DETAILED ACTION
In the response filed June 12, 2026, the Applicant amended claims 1, 12, and 13; and added claim 21. Claims 1-21 are pending in the current application.
Notice of 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 .
Response to Arguments
Claims 1-20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite. Examiner thanks the Applicant for revising and amending the claim language and hereby withdraws the rejection from the previous Office action.
Applicant’s arguments for claims 1-21 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection have been considered but are unpersuasive. Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to a judicial exception. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Here, under broadest reasonable interpretation, the steps describe or set-forth describe or set-forth following received instructions to send and receive media regarding package delivery instructions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). These limitations therefore fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to a judicial exception as they integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2”, the recited additional elements of “obtaining, by the second mobile device an augmented reality (AR) overlay based on the media” (claim 2); “creating a digital representation of a package having dimensions corresponding to dimensions of a physical package to be delivered and positioning the digital representation within a three- dimensional space corresponding to the delivery location” (claim 3); “overlaying, by the second mobile device, a camera feed of the second mobile device with the AR overlay” (claim 4); “capturing, by the second mobile device, a delivery confirmation photograph including physical package placement” (claim 5); “caching, by the second mobile device, the media on the second mobile device” (claim 7); “displaying, by the second mobile device, directional indicators guiding a user of the second mobile device to the geographic location” (claim 10); “capturing, by the second mobile device, a delivery confirmation photograph including physical package placement; and transmitting, by the second mobile device, the delivery confirmation photograph to the media storage” (claim 11); “generate an augmented reality (AR) overlay based on the media” (claim 18); “generate the AR overlay based on the media by creating a digital representation of a package having dimensions corresponding to dimensions of a physical package to be delivered” (claim 19), even if considered to be an “additional” element for the purpose of the eligibility analysis, would simply append insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, (e.g., mere post-solution activity in conjunction with an abstract idea). These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, additionally amount to well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, appended to the judicial exception. These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, are well-understood, routine and conventional to those in the field of user interfaces. These limitations therefore do not qualify as “significantly more.” See MPEP § 2106.05(d). This conclusion is based on a factual determination. The determination that receiving data/messages over a network is well-understood, routine, and conventional is supported by Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362; TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014), and MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), which note the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of receiving data/messages over a network.
Viewing the additional limitations in combination also shows that they fail to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. When considered as an ordered combination, the additional components of the claims add nothing that is not already present when considered separately, and thus simply append the abstract idea with words equivalent to “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer, generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, append the abstract idea with insignificant extra solution activity associated with the implementation of the judicial exception, (e.g., mere data gathering, post-solution activity), and appended with well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry. Applicant’s arguments remain unpersuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is hereby maintained.
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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-11 and 21 are drawn to a process and claims 12-20 are drawn to machines, each of which is within the four statutory categories (e.g., a process, a machine). (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A – Prong One: In prong one of step 2A, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether they recite a judicial exception.
Claim 1 recites/describes the following steps:
“…, an upload URL request;”
“receiving, …, in response to the upload URL request, an upload URL including a key identifying a location…, wherein the upload URL allows for uploading media to the location…;”
“upload, …, using the upload URL, media to the location … indicated by the key in the upload URL, the media comprising delivery instructions for package placement;”
“…, an update request including the key, the update request to store, …, the key in association with a geographic location …;”
“transmitting, …, a geographic location request including an operation identifier;”
“in response to the geographic location request, receiving, … a geographic location and the key based on an association with the geographic location …;”
“…, a download request comprising the presigned URL request including the key;” and
“in response to the download request, receiving,…, …, the media stored in the location… identified by the key.”
Claim 12 recites/describes the following steps:
“receive, … an upload URL request;”
“…in response to the upload URL request, an upload URL including a key identifying a location …, wherein the upload URL allows for uploading media to the location …;”
“store, in response to an upload from the mobile device using the upload URL, media from the mobile device in the location… indicated by the key in the upload URL, the media comprising delivery instructions for package placement;”
“receive, …, an update request including the key;” and
“in response to the update request, store, … the key in association with a geographic location ….”
Claim 15 recites/describes the following steps:
“receive, …, a geographic location request including an operation identifier;”
“in response to the geographic location request, transmit, …, a geographic location corresponding to the operation identifier and a key associated with the geographic location…, wherein the key identifies a location …;”
“receive, …, a presigned URL request including the key;” and
“in response to a download request using the presigned URL … transmit, …, media stored in the location… identified by the key, the media comprising delivery instructions for package placement.”
These steps, under broadest reasonable interpretation, describe or set-forth following received instructions to send and receive media regarding package delivery instructions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). These limitations therefore fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
As such, the Examiner concludes that claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong One: YES).
Dependent claim 2 recites the additional limitation “obtaining, by the second mobile device an augmented reality (AR) overlay based on the media” which is analyzed below in Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B.
Dependent claim 3 recites the additional limitation “creating a digital representation of a package having dimensions corresponding to dimensions of a physical package to be delivered and positioning the digital representation within a three- dimensional space corresponding to the delivery location” which is analyzed below in Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B.
Dependent claim 4 recites the additional limitation “overlaying, by the second mobile device, a camera feed of the second mobile device with the AR overlay” which is analyzed below in Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B.
Dependent claim 5 recites the same abstract idea as the independent claims because it recites the limitation “comparing the photograph to the AR overlay; and determining whether the physical package placement matches the delivery instructions within a predetermined tolerance” that further defines the abstract idea. Claim 5 recites the additional limitation “capturing, by the second mobile device, a delivery confirmation photograph including physical package placement” which is analyzed below in Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B.
Dependent claim 6 recites the same abstract idea as the independent claims because it recites the limitation “comparing a position and orientation of the physical package with a position and orientation of a digital representation of the package” that further defines the abstract idea. Claim 6 is rejected due to being abstract and does not recite any additional elements/limitations.
Dependent claim 7 recites the additional limitation “caching, by the second mobile device, the media on the second mobile device” which is analyzed below in Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B.
Dependent claim 8 recites the same abstract idea as the independent claims because it recites the limitation “queuing, by the second mobile device, the download request based on limited network connectivity” that further defines the abstract idea. Claim 8 is rejected due to being abstract and does not recite any additional elements/limitations.
Dependent claim 9 recites the same abstract idea as the independent claims because it recites the limitation “providing, …, real-time feedback regarding alignment between physical package placement and delivery instructions” that further defines the abstract idea. Claim 9 is rejected due to being abstract and does not recite any additional elements/limitations.
Dependent claim 10 recites the additional limitation “displaying, by the second mobile device, directional indicators guiding a user of the second mobile device to the geographic location” which is analyzed below in Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B.
Dependent claim 11 recites the additional limitation “capturing, by the second mobile device, a delivery confirmation photograph including physical package placement; and transmitting, by the second mobile device, the delivery confirmation photograph to the media storage” which is analyzed below in Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B.
Dependent claim 13 recites the same abstract idea as the independent claims because it recites the limitation “a proxy, wherein requests and responses between the system and the mobile device are transmitted via the proxy” that further defines the abstract idea. Claim 13 is rejected due to being abstract and does not recite any additional elements/limitations.
Dependent claim 14 recites the same abstract idea as the independent claims because it recites the limitation “authenticate, by the proxy, the mobile device” that further defines the abstract idea. Claim 14 is rejected due to being abstract and does not recite any additional elements/limitations.
Dependent claim 16 recites the same abstract idea as the independent claims because it recites the limitation “receive, …, confirmation of delivery” that further defines the abstract idea. Claim 16 is rejected due to being abstract and does not recite any additional elements/limitations.
Dependent claim 17 recites the same abstract idea as the independent claims because it recites the limitation “wherein the confirmation of delivery includes a delivery photo, and …compare the media comprising the delivery instructions for package placement to the received delivery photo” that further defines the abstract idea. Claim 17 is rejected due to being abstract and does not recite any additional elements/limitations.
Dependent claim 18 recites the additional limitation “generate an augmented reality (AR) overlay based on the media” which is analyzed below in Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B.
Dependent claim 19 recites the additional limitation “generate the AR overlay based on the media by creating a digital representation of a package having dimensions corresponding to dimensions of a physical package to be delivered” which is analyzed below in Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B.
Dependent claim 20 recites the same abstract idea as the independent claims because it recites the limitation “wherein the media comprises at least one of a photograph of a delivery location, geolocation data, and textual delivery instructions” that further defines the abstract idea. Claim 20 is rejected due to being abstract and does not recite any additional elements/limitations.
Dependent claim 21 recites the same abstract idea as the independent claims because it recites the limitation “wherein the key is based on an address key in the geographic location database and includes at least one of the address key or a customer ID” that further defines the abstract idea. Claim 21 is rejected due to being abstract and does not recite any additional elements/limitations.
Step 2A – Prong Two:
The claims recite the additional elements/limitations of: “a first mobile device, to a media storage, wherein the media storage is a cloud storage” “a geographic location database,” “a second mobile device,” (claim 1); “a system, comprising: a media storage, wherein the media storage is a cloud storage; a geographic location database; one or more processors; and a non-transitory, computer-readable medium,” “the media storage,” “a mobile device,” (claim 12); “a system, comprising: a media storage system; a geographic location database; one or more processors; and a non-transitory, computer-readable medium,” “a mobile device,” “the media storage, wherein the media storage is a cloud storage,” (claim 15).
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using “a first mobile device, to a media storage, wherein the media storage is a cloud storage” “a geographic location database,” “a second mobile device,” (claim 1); “a system, comprising: a media storage, wherein the media storage is a cloud storage; a geographic location database; one or more processors; and a non-transitory, computer-readable medium,” “the media storage,” “a mobile device,” (claim 12); “a system, comprising: a media storage system; a geographic location database; one or more processors; and a non-transitory, computer-readable medium,” “a mobile device,” “the media storage, wherein the media storage is a cloud storage,” (claim 15), is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See § MPEP 2106.05(f).
The dependent claims also recite the additional elements/limitations of: “obtaining, by the second mobile device an augmented reality (AR) overlay based on the media” (claim 2); “creating a digital representation of a package having dimensions corresponding to dimensions of a physical package to be delivered and positioning the digital representation within a three- dimensional space corresponding to the delivery location” (claim 3); “overlaying, by the second mobile device, a camera feed of the second mobile device with the AR overlay” (claim 4); “capturing, by the second mobile device, a delivery confirmation photograph including physical package placement” (claim 5); “caching, by the second mobile device, the media on the second mobile device” (claim 7); “displaying, by the second mobile device, directional indicators guiding a user of the second mobile device to the geographic location” (claim 10); “capturing, by the second mobile device, a delivery confirmation photograph including physical package placement; and transmitting, by the second mobile device, the delivery confirmation photograph to the media storage” (claim 11); “generate an augmented reality (AR) overlay based on the media” (claim 18); “generate the AR overlay based on the media by creating a digital representation of a package having dimensions corresponding to dimensions of a physical package to be delivered” (claim 19).
The recited additional elements of “obtaining, by the second mobile device an augmented reality (AR) overlay based on the media” (claim 2); “creating a digital representation of a package having dimensions corresponding to dimensions of a physical package to be delivered and positioning the digital representation within a three- dimensional space corresponding to the delivery location” (claim 3); “overlaying, by the second mobile device, a camera feed of the second mobile device with the AR overlay” (claim 4); “capturing, by the second mobile device, a delivery confirmation photograph including physical package placement” (claim 5); “caching, by the second mobile device, the media on the second mobile device” (claim 7); “displaying, by the second mobile device, directional indicators guiding a user of the second mobile device to the geographic location” (claim 10); “capturing, by the second mobile device, a delivery confirmation photograph including physical package placement; and transmitting, by the second mobile device, the delivery confirmation photograph to the media storage” (claim 11); “generate an augmented reality (AR) overlay based on the media” (claim 18); “generate the AR overlay based on the media by creating a digital representation of a package having dimensions corresponding to dimensions of a physical package to be delivered” (claim 19), simply append insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, (e.g., mere pre-solution activity, such as data gathering, in conjunction with an abstract idea; mere post-solution activity in conjunction with an abstract idea). The term “extra-solution activity” is understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. The recited additional elements are deemed “extra-solution” because they are merely presenting data/information to a user. These limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(g) and (h).
Remaining dependent claims 6, 8, 9, 13, 14, 16, 17, 20 and 21, either recite the same additional elements as noted above or fail to recite any additional elements (in which case, note prong one analysis as set forth above – those claims are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim).
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong two: NO).
Step 2B:
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2,” the requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using “a first mobile device, to a media storage, wherein the media storage is a cloud storage” “a geographic location database,” “a second mobile device,” (claim 1); “a system, comprising: a media storage, wherein the media storage is a cloud storage; a geographic location database; one or more processors; and a non-transitory, computer-readable medium,” “the media storage,” “a mobile device,” (claim 12); “a system, comprising: a media storage system; a geographic location database; one or more processors; and a non-transitory, computer-readable medium,” “a mobile device,” “the media storage, wherein the media storage is a cloud storage,” (claim 15), is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations therefore do not qualify as “significantly more.” See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2”, the recited additional elements of “obtaining, by the second mobile device an augmented reality (AR) overlay based on the media” (claim 2); “creating a digital representation of a package having dimensions corresponding to dimensions of a physical package to be delivered and positioning the digital representation within a three- dimensional space corresponding to the delivery location” (claim 3); “overlaying, by the second mobile device, a camera feed of the second mobile device with the AR overlay” (claim 4); “capturing, by the second mobile device, a delivery confirmation photograph including physical package placement” (claim 5); “caching, by the second mobile device, the media on the second mobile device” (claim 7); “displaying, by the second mobile device, directional indicators guiding a user of the second mobile device to the geographic location” (claim 10); “capturing, by the second mobile device, a delivery confirmation photograph including physical package placement; and transmitting, by the second mobile device, the delivery confirmation photograph to the media storage” (claim 11); “generate an augmented reality (AR) overlay based on the media” (claim 18); “generate the AR overlay based on the media by creating a digital representation of a package having dimensions corresponding to dimensions of a physical package to be delivered” (claim 19), even if considered to be an “additional” element for the purpose of the eligibility analysis, would simply append insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, (e.g., mere post-solution activity in conjunction with an abstract idea). These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, additionally amount to well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, appended to the judicial exception. These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, are well-understood, routine and conventional to those in the field of user interfaces. These limitations therefore do not qualify as “significantly more.” See MPEP § 2106.05(d). This conclusion is based on a factual determination. The determination that receiving data/messages over a network is well-understood, routine, and conventional is supported by Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362; TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014), and MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), which note the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of receiving data/messages over a network.
Viewing the additional limitations in combination also shows that they fail to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. When considered as an ordered combination, the additional components of the claims add nothing that is not already present when considered separately, and thus simply append the abstract idea with words equivalent to “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer, generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, append the abstract idea with insignificant extra solution activity associated with the implementation of the judicial exception, (e.g., mere data gathering, post-solution activity), and appended with well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry.
Remaining dependent claims 6, 8, 9, 13, 14, 16, 17, 20 and 21, either recite the same additional elements as noted above or fail to recite any additional elements (in which case, note prong one analysis as set forth above – those claims are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim).
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO).
Indication of Novel and Non-Obvious Subject Matter
Claims 1-21 recite novel and non-obvious subject matter.
As per claim 1, the closest prior art of record taken either individually or in combination with other prior art of record fails to teach or suggest “receiving, by the first mobile device, from the media storage, in response to the upload URL request, an upload URL including a key identifying a location in the media storage where the media will be stored, wherein the upload URL allows for uploading media to the location in the media storage; upload, by the first mobile device, using the upload URL, media to the location in the media storage indicated by the key in the upload URL, the media comprising delivery instructions for package placement; transmitting by the first mobile device, to a geographic location database, an update request including the key, the update request to store, at the geographic location database, the key in association with a geographic location associated with the mobile device; transmitting, by a second mobile device, to the geographic location database, a geographic location request including an operation identifier; in response to the geographic location request, receiving, by the second mobile device, from the geographic location database, a geographic location and the key based on an association with the geographic location in the geographic location database; transmitting, by the second mobile device, to [[a]] the media storage, a download request comprising the presigned URL request including the key; and in response to the download request, receiving, by the second mobile device, from the media storage, the media stored in the location in the media storage identified by the key.”
As per claim 12, the closest prior art of record taken either individually or in combination with other prior art of record fails to teach or suggest “receive, at the media storage, from a mobile device, an upload URL request; transmit, by the media storage, in response to the upload URL request, an upload URL including a key identifying a location in the media storage where the media will be stored, wherein the upload URL allows for uploading media to the location in the media storage; store, in response to an upload from the mobile device using the upload URL, media from the mobile device in the location in the media storage indicated by the key in the upload URL, the media comprising delivery instructions for package placement; receive, at the geographic location database, an update request including the key; and in response to the update request, store, at the geographic location database, the key in association with a geographic location associated with the mobile device.”
As per claim 15, the closest prior art of record taken either individually or in combination with other prior art of record fails to teach or suggest “receive, at the geographic location database, from a mobile device, a geographic location request including an operation identifier; in response to the geographic location request, transmit, to the mobile device, a geographic location corresponding to the operation identifier and a key associated with the geographic location in the geographic location database, wherein the key identifies a location in the media storage where the media will be stored; receive, from the mobile device, at the media storage, a presigned URL request including the key; and in response to a download request using the presigned URL from the mobile device, transmit, from the media storage to the mobile device, media stored in the location in the media storage identified by the key, the media comprising delivery instructions for package placement.”
This combination of functions/features would not have been obvious to a PHOSITA in view of the prior art.
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 Patrick Kim whose telephone number is (571)272-8619. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9AM - 5PM 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, Lynda Jasmin can be reached at (571)272-6782. 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.
/Patrick Kim/Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights