movements of said location of the deliverer. (col 16 lines 57-63)
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to present the user with a map in Mclellan as taught by Mcbride. Motivation to do so comes knowledge taught by Mcbride that doing so would facilitate user interactively to obtain details regarding tracking status.
As to claim 12, Mclellan in view of Mcbride teach all the limitations of claim 11 as discussed above.
Mclellan further teaches:
wherein said alert is selected from the group consisting of one or more of a visual alert, an audible alert, a vibration alert, and a text message alert. (para 116)
As to claim 18, Mclellan in view of Mcbride teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Mclellan further teaches:
wherein said alert is a first text message and a second message selected from the group consisting of an audio message and a vibration alert. (para 116 and 135)
As to claim 9, Mclellan in view of Mcbride teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Mclellan further teaches:
wherein said text message indicates a wrong address delivery. (para 135)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZEINA ELCHANTI whose telephone number is (313)446-6561. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-5:00 PM EST.
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, Jeffrey Zimmerman can be reached at 571-272-4602. 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.
/ZEINA ELCHANTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628