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 Claims
This action is in reply to the amendment filed on 6/02/2026.
Claims 1-2 and 4-11 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claim 3 has been canceled.
Claims 1-2 and 4-11 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Objections
The presently amended title is now descriptive, thus obviating the previous objection thereto; therefore, this objection is withdrawn.
The present amendments to Claim 7 obviate the previous objection thereto; therefore, this objection is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112
The present amendments to the claims do not obviate the previous 112(b) rejection to Claim 5 (found at the bottom of a rejection of Claims 1, 10, and 11 due to the related nature thereof). As such, this rejection is maintained. The present amendments to the claims obviate all other previous 112(b) and 112(d) rejections thereto; therefore, these rejections are withdrawn. Examiner notes, however, that these amendments cause several new 112(b) and 112(d) rejections.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 101 analysis have been considered and are unpersuasive.
Applicant provides no arguments regarding Step 2A, Prong One of the 101 subject matter eligibility analysis, seemingly accepting that the claims recite abstract ideas therein. Every argument presented regarding 101 in these Remarks appear solely directed to Step 2A, Prong Two, specifically the improvement to computer functionality or other technology consideration thereof. Examiner’s responses to these Remarks are made based on this understanding.
Regarding an improvement to a technology, Applicant first asserts that “[t]he claims recite a specific technical solution to a technical problem identified in the specification: that geocoding services sometimes return incorrect information for addresses, causing delivery destinations to be plotted at wrong positions on maps. See As-Filed Specification, paragraph [0004].” Applicant misapprehends what constitutes a “technical solution” and a “technical problem” within the 101 subject matter eligibility analysis, as what is asserted here comprises neither. Summarily, receiving inaccurate information from a third-party vendor or service is an abstract business problem, and double-checking this information against historical data (in this case, location-based geographical data) is in the same way an abstract business solution. Further, the steps for performing this double-checking are not “a specific technical architecture” as asserted, nor do either the claims or the original disclosure embody “crowdsourced” data as asserted. Merely claiming a sequence of almost entirely abstract steps as being performed at a high level by way of computer elements (including the various newly drafted pieces of programming code executed by the processor of Claim 1) does not transform the abstract nature of those steps (ie: contrary to Applicant’s vague assertion to the contrary, such steps even as presently amended do indeed constitute organizing human activity and mental processes, as well as mathematical concepts where appropriate), nor somehow embody a technological improvement within the meaning of the 101 analysis (see, e.g., Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017) and LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc., 656 Fed. App'x 991, 996-97 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
To the same effect, Applicant argues that “[t]he claims provide a practical application by improving the accuracy of delivery destination mapping when geocoding services fail, which is a technical improvement to computer-implemented delivery mapping systems.” This argument, essentially a reiteration of the argument advanced and refuted already in the Interview of 4/02/2026, is no more true now than then. There is no improvement to GPS or mapping technologies in the claims, even as presently amended. Rather, as noted above and in said Interview, the claims provide an abstract manner of double-checking geographic information received from a third party, and providing different versions of commercial delivery instructions (in this case, superimposed on a map) to a deliverer based on whether that geographic information is determined to be correct or incorrect. Applicant’s description of this here as “improving the accuracy of delivery destination mapping” is at best vastly hyperbolic, and does not constitute a technological improvement but rather an abstract, business improvement.
Regarding the argued content of Claim 3, rolled up and further narrowed into the independent claims in the present amendments, this is similarly abstract rather than technological in nature. There is nothing inherently technological about calculating a centroid of the extracted position information (indeed, the concept of centroids and the calculation thereof are ancient), nor is there anything inherently technological in the comparison of a distance between said centroid to the latitude-longitude information against a threshold value. Indeed, these steps further increase the abstract nature of the claims, as such steps not only recite certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes in the context of the claims, but additionally recite mathematical concepts as well. Applicant’s entirely unsupported and illogical assertion that “[t]his centroid-based validation algorithm…cannot practically be performed as a mental process” is simply untrue and antithetical to how such geography-based calculations have been performed for centuries. Merely appending this with “when applied to GPS coordinate datasets” does nothing to make this otherwise, and as best as Examiner can guess, conflates the technological GPS-based acquisition of geographic information with what might be done with such information once it has been received. This is like saying that because acquiring the weight of an object via a digital scale is technological in nature, anything done with said weight after it has been acquired (e.g., comparisons against thresholds or other weights, adding it to other weights, etc.) must be technological as well. Clearly this would be nonsensical.
Flowing from the above, the claims now “specify[ing] that the position information in the database is based on positions detected by a position detector of the deliverer terminal” does not evidence an improvement to a technology. While it is true that, at least based on the 112(f) interpretation of this “position detector” in the present examination, this does establish that the geographic information in the database was originally obtained via satellite-based GPS detection, this does nothing to change the abstract nature of what is done with this geographic information in the present invention.
Applicant’s vague analogy to Example 4 is unpersuasive, as Examiner does not find the improvements of the present invention (abstract in nature) analogous to the improvement of said Example. As acknowledged by Applicant, Example 4 was found subject matter eligible by way of “improving signal-acquisition sensitivity” of GPS operations (though specifically “of the receiver to extend the usefulness of the technology into weak-signal environments,” something ignored by Applicant presently). This is clearly an improvement to a technology. There is no such improvement to a technology in the present invention, which provides no actual improvement to GPS functionality itself (similar to Example 4) but instead at best improves the instructions provided to a deliverer. Similarly unlike Example 4, the scant additional elements present in the present claims do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea, even when considered in combination. This is especially true of this analysis as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the present invention’s effective filing date, as opposed to the consideration of such features based on the filing date associated with Example 4 (based on a 2010 case, regarding an inventions filed between 2000-2003).
Regarding Applicant’s vague comparison to Finjan, there is no reasonable analogy to be made between the foundationally computer-centric improvement to virus screening (utilizing security profiles to provide protection against not only previously known viruses but “obfuscated code” as well) against the claimed process of checking geographic data against historically recorded geographic data to determine its correctness, and providing correct geographic data to a delivery agent (by contrast, a process which is not inherently computer-based or technological, but rather may be performed in the same manner as claimed manually to achieve the same results).
Regarding Applicant’s vague comparison to Enfish, Applicant’s unexplained assertion that the present invention “improve[s] an existing technology through specific technical architecture involving a geocode service, a database of historical deliverer positions, centroid-based outlier detection, and conditional map information transmission to a deliverer terminal” in similar manner as in Enfish is untrue. Enfish set forth a particular manner in which data may be stored (ie: self-referential tables, separating a key from table data itself, such that said key may be applied to multiple table-based datasets) which both reduced the memory required to store the same data as well as improved computer processing speeds for accessing said data. The present invention contains no similar “technical architecture,” instead setting forth a series of purely results-based steps absent any technical detail as to how such steps are to be performed by a computer (e.g., such as might constitute an improvement over previous computer processes, as in Enfish). Regarding claims “drafted using largely (if not entirely) result-focused functional language, containing no specificity about how the purported invention achieves those results,” “[c]laims of this nature are almost always found to be ineligible for patenting under Section 101.” Beteiro, LLC v. DraftKings, Inc., 104 F.4th 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2024)
While Applicant is generally correct in that the newly claimed detail of map information transmitted to a deliverer terminal which displays the map information to a deliverer (and Examiner notes that this user interface was already considered as deemed necessarily implied in the previous claim draftings – see previous 101 rejections) “ties the claim to a specific technical environment,” Applicant is mistaken as to the effect this has on the 101 analysis. Providing such checked/potentially corrected geographic delivery information to a deliverer is and remains an entirely abstract concept, which Applicant admits is performed here for a purely abstract purpose (ie: “to enable a deliverer to navigate to a delivery destination” by providing a correct delivery destination, regardless of whether the claimed third-party service accurately returns the correct geographic data associated with an address character string). Performing this step via data transmission to a terminal of said deliverer, and displaying the geographic data via said terminal, in the context of the claim as a whole, merely constitutes “apply it” (ie: using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea), something long held as insufficient to show integration into a practical application (see, e.g., MPEP 2106.05(f)). This display of abstract delivery information is indeed “merely displaying results of an abstract process,” contrary to Applicant’s assertion in these Remarks, and the transmission of such abstract results does not somehow transform this such that subject matter eligibility is somehow achieved (and Examiner notes that the present Remarks set forth no theory as to why/how the argued transmission functionality would do so). See, e.g., Interval Licensing LLC, v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 127 USPQ2d 1553 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 102 and 103
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 103 analysis have been considered and are unpersuasive.
The present arguments regarding 102 and 103 are all based on newly drafted claim language, and as such need not be addressed here. Further, these arguments are moot in view of the updated 103 rejections below.
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 1-2 and 4-11 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 11 contain variations on the following limitations, in the following order: “extracting code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to extract position information recorded in association with the accepted address character string from a database that associates an address character string representing a delivery destination a delivery of a second package to which is completed with position information of a position where a deliverer who delivered the second package to the delivery destination was present when the deliverer performed a predetermined action, the position information being based on positions detected by a position detector of the deliverer terminal” and “transmitting code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to transmit, when the latitude-longitude information is determined to be correct, delivery- destination map information in which a position determined based on the latitude-longitude information is displayed on a map to a deliverer terminal to cause the deliverer terminal to display the delivery-destination map information.” Regarding the former limitation, the term “the deliverer terminal” lacks antecedent basis. Regarding the latter limitation, it is unclear as drafted whether the term “a deliverer terminal” is intended to relate back to “the deliverer terminal” of the former limitation, or to recite a separate deliverer terminal. Relatedly, it is unclear as drafted to which of these deliverer terminals (if indeed they are different) each subsequent instance of “the deliverer terminal” in these claims is intended to relate back. For the purposes of this examination, and in consideration of the context in which these terms are used in the claims (ie: wherein the former limitation relates to a previously recorded delivery of the second package, and the latter limitation appears to relate to a present delivery of the first package), “the deliverer terminal” of the former limitation will be interpreted as “a second deliverer terminal.” Claims 2 and 4-9 are rejected due to their dependence upon Claim 1.
Claim 2 contains the term “a package.” It is unclear as drafted whether this is intended to relate back to the first or second package of Claim 1 (upon which Claim 2 depends) or whether this is intended to indicate a distinct, third package. For the purposes of this examination, this will be interpreted as “the second package.”
Claim 5 contains the term “a distribution of the extracted position information.” It is unclear as drafted whether this is the same as or different from the “a distribution of the extracted position information” of Claim 1 (upon which Claim 5 depends). For the purposes of this examination, this term in Claim 5 will be interpreted as “the distribution of the extracted position information.”
Claim 7 contains the following limitation: “wherein the determining code is further configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to determine that the latitude-longitude information is not correct when a position of the delivery destination is unidentifiable as a point.” Claim 1, upon which Claim 7 depends, discloses the following limitations: “determine, when a distance between the calculated centroid and the acquired latitude-longitude information is greater than a predetermined threshold value, that the acquired latitude-longitude information is an outlier with respect to a distribution of the extracted position information and that the latitude-longitude information is not correct” and “determine, when the distance between the calculated centroid and the acquired latitude-longitude information is less than or equal to the predetermined threshold value, that the latitude-longitude information is not an outlier and that the latitude-longitude information is correct.” This condition for determining that the latitude-longitude information is not correct in part conflicts with the condition for this same determination already set forth in Claim 1, and it is unclear as drafted how these conditions would function together. Further, the addition of the condition of Claim 7 renders the condition of Claim 1 sometimes true and sometimes untrue (see 112(d) rejection for this limitation below for more information). For the purposes of this examination, Claim 7 will be interpreted based on the 112(b) interpretation thereof in the previous Office Action.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 7 contains the following limitation: “wherein the determining code is further configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to determine that the latitude-longitude information is not correct when a position of the delivery destination is unidentifiable as a point.” Claim 1, upon which Claim 7 depends, discloses the following limitations: “determine, when a distance between the calculated centroid and the acquired latitude-longitude information is greater than a predetermined threshold value, that the acquired latitude-longitude information is an outlier with respect to a distribution of the extracted position information and that the latitude-longitude information is not correct” and “determine, when the distance between the calculated centroid and the acquired latitude-longitude information is less than or equal to the predetermined threshold value, that the latitude-longitude information is not an outlier and that the latitude-longitude information is correct.” 35 USC 112(d), in relevant part, states that “[a] claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.” This limitation of Claim 7 violates 112(d) standards in that the content thereof shifts and expands rather than properly narrows the limitations of Claim 1. Specifically, Claim 7 introduces an additional condition for a determination that the latitude-longitude information is not correct on top of the condition already set forth in Claim 1. In Claim 1, the conditions associated with determining that the latitude-longitude information either is or is not correct are absolute (e.g., when this distance is greater than the threshold value, the latitude-longitude information is always considered not correct). This condition of Claim 7 (ie: when a position of the delivery destination is unidentifiable as a point), when considered in relation to the conditions of Claim 1 (when the distance between the calculated centroid and the acquired latitude-longitude information is greater/lesser than or equal to the predetermined threshold value), renders the above-quoted limitations of Claim 1 sometimes true but sometimes untrue (ie: embodiments of the latitude-longitude value which would be considered as correct as per the language of Claim 1 would sometimes also be considered not correct as per the language of Claim 7), thus improperly shifting/expanding the scope of Claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-2 and 4-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Claims 1, 10, and 11, the limitations of accept an address character string of a delivery destination of a first package; acquire, from a geocoding service that converts an address character string to latitude-longitude information, latitude-longitude information associated with the accepted address character string; extract position information recorded in association with the accepted address character string from a database that associates an address character string representing a delivery destination a delivery of a second package to which is completed with position information of a position where a deliverer who delivered the second package to the delivery destination was present when the deliverer performed a predetermined action, the position information being based on positions detected by a position detector of the deliverer terminal; calculate a centroid of the extracted position information; determine, when a distance between the calculated centroid and the acquired latitude-longitude information is greater than a predetermined threshold value, that the acquired latitude-longitude information is an outlier with respect to a distribution of the extracted position information and that the latitude-longitude information is not correct; determine, when the distance between the calculated centroid and the acquired latitude-longitude information is less than or equal to the predetermined threshold value, that the latitude-longitude information is not an outlier and that the latitude-longitude information is correct; transmit, when the latitude-longitude information is determined to be correct, delivery- destination map information in which a position determined based on the latitude-longitude information is displayed on a map to a deliverer terminal to cause the deliverer terminal to display the delivery-destination map information; and transmit, when the latitude-longitude information is determined not to be correct, delivery-destination map information in which a position of the accepted address character string is displayed on a map, based on the extracted position information, to the deliverer terminal to cause the deliverer terminal to display the delivery-destination map information, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover certain methods of organizing human activity. For example, these limitations fall at least within the enumerated categories of commercial or legal interactions and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)).
Additionally, the limitations of accept an address character string of a delivery destination of a first package; acquire, from a geocoding service that converts an address character string to latitude-longitude information, latitude-longitude information associated with the accepted address character string; extract position information recorded in association with the accepted address character string from a database that associates an address character string representing a delivery destination a delivery of a second package to which is completed with position information of a position where a deliverer who delivered the second package to the delivery destination was present when the deliverer performed a predetermined action, the position information being based on positions detected by a position detector of the deliverer terminal; calculate a centroid of the extracted position information; determine, when a distance between the calculated centroid and the acquired latitude-longitude information is greater than a predetermined threshold value, that the acquired latitude-longitude information is an outlier with respect to a distribution of the extracted position information and that the latitude-longitude information is not correct; determine, when the distance between the calculated centroid and the acquired latitude-longitude information is less than or equal to the predetermined threshold value, that the latitude-longitude information is not an outlier and that the latitude-longitude information is correct; transmit, when the latitude-longitude information is determined to be correct, delivery- destination map information in which a position determined based on the latitude-longitude information is displayed on a map to a deliverer terminal to cause the deliverer terminal to display the delivery-destination map information; and transmit, when the latitude-longitude information is determined not to be correct, delivery-destination map information in which a position of the accepted address character string is displayed on a map, based on the extracted position information, to the deliverer terminal to cause the deliverer terminal to display the delivery-destination map information, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mental processes. For example, these limitations recite activity comprising observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Additionally, the limitations of calculate a centroid of the extracted position information; determine, when a distance between the calculated centroid and the acquired latitude-longitude information is greater than a predetermined threshold value, that the acquired latitude-longitude information is an outlier with respect to a distribution of the extracted position information and that the latitude-longitude information is not correct; and determine, when the distance between the calculated centroid and the acquired latitude-longitude information is less than or equal to the predetermined threshold value, that the latitude-longitude information is not an outlier and that the latitude-longitude information is correct, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover mathematical concepts. For example, these limitations recite mathematical relationships and/or calculations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships, or managing interactions between people, it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper but for recitation of generic computer components, it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical relationships, mathematical formulae or equations, or mathematical calculations, it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute processing; a device/computer comprising at least one memory configured to store program code and at least one processor configured to operate as instructed by the program code; various pieces of program code for execution by the at least one processor; a database; a position detector of a second deliverer terminal; and a deliverer terminal comprising a display which displays information. These additional elements, in the context of the claims as a whole, amount to no more than mere instructions to apply a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because they do not, individually or in combination, impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas. The claims are therefore directed to an 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 judicial exception into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply a judicial exception for the same reasons as discussed above in relation to integration into a practical application. These cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, when considering the additional elements alone and in combination, there is no inventive concept in the claims, and thus the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 2 and 4-9, describing various additional limitations to the system of Claim 1, amount to substantially the same unintegrated abstract idea as Claim 1 (upon which these claims depend, directly or indirectly) and are rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Claim 2 discloses wherein the predetermined action is an action from when the deliverer gets off a vehicle until the deliverer delivers a package to the delivery destination and gets on the vehicle (further defining the abstract idea already set forth in Claim 1); time series acquiring code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to acquire a time series of positions of the deliverer, the positions being detected in a process in which the deliverer delivers the first package (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process); estimating code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to estimate, from a time when each of the positions included in the acquired time series is detected, movement speed of the deliverer at each of the positions (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity, a mental process, and a mathematical concept); partial time series extracting code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to extract, based on the estimated movement speed, a partial time series, the partial time series indicating a time section during which the deliverer is estimated not to be on board a vehicle, from the acquired time series (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process); and generating code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to generate association information that associates the extracted partial time series with an address character string of the delivery destination to which the deliverer delivered the first package (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process); and store the generated association information in the database (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process), which do not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 4 discloses completion list acquiring code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to acquire a delivery completion list that stores a delivery completion time indicating a time when delivery is completed with respect to the delivery destination (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process); identifying code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to identify a partial time series including a timestamp closest to the delivery completion time with respect to the delivery destination (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity, a mental process, and a mathematical concept); and associating code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to associate position information included in the identified partial time series with the accepted address character string of the delivery destination (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process), which do not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 5 discloses wherein the delivery-destination map information transmitted, when the latitude-longitude information is determined not to be correct, comprises a distribution of the extracted position information that is superimposed on a map (further defining the abstract idea already set forth in Claim 1), which does not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 6 discloses parking position identifying code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to identify, when the latitude-longitude information is determined not to be correct, a parking or stopping position where a vehicle is parked or stopped when the first package is delivered to the delivery destination, based on a head piece of position information having an earliest acquisition time among the extracted position information and an end piece of position information having a latest acquisition time among the extracted position information (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process); destination identifying code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to identify, among the extracted position information, position information farthest from the identified parking or stopping position as a position of the delivery destination (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity, a mental process, and a mathematical concept); and map providing code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to provide delivery-destination map information in which each of the identified parking or stopping position and the identified position of the delivery destination is arranged on a map (further defining the abstract idea already set forth in Claim 1), which do not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 7 discloses wherein the determining code is further configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to determine that the latitude-longitude information is not correct when a position of the delivery destination is unidentifiable as a point (further defining the abstract idea already set forth in Claim 1), which does not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 8 discloses wherein the extracting code is further configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to extract pieces of position information recorded in association with the accepted address character string (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process); and remove an outlier from the extracted pieces of position information (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process), which do not integrate the claim into a practical application.
Claim 9 discloses wherein the predetermined action is an action of making a completion report to an effect that the deliverer has completed a delivery to each delivery destination (further defining the abstract idea already set forth in Claim 1); time series acquiring code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to acquire a time series of positions of the deliverer, the positions being detected in a process in which the deliverer delivers the first package (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process); time series extracting code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to extract the time series closest to a time when the completion report is made or a delivery completion time that is input in the completion report from the acquired time series (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity, a mental process, and a mathematical concept); generating code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to generate association information associating position information included in the extracted time series with an address character string of the delivery destination (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process); and storing code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to store the generated association information in the database (an abstract idea in the form of a certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process), which do not integrate the claim into a practical application.
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 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 1, 4-5, and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graham et al (PGPub 20080255758) (hereafter, “Graham”) in view of Amazon Location Services website, http://aws.amazon.com/pm/location/ (captured on 10/31/2022) (hereafter, “Amazon”) and Fremlin et al (PGPub 20210049911) (hereafter, “Fremlin”).
Regarding Claims 1, 10, and 11, Graham discloses:
a device/computer comprising at least one memory configured to store program code and at least one processor configured to operate as instructed by the program code (¶ 0050-0051, 0064, 0074; Figs. 4, 5; computer program instructions loaded onto a general purpose computer, special purpose computer, or other programmable data processing apparatus to produce a machine which executes the computer program instructions; these computer program instructions may also be stored in a computer-readable memory that can direct a computer or other programmable data processing apparatus to function);
a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium executable by a computer (¶ 0050-0051, 0064, 0074; Figs. 4, 5; computer program instructions loaded onto a general purpose computer, special purpose computer, or other programmable data processing apparatus to produce a machine which executes the computer program instructions);
accepting code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to accept an address character string of a delivery destination of a first package (¶ 0007, 0015, 0050, 0054-0055, 0071, 0076, 0096, 0116-0117; an item addressed to the unique point address; the designated delivery address; the delivery of mail, packages, shipments and other such items has been assisted by portable handheld devices that maintain address and delivery related data; the route manager is generally responsible for compiling a delivery manifest that lists all units of work (UOWs) that a delivery driver is expected to perform over the course of his or her workday; the route manager may receive the UOWs from, for example, a preload assist system; augment the traditional address and delivery data that would normally be provided in association with each UOW; the location identifier (e.g., the unique address or address ID code) associated with each UOW; each UOW listed in the delivery manifest includes address data; each package record includes information about the item being delivered or picked up at the associated address; computer program instructions loaded onto a general purpose computer, special purpose computer, or other programmable data processing apparatus to produce a machine which executes the computer program instructions);
extracting code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to extract position information recorded in association with the accepted address character string from a database that associates an address character string representing a delivery destination a delivery of a second package to which is completed with position information of a position where a deliverer who delivered the second package to the delivery destination was present when the deliverer performed a predetermined action, the position information being based on positions detected by a position detector of the deliverer terminal (¶ 0050, 0056-0057, 0064, 0074-0075, 0077, 0082; Fig. 4, 6A; processes implemented in accordance with embodiments of the present invention include developing a reference location data set (e.g., a reference geocode and/or a zone of confidence) for each point address to which an item may be delivered; this can be accomplished by using the portable computing device to gather geocode samples, such as GPS readings, at each delivery or pickup address over a period of time; this data can then be uploaded to a delivery management system, which, after an appropriate number of geocode samples, processes the sample data and creates a reference location data set for each delivery address; create a repository of geocode samples and reference location data sets and associate this location data with a point address (e.g., a potential delivery location); the portable device information repository is basically used for storing delivery information collected by the portable devices for each unique point address, including the geocode samples (e.g., GPS latitude/longitude records) collected by the portable devices during past deliveries (or pickups); the system sets out to obtain the reference location data set that is associated with the current UOW; each reference location data set includes a reference geocode (e.g., a reference longitude and latitude) and a radius value that defines a circle of confidence (COC) about the reference geocode, within which delivery of a related item is considered acceptable; the portable device may wirelessly access the delivery management system in an attempt to obtain reference location data; computer program instructions loaded onto a general purpose computer, special purpose computer, or other programmable data processing apparatus to produce a machine which executes the computer program instructions);
transmitting code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to transmit, when the latitude-longitude information is determined to be correct, delivery-destination map information in which a position determined based on the latitude-longitude information is displayed on a map to a deliverer terminal to cause the deliverer terminal to display the delivery-destination map information, and transmit, when the latitude-longitude information is determined not to be correct, delivery-destination map information in which a position of the accepted address character string is displayed on a map, based on the extracted position information, to the deliverer terminal to cause the deliverer terminal to display the delivery-destination map information (¶ 0050, 0084-0085; Figs. 1, 6B, 7, 8; the system displays or issues the appropriate type of mis-delivery feedback to the driver, e.g., neutral, positive, or negative feedback, by displaying an appropriate visual indicator on the display of the portable device; the portable device may provide the driver with feedback in other ways in addition to or as an alternative to the icons 140, 141, and 142; the portable device may display a map with visual indicators representing the reference geocode (e.g., the latitude and longitude reference point), the zone of confidence, and visual indicators for one or more of the GPS readings; in this way the driver may be able to see on the map whether a current GPS reading is within the zone of confidence and where the current GPS reading is with respect to the zone of confidence; computer program instructions loaded onto a general purpose computer, special purpose computer, or other programmable data processing apparatus to produce a machine which executes the computer program instructions).
Graham additionally discloses acquiring code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to acquire latitude-longitude information associated with the accepted address character string (pgs. 1-2, 5; notify customers of incoming deliveries using Amazon Location Service; visualize recommend routes, use geocoding to convert plain text addresses into geographic coordinates, use reverse geocoding to convert latitude and longitude coordinates into addresses, use geofencing and tracking to monitor assets at an affordable price). Graham does not explicitly disclose but Amazon does disclose wherein the latitude-longitude information is acquired from a geocoding service that converts an address character string to latitude-longitude information (pgs. 1-2, 5; notify customers of incoming deliveries using Amazon Location Service; visualize recommend routes, use geocoding to convert plain text addresses into geographic coordinates, use reverse geocoding to convert latitude and longitude coordinates into addresses, use geofencing and tracking to monitor assets at an affordable price).
Graham does not explicitly disclose but Fremlin does disclose determining code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to calculate a centroid of location information (¶ 0041, 0070-0071, 0128-0129, 0152; Fig. 4; a pickup location relative to a centroid of a building and that is associated with a requester history or a global system history; the pickup location determination system determines a location along a street nearby a coordinate location of a previous pickup location as a door point; the pickup location determination system utilizes a doors API to determine a centroid of pickup coordinates (latitudes and longitudes) for given addresses; the pickup location determination system determines the door point based on requester-specific historical information and/or global historical information; in some embodiments the pickup location determination system identifies an address of a building (or a coordinate location of a centroid of the building) where a previous transportation request (either from the same requester or from a different requester) originated and further determines a previous pickup location corresponding to the previous request; program code means in the form of computer-executable instructions or data structures and which can be accessed by a general purpose or special purpose computer). Graham additionally discloses wherein the location information is the extracted position information (¶ 0056-0057, 0064, 0074-0075, 0077, 0082; Fig. 4, 6A; processes implemented in accordance with embodiments of the present invention include developing a reference location data set (e.g., a reference geocode and/or a zone of confidence) for each point address to which an item may be delivered).
Graham additionally discloses determine, when a distance between a position and the acquired latitude-longitude information is greater than a predetermined threshold value, that the acquired latitude-longitude information is an outlier with respect to a distribution of the extracted position information and that the latitude-longitude information is not correct (¶ 0012-0013, 0069, 0083-0084, 0098-0099, 0120; Fig. 6A; each reference location data set includes a reference geocode (e.g., a reference longitude and latitude) and a radius value that defines a circle of confidence (COC) about the reference geocode, within which delivery of a related item is considered acceptable; the system determines whether the current GPS reading is within the zone of confidence defined by the reference location data; in an embodiment where the zone of confidence is a circle, the system determines whether or not the calculated proximity distance is less than the circle of confidence radius provided in the reference location data set; alternatively, if the system determines that the GPS reading is outside the reference zone of confidence (e.g., the calculated proximity distance is greater than the radius of the circle of confidence), the process advances to step 111, where the system sets the type of mis-delivery feedback to "negative"). Graham does not explicitly disclose but Fremlin does disclose wherein the position is the calculated centroid (¶ 0041, 0070-0071; Fig. 4; a pickup location relative to a centroid of a building and that is associated with a requester history or a global system history; the pickup location determination system determines a location along a street nearby a coordinate location of a previous pickup location as a door point; the pickup location determination system utilizes a doors API to determine a centroid of pickup coordinates (latitudes and longitudes) for given addresses; the pickup location determination system determines the door point based on requester-specific historical information and/or global historical information; in some embodiments the pickup location determination system 104 identifies an address of a building (or a coordinate location of a centroid of the building) where a previous transportation request (either from the same requester or from a different requester) originated and further determines a previous pickup location corresponding to the previous request).
Graham additionally discloses determine, when the distance between a position and the acquired latitude-longitude information is less than or equal to the predetermined threshold value, that the latitude-longitude information is not an outlier and that the latitude-longitude information is correct (¶ 0012-0013, 0069, 0083-0084, 0098-0099, 0120; Fig. 6A; each reference location data set includes a reference geocode (e.g., a reference longitude and latitude) and a radius value that defines a circle of confidence (COC) about the reference geocode, within which delivery of a related item is considered acceptable; the system determines whether the current GPS reading is within the zone of confidence defined by the reference location data; in an embodiment where the zone of confidence is a circle, the system determines whether or not the calculated proximity distance is less than the circle of confidence radius provided in the reference location data set; if the system determines that the GPS reading is within the reference zone of confidence (e.g., the calculated proximity distance is less that the radius of the circle of confidence), the process proceeds to step 110, where the system sets the type of mis-delivery feedback to "positive"). Graham does not explicitly disclose but Fremlin does disclose wherein the position is the calculated centroid (¶ 0041, 0070-0071; Fig. 4; a pickup location relative to a centroid of a building and that is associated with a requester history or a global system history; the pickup location determination system determines a location along a street nearby a coordinate location of a previous pickup location as a door point; the pickup location determination system utilizes a doors API to determine a centroid of pickup coordinates (latitudes and longitudes) for given addresses; the pickup location determination system determines the door point based on requester-specific historical information and/or global historical information; in some embodiments the pickup location determination system 104 identifies an address of a building (or a coordinate location of a centroid of the building) where a previous transportation request (either from the same requester or from a different requester) originated and further determines a previous pickup location corresponding to the previous request).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to include the delivery-contexted address to coordinate conversion functionality of Amazon with the delivery location verification and correction system of Graham because the combination merely applies a known technique to a known device/method/product ready for improvement to yield predictable results (see KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421 (2007) and MPEP 2143). The known techniques of Amazon are applicable to the base device (Graham), the technical ability existed to improve the base device in the same way, and the results of the combination are predictable because the function of each piece (as well as the problems in the art which they address) are unchanged when combined. It would further have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to include the transportation-based centroid determination functionality of Fremlin with the delivery location verification and correction system of Graham because the combination merely applies a known technique to a known device/method/product ready for improvement to yield predictable results (see KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421 (2007) and MPEP 2143). The known techniques of Fremlin are applicable to the base device (Graham), the technical ability existed to improve the base device in the same way, and the results of the combination are predictable because the function of each piece (as well as the problems in the art which they address) are unchanged when combined.
Regarding Claim 4, Graham in view of Amazon and Fremlin discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Graham additionally discloses:
completion list acquiring code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to acquire a delivery completion list that stores a delivery completion time indicating a time when delivery is completed with respect to the delivery destination (¶ 0010,0050, 0059, 0061, 0080, 0086, 0094, 0103, 0118, 0120, 0130; Table 1; the predefined trigger event may include, for example, an input or event that indicates to the device that the delivery or pickup of the item is now complete; GPS trigger events may include, but are not limited to, the first package scan event for a stop, an electronic signature capture event, an input to the device indicating that a package or item has been left at the current location (i.e., without capturing a signature), and an input or event that indicates to the device that the current stop is now complete; the system stores all relevant data associated with the current GPS trigger event, including, but not limited to, location identifier (e.g., unique address or address code), type of GPS trigger event, GPS location reading (i.e., latitude and longitude), timestamp data, and information on the type of mis-delivery feedback that was issued (if any) in connection with the current GPS trigger event; the business logic rules determine usefulness by making assumptions about the accuracy of the geocode samples based on such information as the age of the geocode sample, the trigger event that prompted recording of the sample, the type of location associated with the point address, the age of the geocode reading (e.g., the GPS reading) at the time that the geocode reading was recorded by the trigger event, whether the delivery or pickup stop associated with the geocode sample was deemed to be a successful delivery or pickup stop, and other information related to the delivery or pickup and/or the geocode reading; as the job control system of the LDS performs various jobs, the job control system may update the status of each job in the job tables; the portable device information history data may include one or more status codes associated with each package record; the status codes may be used by the delivery service to indicate information about the status of the delivery or pickup of the particular package or item, e.g., if the delivery or pickup was deemed successful; computer program instructions loaded onto a general purpose computer, special purpose computer, or other programmable data processing apparatus to produce a machine which executes the computer program instructions);
identifying code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to identify a partial time series including a timestamp closest to the delivery completion time with respect to the delivery destination (¶ 0050, 0078, 0122; although a GPS reading is preferably taken simultaneously with the trigger event, in some instances the portable device may be unable to receive a GPS signal at all times; as such, the portable device may be configured to periodically capture GPS readings and associate the last captured GPS reading with the trigger event if a current GPS reading is unavailable; computer program instructions loaded onto a general purpose computer, special purpose computer, or other programmable data processing apparatus to produce a machine which executes the computer program instructions); and
associating code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to associate position information included in the identified partial time series with the accepted address character string of the delivery destination (¶ 0050, 0078, 0086, 0107-0115, 0122; Figs. 6D, 11; although a GPS reading is preferably taken simultaneously with the trigger event, in some instances the portable device may be unable to receive a GPS signal at all times; as such, the portable device may be configured to periodically capture GPS readings and associate the last captured GPS reading with the trigger event if a current GPS reading is unavailable; the system stores all relevant data associated with the current GPS trigger event, including, but not limited to, location identifier (e.g., unique address or address code), type of GPS trigger event, GPS location reading (i.e., latitude and longitude), timestamp data, and information on the type of mis-delivery feedback that was issued (if any) in connection with the current GPS trigger event; the LDS may take the new data stored in LDS file system and organize the new data into one or more portable device information history tables; the LDS may use the get-repository data module to get the data from the file system and organize it into a plurality of tables, such as an address table, a stop table, a packages table, and a geocode trigger table; the LDS may also create a unique point ID for each unique point address that it receives in the data; step 325 involves reading each geocode sample (e.g., GPS record) in the new data and any associated contextual information about the geocode sample and then determining how useful each geocode sample may be in accurately identifying the true location (e.g., the true latitude and longitude) of the associated point address; computer program instructions loaded onto a general purpose computer, special purpose computer, or other programmable data processing apparatus to produce a machine which executes the computer program instructions).
Regarding Claim 5, Graham in view of Amazon and Fremlin discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Graham additionally discloses wherein the delivery-destination map information transmitted, when the latitude-longitude information is determined not to be correct, comprises a distribution of the extracted position information that is superimposed on a map (¶ 0084-0085; Figs. 6B, 7, 8; the system displays or issues the appropriate type of mis-delivery feedback to the driver, e.g., neutral, positive, or negative feedback, by displaying an appropriate visual indicator on the display of the portable device; the portable device may provide the driver with feedback in other ways in addition to or as an alternative to the icons 140, 141, and 142; the portable device may display a map with visual indicators representing the reference geocode (e.g., the latitude and longitude reference point), the zone of confidence, and visual indicators for one or more of the GPS readings; in this way the driver may be able to see on the map whether a current GPS reading is within the zone of confidence and where the current GPS reading is with respect to the zone of confidence).
Regarding Claim 7, Graham in view of Amazon and Fremlin discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Graham additionally discloses wherein the determining code is further configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to determine that the latitude-longitude information is not correct when a position of the delivery destination is unidentifiable as a point (¶ 0084-0085; Figs. 6B, 7, 8; the system displays or issues the appropriate type of mis-delivery feedback to the driver, e.g., neutral, positive, or negative feedback, by displaying an appropriate visual indicator on the display of the portable device; the portable device may provide the driver with feedback in other ways in addition to or as an alternative to the icons 140, 141, and 142; the portable device may display a map with visual indicators representing the reference geocode (e.g., the latitude and longitude reference point), the zone of confidence, and visual indicators for one or more of the GPS readings; in this way the driver may be able to see on the map whether a current GPS reading is within the zone of confidence and where the current GPS reading is with respect to the zone of confidence).
Regarding Claim 8, Graham in view of Amazon and Fremlin discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Graham additionally discloses:
wherein the extracting code is further configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to extract pieces of position information recorded in association with the accepted address character string (¶0050, 0056-0057, 0064, 0082; Fig. 4, 6A; processes implemented in accordance with embodiments of the present invention include developing a reference location data set (e.g., a reference geocode and/or a zone of confidence) for each point address to which an item may be delivered; this can be accomplished by using the portable computing device to gather geocode samples, such as GPS readings, at each delivery or pickup address over a period of time; this data can then be uploaded to a delivery management system, which, after an appropriate number of geocode samples, processes the sample data and creates a reference location data set for each delivery address; create a repository of geocode samples and reference location data sets and associate this location data with a point address (e.g., a potential delivery location); the portable device information repository is basically used for storing delivery information collected by the portable devices for each unique point address, including the geocode samples (e.g., GPS latitude/longitude records) collected by the portable devices during past deliveries (or pickups); the system sets out to obtain the reference location data set that is associated with the current UOW; each reference location data set includes a reference geocode (e.g., a reference longitude and latitude) and a radius value that defines a circle of confidence (COC) about the reference geocode, within which delivery of a related item is considered acceptable; the portable device may wirelessly access the delivery management system in an attempt to obtain reference location data; computer program instructions loaded onto a general purpose computer, special purpose computer, or other programmable data processing apparatus to produce a machine which executes the computer program instructions); and
remove an outlier from the extracted pieces of position information (¶ 0012-0013, 0069, 0083-0084, 0098-0099, 0120; Fig. 6A; the system determines whether the current GPS reading is within the zone of confidence defined by the reference location data; in an embodiment where the zone of confidence is a circle, the system determines whether or not the calculated proximity distance is less than the circle of confidence radius provided in the reference location data set; the business logic module may be configured to select which trigger events may be suitable to use in generating reference location data and/or how much to weight each geocode sample recorded during the trigger events; if the package status codes for all of the packages at a stop have, for example, an "unsuccessful" status code associated therewith, then the business logic module may be configured to ignore the stop completely; some status codes may be designated by the LDS to be "ignore codes" that indicate records that may produce unreliable geocode samples and therefore should be ignored, e.g., certain status codes may indicate that the pickup or delivery of the package or other item was deemed unsuccessful since the address was incorrect or for some other reason; alternatively, if the system determines that the GPS reading is outside the reference zone of confidence, the system sets the type of mis-delivery feedback to "negative").
Regarding Claim 9, Graham in view of Amazon and Fremlin discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Graham additionally discloses:
wherein the predetermined action is an action of making a completion report to an effect that the deliverer has completed a delivery to each delivery destination (¶ 0059, 0080; the portable computing device can be configured to collect geocode samples (e.g., GPS readings) when the device recognizes the occurrence of one or more predefined trigger events; such predefined trigger events may include, but are not limited to: (1) the first package scan event for a stop, (2) an electronic signature capture event, (3) an input to the device indicating that the driver has left a particular package at the current location (e.g., without capturing a signature), (4) an input or event that indicates to the device that the current stop is now complete, and/or (5) an input specifically instructing the device to capture a geocode sample);
time series acquiring code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to acquire a time series of positions of the deliverer, the positions being detected in a process in which the deliverer delivers the first package (¶ 0050, 0077-0078, 0107, 0122, 0138; Fig. 11; each GPS location data set includes: a location identifier (e.g., a unique address or address code) for identifying where the GPS reading is believed to have been taken (i.e., the intended delivery address), a trigger type for identifying the type of GPS trigger event that facilitated the GPS data capture event, a GPS location reading (e.g., a latitude and longitude reading) obtained in response to such event, timestamp data for identifying the approximate time/date when the event occurred and the time of the GPS reading if different from the time of the trigger event, and feedback information for identifying the type of feedback (if any) that was issued by the device; the timestamp data of each GPS location data set may further include information related to the "age" of the GPS reading recorded in response to a trigger event; in this regard, the GPS module may be configured to continuously or periodically store temporary GPS readings, regardless of whether a trigger event has occurred; the portable device may be configured to periodically capture GPS readings and associate the last captured GPS reading with the trigger event; the LDS may periodically (e.g., daily) check the portable device information repository for new data, such as new geocode samples and/or delivery data received from a portable delivery device; checking the repository for new data that may be useful in the generation of reference location data sets, where the "new data" is data that has been added to or data that has been modified in the repository since the last time the subscription module checked and/or received data from the repository; update the reference location data set repository by adding a new data set or by modifying an existing data set associated with the point address; computer program instructions loaded onto a general purpose computer, special purpose computer, or other programmable data processing apparatus to produce a machine which executes the computer program instructions);
time series extracting code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to extract the time series closest to a time when the completion report is made or a delivery completion time that is input in the completion report from the acquired time series (¶ 0050, 0078, 0122; although a GPS reading is preferably taken simultaneously with the trigger event, in some instances the portable device may be unable to receive a GPS signal at all times; as such, the portable device may be configured to periodically capture GPS readings and associate the last captured GPS reading with the trigger event if a current GPS reading is unavailable; computer program instructions loaded onto a general purpose computer, special purpose computer, or other programmable data processing apparatus to produce a machine which executes the computer program instructions);
generating code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to generate association information associating position information included in the extracted time series with an address character string of the delivery destination (¶ 0050, 0078, 0086, 0107-0115, 0122; Figs. 6D, 11; although a GPS reading is preferably taken simultaneously with the trigger event, in some instances the portable device may be unable to receive a GPS signal at all times; as such, the portable device may be configured to periodically capture GPS readings and associate the last captured GPS reading with the trigger event if a current GPS reading is unavailable; the system stores all relevant data associated with the current GPS trigger event, including, but not limited to, location identifier (e.g., unique address or address code), type of GPS trigger event, GPS location reading (i.e., latitude and longitude), timestamp data, and information on the type of mis-delivery feedback that was issued (if any) in connection with the current GPS trigger event; the LDS may take the new data stored in LDS file system and organize the new data into one or more portable device information history tables; the LDS may use the get-repository data module to get the data from the file system and organize it into a plurality of tables, such as an address table, a stop table, a packages table, and a geocode trigger table; the LDS may also create a unique point ID for each unique point address that it receives in the data; step 325 involves reading each geocode sample (e.g., GPS record) in the new data and any associated contextual information about the geocode sample and then determining how useful each geocode sample may be in accurately identifying the true location (e.g., the true latitude and longitude) of the associated point address; computer program instructions loaded onto a general purpose computer, special purpose computer, or other programmable data processing apparatus to produce a machine which executes the computer program instructions); and
storing code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to store the generated association information in the database (¶ 0050, 0086, 0107-0115; Figs. 6B, 11; the system stores all relevant data associated with the current GPS trigger event, including, but not limited to, location identifier (e.g., unique address or address code), type of GPS trigger event, GPS location reading (i.e., latitude and longitude), timestamp data, and information on the type of mis-delivery feedback that was issued (if any) in connection with the current GPS trigger event; reading each geocode sample (e.g., GPS record) in the new data and any associated contextual information about the geocode sample and then determining how useful each geocode sample may be in accurately identifying the true location (e.g., the true latitude and longitude) of the associated point address; at step 345, the LDS stores the reference location data set (e.g., the reference geocode and the associated zone of confidence) for each address in the reference location data set repository; the LDS repeats the steps 300-345 continuously or periodically in order to continuously process new geocode data and/or associated delivery data collected by portable devices or other sources; computer program instructions loaded onto a general purpose computer, special purpose computer, or other programmable data processing apparatus to produce a machine which executes the computer program instructions).
Claims 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graham in view of Amazon, Fremlin, and Turner et al (PGPub 20230143826) (hereafter, “Turner”).
Regarding Claim 2, Graham in view of Amazon and Fremlin discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Graham additionally discloses:
wherein the predetermined action is an action from when the deliverer gets off a vehicle until the deliverer delivers a package to the delivery destination and gets on the vehicle (¶ 0059, 0080; the portable computing device can be configured to collect geocode samples (e.g., GPS readings) when the device recognizes the occurrence of one or more predefined trigger events; such predefined trigger events may include, but are not limited to: (1) the first package scan event for a stop, (2) an electronic signature capture event, (3) an input to the device indicating that the driver has left a particular package at the current location (e.g., without capturing a signature), (4) an input or event that indicates to the device that the current stop is now complete, and/or (5) an input specifically instructing the device to capture a geocode sample);
time series acquiring code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to acquire a time series of positions of the deliverer, the positions being detected in a process in which the deliverer delivers the first package (¶ 0050, 0077-0078, 0107, 0122, 0138; Fig. 11; each GPS location data set includes: a location identifier (e.g., a unique address or address code) for identifying where the GPS reading is believed to have been taken (i.e., the intended delivery address), a trigger type for identifying the type of GPS trigger event that facilitated the GPS data capture event, a GPS location reading (e.g., a latitude and longitude reading) obtained in response to such event, timestamp data for identifying the approximate time/date when the event occurred and the time of the GPS reading if different from the time of the trigger event, and feedback information for identifying the type of feedback (if any) that was issued by the device; the timestamp data of each GPS location data set may further include information related to the "age" of the GPS reading recorded in response to a trigger event; in this regard, the GPS module may be configured to continuously or periodically store temporary GPS readings, regardless of whether a trigger event has occurred; the portable device may be configured to periodically capture GPS readings and associate the last captured GPS reading with the trigger event; the LDS may periodically (e.g., daily) check the portable device information repository for new data, such as new geocode samples and/or delivery data received from a portable delivery device; checking the repository for new data that may be useful in the generation of reference location data sets, where the "new data" is data that has been added to or data that has been modified in the repository since the last time the subscription module checked and/or received data from the repository; update the reference location data set repository by adding a new data set or by modifying an existing data set associated with the point address; computer program instructions loaded onto a general purpose computer, special purpose computer, or other programmable data processing apparatus to produce a machine which executes the computer program instructions);
estimating code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to estimate, from a time when each of the positions included in the acquired time series is detected, movement speed of the deliverer at each of the positions (¶ 0050, 0075, 0077-0078, 0107, 0122, 0138; Fig. 11; the GPS module may be configured to continuously or periodically store temporary GPS readings, regardless of whether a trigger event has occurred; the portable device may be configured to periodically capture GPS readings and associate the last captured GPS reading with the trigger event; update the reference location data set repository by adding a new data set or by modifying an existing data set associated with the point address; the GPS module may include a GPS sensor that is configured to acquire, for example, a latitude, longitude, altitude, course, speed, universal time (UTC), and date, wherein such data may be acquired in National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) data format or other appropriate data format; ; computer program instructions loaded onto a general purpose computer, special purpose computer, or other programmable data processing apparatus to produce a machine which executes the computer program instructions); and
store the generated association information in the database (¶ 0086, 0107-0115; Figs. 6B, 11; the system stores all relevant data associated with the current GPS trigger event, including, but not limited to, location identifier (e.g., unique address or address code), type of GPS trigger event, GPS location reading (i.e., latitude and longitude), timestamp data, and information on the type of mis-delivery feedback that was issued (if any) in connection with the current GPS trigger event; reading each geocode sample (e.g., GPS record) in the new data and any associated contextual information about the geocode sample and then determining how useful each geocode sample may be in accurately identifying the true location (e.g., the true latitude and longitude) of the associated point address; at step 345, the LDS stores the reference location data set (e.g., the reference geocode and the associated zone of confidence) for each address in the reference location data set repository; the LDS repeats the steps 300-345 continuously or periodically in order to continuously process new geocode data and/or associated delivery data collected by portable devices or other sources).
Graham does not explicitly disclose but Turner does disclose partial time series extracting code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to extract, based on the estimated movement speed, a partial time series, the partial time series indicating a time section during which the deliverer is estimated not to be on board a vehicle, from the acquired time series (¶ 0044-0045, 0112; Fig. 3; to identify stops of the delivery vehicle, the GPS readings from the delivery vehicle may be analyzed according to the following sequence; first, the stream of GPS readings from the delivery vehicle is analyzed to identify a subset of sequential GPS readings during which the velocity of the delivery vehicle is indicated as being sufficiently small; the “sufficiently small” velocity may be selectively established as needed dependent upon an accuracy or precision required in the stop determination and the frequency of readings from the GPS devices of the delivery vehicle; subsequences of GPS readings indicating the sufficiently small velocity may be interpreted as stops of the delivery vehicle; thus, for each such subsequence of GPS readings, a stop can be determined based on the average latitude, longitude, and heading of the subsequence of GPS readings having the sufficiently small velocity; for the determined stop, a time of arrival is interpreted to be the time of the earliest GPS reading in the subsequence minus one-half the standard time between GPS readings and the time of departure from the determined stop is the time of the latest GPS reading in the subsequence plus one-half the standard time between GPS readings; the various modules described herein may be implemented by software modules stored on a component of the delivery store itself (for example, a local memory or a mass storage device), or on computer readable storage media).
Graham additionally discloses generating code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to generate association information that associates the extracted time series with an address character string of the delivery destination to which the deliverer delivered the first package (¶0050, 0078, 0086, 0107-0115, 0122; Figs. 6D, 11; although a GPS reading is preferably taken simultaneously with the trigger event, in some instances the portable device may be unable to receive a GPS signal at all times; as such, the portable device may be configured to periodically capture GPS readings and associate the last captured GPS reading with the trigger event if a current GPS reading is unavailable; the system stores all relevant data associated with the current GPS trigger event, including, but not limited to, location identifier (e.g., unique address or address code), type of GPS trigger event, GPS location reading (i.e., latitude and longitude), timestamp data, and information on the type of mis-delivery feedback that was issued (if any) in connection with the current GPS trigger event; the LDS may take the new data stored in LDS file system and organize the new data into one or more portable device information history tables; the LDS may use the get-repository data module to get the data from the file system and organize it into a plurality of tables, such as an address table, a stop table, a packages table, and a geocode trigger table; the LDS may also create a unique point ID for each unique point address that it receives in the data; step 325 involves reading each geocode sample (e.g., GPS record) in the new data and any associated contextual information about the geocode sample and then determining how useful each geocode sample may be in accurately identifying the true location (e.g., the true latitude and longitude) of the associated point address; computer program instructions loaded onto a general purpose computer, special purpose computer, or other programmable data processing apparatus to produce a machine which executes the computer program instructions). Graham does not explicitly disclose but Turner does disclose wherein the extracted time series is the extracted partial time series (¶ 0044-0045, 0103; Figs. 3, 7; to identify stops of the delivery vehicle, the GPS readings from the delivery vehicle may be analyzed according to the following sequence; first, the stream of GPS readings from the delivery vehicle is analyzed to identify a subset of sequential GPS readings during which the velocity of the delivery vehicle is indicated as being sufficiently small; subsequences of GPS readings indicating the sufficiently small velocity may be interpreted as stops of the delivery vehicle; thus, for each such subsequence of GPS readings, a stop can be determined based on the average latitude, longitude, and heading of the subsequence of GPS readings having the sufficiently small velocity; for the determined stop, a time of arrival is interpreted to be the time of the earliest GPS reading in the subsequence minus one-half the standard time between GPS readings and the time of departure from the determined stop is the time of the latest GPS reading in the subsequence plus one-half the standard time between GPS readings; unidentified stops might also describe actual stops for item delivery or traffic control that are missing from the route description or else incorrectly located or incorrectly sequenced; by flagging and identifying daily stops, unplanned stops that should be in the route description can be better determined and identified; by such collection of regular, unplanned stops (regular in time, duration, location, etc.) the route can be updated to account for the common or regular stops; the unplanned stops are collected over some time period, for example, one week, two weeks, one month, two months, and so forth, identifying where clusters of the unplanned stops occur; assuming that a cluster represents a history of stops at one location, a general location for the cluster of unplanned stopped can be determined (for example, by averaging the latitudes, longitudes, and headings of each of the stops in the cluster of unplanned stops); the resulting clusters will likely represent frequent stops at a single location).
The rationale to combine Graham, Amazon, and Fremlin remains the same as for Claim 1. One of ordinary skill in the art would further have been motivated to include the delivery-based location data analysis and routing techniques of Turner with the delivery location verification and correction system of Graham to provide better delivery-based recording, analysis, routing, and updating, thereby improving the efficiency of delivery operations (see at least Paragraphs 0019, 0023, 0059, 0103, and 0127 of Turner).
Regarding Claim 6, Graham in view of Amazon and Fremlin discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Graham does not explicitly disclose but Turner does disclose parking position identifying code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to identify a parking or stopping position where a vehicle is parked or stopped when the first package is delivered to the delivery destination, based on a head piece of position information having an earliest acquisition time among the extracted position information and an end piece of position information having a latest acquisition time among the extracted position information (¶ 0044-0045, 0112; Fig. 3; to identify stops of the delivery vehicle, the GPS readings from the delivery vehicle may be analyzed according to the following sequence; first, the stream of GPS readings from the delivery vehicle is analyzed to identify a subset of sequential GPS readings during which the velocity of the delivery vehicle is indicated as being sufficiently small; the “sufficiently small” velocity may be selectively established as needed dependent upon an accuracy or precision required in the stop determination and the frequency of readings from the GPS devices of the delivery vehicle; subsequences of GPS readings indicating the sufficiently small velocity may be interpreted as stops of the delivery vehicle; thus, for each such subsequence of GPS readings, a stop can be determined based on the average latitude, longitude, and heading of the subsequence of GPS readings having the sufficiently small velocity; for the determined stop, a time of arrival is interpreted to be the time of the earliest GPS reading in the subsequence minus one-half the standard time between GPS readings and the time of departure from the determined stop is the time of the latest GPS reading in the subsequence plus one-half the standard time between GPS readings; the various modules described herein may be implemented by software modules stored on a component of the delivery store itself (for example, a local memory or a mass storage device), or on computer readable storage media). Graham additionally discloses doing so when the latitude-longitude information is determined not to be correct (¶ 0084-0085; Figs. 6B, 7, 8; the system displays or issues the appropriate type of mis-delivery feedback to the driver, e.g., neutral, positive, or negative feedback, by displaying an appropriate visual indicator on the display of the portable device; the portable device may provide the driver with feedback in other ways in addition to or as an alternative to the icons 140, 141, and 142; the portable device may display a map with visual indicators representing the reference geocode (e.g., the latitude and longitude reference point), the zone of confidence, and visual indicators for one or more of the GPS readings; in this way the driver may be able to see on the map whether a current GPS reading is within the zone of confidence and where the current GPS reading is with respect to the zone of confidence).
Graham does not explicitly disclose but Turner does disclose:
destination identifying code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to identify, among the extracted position information, position information farthest from the identified parking or stopping position as a position of the delivery destination (¶ 0044-0045, 0103, 0112; Figs. 3, 7; to identify stops of the delivery vehicle, the GPS readings from the delivery vehicle may be analyzed according to the following sequence; first, the stream of GPS readings from the delivery vehicle is analyzed to identify a subset of sequential GPS readings during which the velocity of the delivery vehicle is indicated as being sufficiently small; subsequences of GPS readings indicating the sufficiently small velocity may be interpreted as stops of the delivery vehicle; thus, for each such subsequence of GPS readings, a stop can be determined based on the average latitude, longitude, and heading of the subsequence of GPS readings having the sufficiently small velocity; for the determined stop, a time of arrival is interpreted to be the time of the earliest GPS reading in the subsequence minus one-half the standard time between GPS readings and the time of departure from the determined stop is the time of the latest GPS reading in the subsequence plus one-half the standard time between GPS readings; unidentified stops might also describe actual stops for item delivery or traffic control that are missing from the route description or else incorrectly located or incorrectly sequenced; by flagging and identifying daily stops, unplanned stops that should be in the route description can be better determined and identified; by such collection of regular, unplanned stops (regular in time, duration, location, etc.) the route can be updated to account for the common or regular stops; the unplanned stops are collected over some time period, for example, one week, two weeks, one month, two months, and so forth, identifying where clusters of the unplanned stops occur; assuming that a cluster represents a history of stops at one location, a general location for the cluster of unplanned stopped can be determined (for example, by averaging the latitudes, longitudes, and headings of each of the stops in the cluster of unplanned stops); the resulting clusters will likely represent frequent stops at a single location; the various modules described herein may be implemented by software modules stored on a component of the delivery store itself (for example, a local memory or a mass storage device), or on computer readable storage media); and
map providing code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to provide delivery-destination map information in which each of the identified parking or stopping position and the identified position of the delivery destination is arranged on a map (¶ 0044-0045, 0052, 0103, 0105, 0112, 0114; Figs. 4, 7; Fig. 4 is a map showing a route along a road with route stops, GPS locations from two GPS devices, and consensus stops shown; Fig. 7 is a map showing clusters of points indicating stops along the route which, in some embodiments, are determined using the processes described elsewhere herein; each point on the map represents a stop along the route; each shaded point represents a cluster of points representing unexpected stops with a density that exceeds a threshold over a number of days and shows where the delivery vehicle stopped nearly every day; the I/O interface 904 may include any element or component that conveys information to the user of the delivery system (for example, a carrier, a carrier manager, and so forth) and/or receives input from the user; the I/O interface includes one or more display devices that allows the visual presentation of data; I/O interface may present one or more maps, reports, graphs, or images as described above, for example one or more of the map of FIG. 4, the graphs of FIGS. 6A and 6B, or the map of stops of FIG. 7; the various modules described herein may be implemented by software modules stored on a component of the delivery store itself (for example, a local memory or a mass storage device), or on computer readable storage media).
The rationale to combine remains the same as for Claim 2.
Discussion of Prior Art Cited but Not Applied
For additional information on the state of the art regarding the claims of the present application, please see the following documents not applied in this Office Action (all of which are prior art to the present application):
PGPub 20160092456 – “Methods and Systems for Creating and Using a Location Identification Grid,” Bonnell et al, disclosing a system for assigning delivery locations based on a destination address, such delivery locations in some embodiments being retrieved based on historical information
PGPub 20060145837 – “Item-based Monitoring Systems and Methods,” Horton et al, disclosing a delivery tracking system which determines whether an item is being delivered to a correct delivery destination by comparing GPS coordinates to known GPS coordinates and geofencing around the delivery destination
PGPub 20190295158 – “Transaction Classification based on Transaction Time Predictions,” Wu, disclosing the recording and analysis of historical location data to estimate the time, location, and content of transactions
US 8725407 – “Enhanced Location Information for Points of Interest,” Hurley et al, disclosing a system for identifying particular parcel drop-off points in association with a delivery destination/address
Hidaka et al, Data-Driven Approaches to Detecting Misdeliveries in Truck Logistics using GPS Data, 2023 IEEE International Conference on Big Data, pgs. 1922-1927
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 MARK C CLARE whose telephone number is (571)272-8748. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30am-2:30pm 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.
/MARK C CLARE/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/MICHAEL P HARRINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights