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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The following is a FIRST, NON-FINAL OFFICE ACTION for Application #19/054,823, filed on 02/15/2025. This application claims priority to Provisional Application #63/554,137, filed on 02/15/2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
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 non-statutory subject matter. The rationale for this finding is explained below.
Per Step 1 of the analysis, the claims are analyzed to determine if they are directed to statutory subject matter. Claims 1 and 11 claim a method, or process. A process is a statutory category for patentability.
Per Step 2A, Prong 1 of the analysis, the examiner must now determine if the claims recite an abstract idea or eligible subject matter. In the instant case, the independent claims are directed towards an abstract idea. Specifically, independent claims 1 and 11 recite “receiving a request to complete legal service of process of a document to a human document recipient, the request comprising information identifying a human document recipient, receiving a legal document, transmitting the legal document and instructions regarding service of process to a servicer, receiving confirmation of service of process from the servicer to confirm completion of service of process of the legal document to the document recipient, the confirmation of service of process comprising a date of completion of service of process, a time of completion of service of process, and GPS location data when the service of process occurred, transmitting proof of service of process, the service of process comprising a date of completion of service of process, a time of completion of service of process, and GPS location data for when the service of process occurred.” Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea, namely “certain methods of organizing human activity.” Specifically, the claims recite “legal interactions, business relations.” A legal facilitator like an attorney, a paralegal, or also a servicer at a bank or other institution could receive a request from a user to complete a legal servicing of a document, receive the actual document, transmit or deliver the document to a colleague, third party, sub-contractor, or other entity along with instructions for servicing the document, receive confirmation of the document being processed and serviced along with date, time, and location information, and communicating the confirmation and associated information the user. This could be all part of a routine legal service or other similar business service involving a legal document. The claims simply automate these practices using computers and a communication network. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea, namely “legal interactions, business relations.”
Per Step 2A, Prong 2 of the analysis, the examiner must now determine if the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements of the independent claims include “a computer having a processor and a memory,” an “electronic” request “from a client computer,” and “a mobile process server computer.” However, these additional elements are considered generic recitations of a technical element and are recited at a high level of generality. These additional elements are being used as “tools to automate the abstract idea” (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)), and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. They are not recitations of a special purpose computer or transformation (see MPEP 2106.05 (b) and (c)). The additional elements also include the actual “receiving of an electronic request…from a client computer,” “the computer receiving…electronically from the client computer,” the computer “transmitting…electronically to a mobile process server computer,” the computer “transmitting instructions…to the process server computer,” “the computer receiving electronic confirmation of service,” and “the computer transmitting to the client electronic proof of service.” These additional elements, absent further detail, are considered “receiving and/or transmittal of data over a network, cited by the MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II) (i) as an example of conventional computer functioning (see Symantec and buySAFE v Google). They are generic recitations of technical elements, and simply automate manual, in-person, or other communication means between parties using electronic means. Therefore, this additional element is not considered to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Per Step 2B of the analysis, the examiner must now determine if the claims include limitations that are “significantly more” than the abstract idea by demonstrating an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The additional elements of the independent claims include “a computer having a processor and a memory,” an “electronic” request “from a client computer,” and “a mobile process server computer.” However, these additional elements are considered generic recitations of a technical element and are recited at a high level of generality. These additional elements are being used as “tools to automate the abstract idea” (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)), and are not considered significantly more than the abstract idea itself. They are not recitations of a special purpose computer or transformation (see MPEP 2106.05 (b) and (c)). The additional elements also include the actual “receiving of an electronic request…from a client computer,” “the computer receiving…electronically from the client computer,” the computer “transmitting…electronically to a mobile process server computer,” the computer “transmitting instructions…to the process server computer,” “the computer receiving electronic confirmation of service,” and “the computer transmitting to the client electronic proof of service.” These additional elements, absent further detail, are considered “receiving and/or transmittal of data over a network, cited by the MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II) (i) as an example of conventional computer functioning (see Symantec and buySAFE v Google). They are generic recitations of technical elements, and simply automate manual, in-person, or other communication means between parties using electronic means. Therefore, this additional element is not considered significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
When considered as an ordered combination, the claim is still considered to be directed to an abstract idea as the claim steps in the ordered combination simply recite the logical steps for receiving a request from a user to complete a legal servicing of a document, receiving the actual document, transmit or deliver the document to a colleague, third party, sub-contractor, or other entity along with instructions for servicing the document, receiving confirmation of the document being processed and serviced along with date, time, and location information, and communicating the confirmation and associated information the user. Therefore, the ordered combination does not lead to a determination of significantly more.
When considering the dependent claims, claims 2-4 are considered “receiving and/or transmittal of data over a network, cited by the MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II) (i) as an example of conventional computer functioning (see Symantec and buySAFE v Google) as the claims simply describe automating the process of communicating a request for service of process to multiple parties, receiving applications from those parties, communicating the applications to a client, and allowing the client to accept one of the applications to fulfill their process service request. The communication is done back and forth electronically over a network. Claim 3 transmits and display a map, showing the server locations, but displaying of a map does not change the analysis. Claim 5 is considered conventional computer functioning, as GPS is conventional location technology at the time of filing of the application. Claim 6 is considered part of the abstract idea, as receiving and completing a signature is considered part of a legal interaction. The receiving and transmittal itself is considered “receiving and/or transmittal of data over a network, cited by the MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II) (i) as an example of conventional computer functioning (see Symantec and buySAFE v Google). Claims 7-9 are considered “receiving and/or transmittal of data over a network, cited by the MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II) (i) as an example of conventional computer functioning (see Symantec and buySAFE v Google). The use of GPS data, photographic evidence, time data, or a combination in claims 7-9 as evidence of completion is considered part of the abstract idea, as verification of completion of a service, such as by a signature, by a receipt, by a photo of a completed document or delivery, or by other means is commonly done in legal and business interactions. Claim 10 is considered part of the abstract idea, as what information accompanies the request does not change the analysis. The other dependent claims mirror those already discussed above.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. Vs. CLS Bank International et al., 2014 (please reference link to updated publicly available Alice memo at http://www.uspto.gov/patents/announce/alice_pec_25jun2014.pdf as well as the USPTO January 2019 Updated Patent Eligibility Guidance.)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenthal, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2007/0112584 A1.
Regarding Claim 1, Rosenthal teaches:
A computer implemented method for service of process for legal documents comprising:
a computer having a processor and memory (see Figures 2-5)
receiving an electronic request to complete legal service of process of a document to a human document recipient from a client computer (see [0020], [0022], and [0040] in which a request to complete service of process for serving legal papers to a human recipient is received from a client device)
the request comprising information identifying a human document recipient (see [0038] and [0047])
the computer receiving a legal document electronically from the client computer (see [0020] in which the requesting client transmits the legal documents electronically to the system)
the computer transmitting information about the legal document and instructions regarding service of process to the mobile process server computer (see [0025], [0041], and [0044]-[0045] in which the document and information for service of process is transmitted to a mobile process server computer)
the computer receiving electronic confirmation of service of process from the process server computer to confirm completion of service of process of the legal document to the document recipient (see at least [0045] and [0060]) the electronic confirmation of service of process comprising a date of attempted completion of service of process and a time of attempted completion of service of process (see [0044]-[0045] in which a timestamp, which as is known in the art includes a date and time, is returned as proof of service) and GPS location data for the process server computer when service of process occurred (see at least [0044]-[0045])
the computer transmitting to the client electronic proof of service of process, the
electronic service of process comprising a date and time of attempted completion of service of process (see [0044]-[0045] in which a timestamp showing date and time of attempted completion or completion of service of process is used as proof), and GPS location data for the process server computer when service of process occurred (see [0025], [0045], and [0060])
Rosenthal, however, does not appear to specify:
the computer transmitting the legal document electronically to a mobile process server computer
Rosenthal does, however, teach the document being transmitted to the system and information about the document and instructions being submitted to the mobile process server as in [0025], [0045], and [0060]. Further, the service of process is of the actual documents so at some point the mobile process server has to be able to access the documents and have them transmitted to them in order to serve the documents to the human recipient.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the application to combine the computer transmitting the legal document electronically to a mobile process server computer with Rosenthal because Rosenthal already teaches the document being transmitted to the system and information about the document and instructions being submitted to the mobile process server as in [0025], [0045], and [0060] and teaches the service of process is of the actual documents so at some point the mobile process server has to be able to access the documents and have them transmitted to them in order to serve the documents to the human recipient, and transmitting the documents to the mobile process server in Rosenthal would allow the mobile process server to serve the documents.
Regarding Claim 2, Rosenthal teaches:
the method of claim 1
the computer displaying the service of process request to a plurality of unaffiliated process servers via a plurality of mobile process server computers (see [0042])
the computer electronically transmitting information regarding a process server applicant to the client computer (see at least [0025], [0042], and [0052])
the computer receiving, from the client computer, an electronic selection of a process server to complete the service of process request (see at least [0025])
the computer transmitting electronic notification of acceptance of the service of process request to the process server computer associated with the selected process server (see [0025] and [0042] in which the process server is immediately notified when they have been selected for a service of process)
Rosenthal, however, does not appear to specify:
the computer receiving, from a process server computer, an application to complete the service of process request by serving the legal document to the document recipient
Rosenthal does however teach that specific process servers are affiliated and have a pre-existing relationship with the system as in [0052], are considered qualified vendors in [0042], and the affiliates have access to the documents via a gateway in [0032]. Further, the examiner takes Official Notice that it is old and well known in the business arts for affiliates and vendors who provide a service to start an account or make an application to be able to provide specific services to a system based on their qualifications. This occurs in the software services, educational services, legal services, real estate services, and other sectors.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to combine the computer receiving, from a process server computer, an application to complete the service of process request by serving the legal document to the document recipient with Rosenthal because Rosenthal already teaches that specific process servers are affiliated and have a pre-existing relationship with the system as in [0052], are considered qualified vendors in [0042], and the affiliates have access to the documents via a gateway in [0032], and process servers making an application would allow for a thorough review of their qualifications and past performance prior to approval.
Regarding Claim 6, Rosenthal teaches:
the method of claim 1
the computer receiving, from the process server computer, a signature obtained
electronically during completion of service of process and the computer transmitting, to the client computer, the electronic signature as evidence of completion of service of process (see [0045])
Regarding Claim 7, Rosenthal teaches:
the method of claim 6
Rosenthal further teaches:
the computer receiving, from the process server computer, GPS data and time data corresponding to the signature (see [0044]-[0045])
Claims 3-5, 8-9, 11-12, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenthal, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2007/0112584 A1 in view of Kingery, Pre-Grant Publication No. 2011/0125656 A1.
Regarding Claim 3, Rosenthal teaches:
the method of claim 1
Rosenthal, however, does not appear to specify:
the computer displaying, via the process server computer, a map showing the process server location and showing the document recipient location
Kingery teaches:
the computer displaying, via the process server computer, a map showing the process server location and showing the document recipient location (see [0013], [0021]-[0022] in which a mobile navigation application gives the process server their current location and navigational directions to the recipient; the examiner notes that it is inherent that at the time of filing of the application and the cited reference that mobile navigational applications such as Google Maps, which are mentioned in [0016] and [0030], would provide instructions that also display the starting point (current location of process server) and ending point (recipient location) on the map and/or in the instructions)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Kingery with osenthal because Rosenthal already teaches giving a process server information such as address of a recipient, and showing a location on a map of the server and recipient would expediate the service and allow the server to confirm location.
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Rosenthal and Kingery teaches:
the method of claim 3
Kingery further teaches:
the computer transmitting, to the process server computer, navigation instructions to lead the process server to the document recipient in real time (see [0013], [0021]-[0022] in which a mobile navigation application gives the process server their current location and navigational directions to the recipient in real time)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Kingery with Rosenthal because Rosenthal already teaches giving a process server information such as address of a recipient, and giving a process server navigational instructions in real time would expediate the service and allow the server to confirm location.
Regarding Claim 5, Rosenthal teaches:
the method of claim 1
Rosenthal, however, does not appear to specify:
the computer obtaining GPS location data of the process server computer in real time while the process server is in the process of serving the legal document to the document recipient
Kingery teaches:
the computer obtaining GPS location data of the process server computer in real time while the process server is in the process of serving the legal document to the document recipient (see [0014], [0019], and [0030]
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Kingery with Rosenthal because Rosenthal already teaches GPS tracking for confirmation of delivery, and tracking the serving process in real time gives a full account of not only delivery but the time prior to delivery and the process server location.
Regarding Claim 8, Rosenthal teaches:
the method of claim 1
Rosenthal, however, does not appear to specify:
the computer receiving, from the process server computer, photographic evidence of completion of service of process
the computer transmitting, to the client computer, the photographic evidence as evidence of completion of service of process
Kingery teaches:
the computer receiving, from the process server computer, photographic evidence of completion of service of process and the computer transmitting, to the client computer, the photographic evidence as evidence of completion of service of process (see [0014], [0030], and [0033])
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Kingery with Rosenthal because Rosenthal already teaches in [0045] the use of digital photographic imaging to act as proof of service, but does not go into specific detail, and using photographic evidence of completion of service of process would allow for undeniable proof that the service was completed.
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Rosenthal and Kingery teaches:
the method of claim 8
Rosenthal further teaches:
the computer receiving, from the process server computer, GPS data and time data the computer transmitting, to the client computer, the GPS data and time data as evidence of completion of service of process (see [0044]-[0045])
Kingery further teaches:
the computer receiving, from the process server computer, GPS data and time data corresponding to the photographic evidence of service of process and the computer transmitting, to the client computer, the GPS data and time data as evidence of completion of service of process (see at least [0031]-[0032])
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Kingery with Rosenthal because Rosenthal already teaches in [0045] the use of digital photographic imaging to act as proof of service, but does not go into specific detail, and using photographic evidence of completion of service of process would allow for undeniable proof that the service was completed.
Regarding Claim 11, Rosenthal teaches:
A computer implemented method for service of process for legal documents comprising:
a computer having a processor and memory (see Figures 2-5)
the computer receiving an electronic request to complete service of process from a client computer, the request comprising a document recipient, a document recipient address (see [0020], [0022], and [0040] in which a request to complete service of process for serving legal papers to a human recipient is received from a client device; see also [0038] in which the request includes a recipient name and address)
the computer receiving a legal document electronically from the client computer (see [0020] in which the requesting client transmits the legal documents electronically to the system)
the computer displaying the service of process request to a plurality of unaffiliated process servers (see [0042])
the computer receiving, from the client computer, an electronic selection of a process server to complete the service of process request (see at least [0025])
the computer transmitting information about and instructions regarding service of process to the process server computer (see [0025], [0041], and [0044]-[0045] in which the document and information for service of process is transmitted to a mobile process server computer)
the computer receiving electronic confirmation of service of process from the process server computer to confirm completion of service of process of the legal document to the document recipient (see at least [0045] and [0060])
the computer transmitting to the client electronic proof of service of process (see [0025], [0044]-[0045] in which a timestamp showing date and time of attempted completion or completion of service of process is used as proof, and [0060])
Rosenthal, however, does not appear to specify:
the computer transmitting the legal document electronically to a mobile process server computer
Rosenthal does, however, teach the document being transmitted to the system and information about the document and instructions being submitted to the mobile process server as in [0025], [0045], and [0060]. Further, the service of process is of the actual documents so at some point the mobile process server has to be able to access the documents and have them transmitted to them in order to serve the documents to the human recipient.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the application to combine the computer transmitting the legal document electronically to a mobile process server computer with Rosenthal because Rosenthal already teaches the document being transmitted to the system and information about the document and instructions being submitted to the mobile process server as in [0025], [0045], and [0060] and teaches the service of process is of the actual documents so at some point the mobile process server has to be able to access the documents and have them transmitted to them in order to serve the documents to the human recipient, and transmitting the documents to the mobile process server in Rosenthal would allow the mobile process server to serve the documents.
Rosenthal, however, does not appear to specify:
the computer receiving, from a process server computer, an application to complete the service of process request by serving the legal document to the document recipient
Rosenthal does however teach that specific process servers are affiliated and have a pre-existing relationship with the system as in [0052], are considered qualified vendors in [0042], and the affiliates have access to the documents via a gateway in [0032]. Further, the examiner takes Official Notice that it is old and well known in the business arts for affiliates and vendors who provide a service to start an account or make an application to be able to provide specific services to a system based on their qualifications. This occurs in the software services, educational services, legal services, real estate services, and other sectors.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to combine the computer receiving, from a process server computer, an application to complete the service of process request by serving the legal document to the document recipient with Rosenthal because Rosenthal already teaches that specific process servers are affiliated and have a pre-existing relationship with the system as in [0052], are considered qualified vendors in [0042], and the affiliates have access to the documents via a gateway in [0032], and process servers making an application would allow for a thorough review of their qualifications and past performance prior to approval.
Rosenthal, however, does not appear to specify:
an electronic request including… a selection of timing options for completing service of process
Kingery teaches:
an electronic request including… a selection of timing options for completing service of process (see [0012])
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Kingery with Rosenthal because Rosenthal already teaches in [0045] the use of digital photographic imaging, timestamps, and other variables to act as proof of service, but does not go into specific detail, and teaches a request for service of process including such as an address, a recipient, and other information, and a request including a timing expectation would allow for clear communication and good information for verification of the recipient.
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Rosenthal and Kingery teaches:
the method of claim 11
Rosenthal and Kingery, however, does not appear to specify:
the computer receiving data regarding the plurality of unaffiliated process servers, data sufficient to create a process server account on the computer for each of the plurality of process servers
the computer receiving, from a client computer, data sufficient to create a client account on the computer
Rosenthal does however teach that specific process servers are affiliated and have a pre-existing relationship with the system as in [0052], are considered qualified vendors in [0042], and the affiliates have access to the documents via a gateway in [0032]. Further, the examiner takes Official Notice that it is old and well known in the business arts for potential affiliates and vendors who provide a service to start an account or make an application to be able to provide specific services to a system based on their qualifications. This occurs in the software services, educational services, legal services, real estate services, and other sectors.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the application to combine the computer receiving data regarding the plurality of unaffiliated process servers, data sufficient to create a process server account on the computer for each of the plurality of process servers and the computer receiving, from a client computer, data sufficient to create a client account on the computer with Rosenthal and Kingery because Rosenthal already teaches that specific process servers are affiliated and have a pre-existing relationship with the system as in [0052], are considered qualified vendors in [0042], and the affiliates have access to the documents via a gateway in [0032], and receiving date from process servers for creating an account would allow for a thorough review of their qualifications and past performance prior to approval.
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Rosenthal and Kingery teaches:
the method of claim 11
Rosenthal further teaches:
the computer electronically transmitting information regarding a process server to the client computer (see at least [0025], [0042], and [0052])
the computer receiving a selection of a process server from the client computer (see at least [0025])
the computer transmitting electronic notification of acceptance of the service of process request to a process server computer associated with the selected process server (see [0025] and [0042] in which the process server is immediately notified when they have been selected for a service of process)
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Rosenthal and Kingery teaches:
the method of claim 11
Rosenthal, however, does not appear to specify:
the computer displaying, via the process server computer, a map showing the process server location and showing the document recipient location
the computer transmitting, to the process server computer, navigation instructions to lead the process server to the document recipient
Kingery teaches:
the computer displaying, via the process server computer, a map showing the process server location and showing the document recipient location the computer transmitting, to the process server computer, navigation instructions to lead the process server to the document recipient (see [0013], [0021]-[0022] in which a mobile navigation application gives the process server their current location and navigational directions to the recipient; the examiner notes that it is inherent that at the time of filing of the application and the cited reference that mobile navigational applications such as Google Maps, which are mentioned in [0016] and [0030], would provide instructions that also display the starting point (current location of process server) and ending point (recipient location) on the map and/or in the instructions)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Kingery with osenthal because Rosenthal already teaches giving a process server information such as address of a recipient, and showing a location on a map of the server and recipient would expediate the service and allow the server to confirm location.
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Rosenthal and Kingery teaches:
the method of claim 11
Rosenthal, however, does not appear to specify:
the computer displaying, via the process server computer, a map showing the process server location and showing the document recipient location
the computer transmitting, to the process server computer, navigation instructions to lead the process server to the document recipient
Kingery teaches:
the computer displaying, via the process server computer, a map showing the process server location and showing the document recipient location the computer transmitting, to the process server computer, navigation instructions to lead the process server to the document recipient (see [0013], [0021]-[0022] in which a mobile navigation application gives the process server their current location and navigational directions to the recipient; the examiner notes that it is inherent that at the time of filing of the application and the cited reference that mobile navigational applications such as Google Maps, which are mentioned in [0016] and [0030], would provide instructions that also display the starting point (current location of process server) and ending point (recipient location) on the map and/or in the instructions)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Kingery with osenthal because Rosenthal already teaches giving a process server information such as address of a recipient, and showing a location on a map of the server and recipient would expediate the service and allow the server to confirm location.
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Rosenthal and Kingery teaches:
the method of claim 16
Rosenthal, however, does not appear to specify:
the computer tracking the movement of the process server computer in real time while the process server is in the process of serving the legal document to the document recipient
Kingery teaches:
the computer tracking the movement of the process server computer in real time while the process server is in the process of serving the legal document to the document recipient (see [0014], [0019], and [0030]
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Kingery with Rosenthal because Rosenthal already teaches GPS tracking for confirmation of delivery, and tracking the serving process in real time gives a full account of not only delivery but the time prior to delivery and the process server location.
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Rosenthal and Kingery teaches:
the method of claim 11
Rosenthal further teaches:
the computer receiving electronic confirmation of service of process comprising GPS location data of the process server computer at a time when service of process occurred (see [0044]-[0045])
Kingery further teaches:
the computer transmitting, to the client computer, electronic proof of service of process comprising GPS location data of the process server computer at the time when service of process occurred (see at least [0031]-[0032])
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Kingery with Rosenthal because Rosenthal already teaches in [0045] the use of digital photographic imaging to act as proof of service, but does not go into specific detail, and using photographic evidence of completion of service of process would allow for undeniable proof that the service was completed.
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Rosenthal and Kingery teaches:
the method of claim 11
Rosenthal further teaches:
the computer receiving electronic confirmation of service of process comprising a signature obtained electronically from the document recipient during completion of service of process (see [0045])
the computer transmitting, to the client computer, electronic proof of service of process comprising the signature obtained electronically from the document recipient during completion of service of process (see [0045])
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Rosenthal and Kingery teaches:
the method of claim 11
Kingery further teaches:
the computer receiving electronic confirmation of service of process comprising photographic evidence of completion of service of process and the computer transmitting, to the client computer, electronic proof of service of process comprising the photographic evidence of completion of service of process (see [0014], [0030], and [0033])
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Kingery with Rosenthal because Rosenthal already teaches in [0045] the use of digital photographic imaging to act as proof of service, but does not go into specific detail, and using photographic evidence of completion of service of process would allow for undeniable proof that the service was completed.
Claims 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenthal, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2007/0112584 A1 in view of Kingery, Pre-Grant Publication No. 2011/0125656 A1 and in further view of Lim, Pre-Grant Publication No. 2010/0100406 A1.
Regarding Claim 10, Rosenthal teaches:
the method of claim 1
Rosenthal further teaches:
wherein the electronic request to complete legal service of process
comprises, a document recipient address (see at least [0038]), a selection of how service of process for a legal document is to be completed (see at least [0025] and [0044])
Rosenthal, however, does not appear to specify:
an electronic photo of the document recipient, a selection of timing options for completing service of process
Kingery teaches:
physical features of the document recipient (see [0019]) a selection of timing options for completing service of process (see [0012])
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Kingery with Rosenthal because Rosenthal already teaches in [0045] the use of digital photographic imaging, timestamps, and other variables to act as proof of service, but does not go into specific detail, and teaches a request for service of process including such as an address, a recipient, and other information, and a request including a timing expectation and features of the recipient would allow for clear communication and good information for verification of the recipient.
Rosenthal and Kingery, however, does not appear to specify:
an electronic photo of the document recipient
Lim teaches:
an electronic photo of the document recipient (see at least [0171]
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Lim with Rosenthal and Kingery because Rosenthal already teaches in [0045] the use of digital photographic imaging, timestamps, and other variables to act as proof of service, but does not go into specific detail, and teaches a request for service of process including such as an address, a recipient, and other information, and Kingery teaches a request including a timing expectation and features of the recipient that allow for clear communication and good information for verification of the recipient, and using a photograph of the recipient would allow for definite verification of recipient identity.
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Rosenthal and Kingery teaches:
the method of claim 11
Rosenthal further teaches:
wherein the electronic request to complete service of process comprises service of process instructions specific to the document recipient (see [0025], [0041], and [0044]-[0045] in which the document and information for service of process is transmitted to a mobile process server computer)
Rosenthal and Kingery, however, does not appear to specify:
an electronic photo of the document recipient
Lim teaches:
an electronic photo of the document recipient (see at least [0171]
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Lim with Rosenthal and Kingery because Rosenthal already teaches in [0045] the use of digital photographic imaging, timestamps, and other variables to act as proof of service, but does not go into specific detail, and teaches a request for service of process including such as an address, a recipient, and other information, and Kingery teaches a request including a timing expectation and features of the recipient that allow for clear communication and good information for verification of the recipient, and using a photograph of the recipient would allow for definite verification of recipient identity.
Conclusion
The following prior art references were not relied upon in this office action but are considered pertinent to the applicant’s invention:
Theoharis, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2024/0265480 A1- process of service for legal documents and court documents requested from mobile servers with signature verifications by recipients and various ways of recipients accessing documents.
Santarlas, Pre-Grant Publication No. 2013/0191303 A1- requests for serving process court documents and investigative services with accompanying information for the recipient, verification using photographs and other features, and other features similar to the claimed invention.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Luis A. Brown whose telephone number is 571.270.1394. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, JESSICA LEMIEUX can be reached at 571.270.3445.
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 http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair . Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free).
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
Washington, D.C. 20231
or faxed to 571-273-8300.
Hand delivered responses should be brought to the United States Patent and Trademark Office Customer Service Window:
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314.
/LUIS A BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626