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 communications filed on 03/31/2026.
Claims 1, 4-5, 9, 13, 16-17, and 20 have been amended.
Claims 3, 15, and 19 have been cancelled.
Claim 21 has been added.
Claims 1-2, 4-14, 16-18, and 20-21 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Applicant’s Remarks
Applicant’s arguments and remarks filed on 03/31/2026 have been fully considered and each argument will be respectfully addressed in the following final office action.
Response to 35 U.S.C. § 103 Remarks
Applicant’s remarks filed on pages 8-10 of the Response concerning the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of the claims have been fully considered but are moot in view of the amendments to the claims and amended § 103 rejection that may be found starting on page 22 herein.
On pages 8-10 of the Response, the Applicant argues that the prior art of record, namely Hoppe, Stark, and Polyakov, fail to teach or suggest the features of the amended claims. Upon further search and consideration, the combination of Hoppe, Stark, and Polyakov is found to teach the features of the amended claims and newly added claim 21. The Examiner’s amended §103 rejection of the claims may be found starting on page 22 herein.
Response to 35 U.S.C. § 101 Remarks
Applicant’s remarks filed on pages 10-13 of the Response concerning the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of claims 1-20 have been fully considered but are found not persuasive and are moot in view of the amended rejection that may be found starting on page 7 herein.
On pages 10-12 of the Response, the Applicant argues that claim 1 does not recite any concepts of mental processes or methods of organizing human activity. The Examiner respectfully disagrees that the claim does not recite these abstract ideas.
With regard to claim 1, the limitations which are considered to recite concepts of mental processes include the limitations involving “receiving information associated with a package to be delivered, wherein the information comprises: a device identifier of a smart tag attached to the package; and location information of a delivery site”, and “receiving, in real time […] a current location of a vehicle that carries the package”. These limitations recite concepts of mental observation and collecting information in a manner that could be practically performed by a human using mental steps. The Examiner notes “Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer […] examiners should review the specification to determine if the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept” (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C).
As currently drafted, claim 1 recites the utilization of a generic “computing device” to perform the mental process of collecting information in real time via GPS. The specification further discloses “The current location may be determined in real time […] the current location may be determined based on global positioning system (GPS) […] The GPS module may quickly and accurately locate the current location of the vehicle” (¶ [0059]). Thus, the specification, at most, recites the use of a generic GPS module executing high level instructions to collect location information of a vehicle in real time. Accordingly, the claim limitations directed towards collecting information associated with a package and collecting a real-time current location of a vehicle that carries the package are considered to be a mental process, and the recited “computing device” is considered to be an additional element that merely serves as a generic computer tool being utilized in its ordinary capacity (i.e., receiving information) to perform this mental process.
Furthermore, the claim limitations which are considered to recite certain methods of organizing human activity include those involving receiving information associated with a package to be delivered and receiving a current location of a vehicle that carries the package in real time. These claim limitations, as a whole, recite concepts of facilitating and managing commercial interactions (i.e., business relations), including facilitating and managing the delivery of a package to a delivery site. As disclosed by the Applicant at ¶ [0006] of the specification, “aspects described herein are directed towards locating packages and/or delivery sites using electronic devices […] a computing device may monitor the location of a vehicle that carries the packages […] The computing device may send instructions to a smart tag attached to the package when the current location of the vehicle is adjacent to the delivery site of the package, so that the smart tag may output a signal (e.g., light or sound) to facilitate the driver quickly identify the package […] The package and/or delivery site locating process may be improved”. Thus, in view of the specification, the claimed steps that involve receiving information associated with a package to be delivered and receiving a real time current location of a vehicle that carries the package are directly involved in the process of facilitating a delivery to a delivery site – thus reciting concepts of performing a commercial interaction. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II).
On page 13 of the Response, the Applicant argues “Claim 1 solves the technical problem of improving the IoT-based signaling system by using real-time GPS data to trigger coordinated audio/visual signals via wireless connections […] the sending steps do more than merely transmit data- they cause physical devices (the smart tag and smart doorplate) to output coordinated audio/visual signals, which is a tangible, real-world effect that goes beyond mere data transmission”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees that the additional elements of claim 1 reflect an improvement to a technical field and integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The Examiner notes “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more” (MPEP 2106.05 (f)). As currently drafted, the independent claims recite the use of generic computer components in their ordinary capacity to implement the abstract idea. As an example, claim 1 recites the use of a “computing device” for receiving GPS data and steps for transmitting instructions to various computer tools via a “wireless connection” to output an audio/visual signal. As noted above, utilizing generic computer tools for receiving and transmitting data encompass the “use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity”, and does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Furthermore, the claim steps for providing an instruction to output a first/second audio or visual signal comprising light of a first color “based on the real-time GPS data indicating the current location is within a geographical area associated with the delivery site” are recited at a high level of generality such that they merely amount to generic computer tools and instructions to apply abstract idea discussed further above.
Furthermore, as disclosed by the Applicant in the specification, “The two largest time-consuming tasks during last-mile delivery are the process of locating the packages on a delivery vehicle and the process of locating the delivery site in the neighborhood […] Other challenges for last-mail delivery may involve misplacing of the packages, the packages being lost during the delivery without the knowledge of the driver, or the time wasted on operating overly cumbersome processes on work phones or PDAs” (¶ [0005]), and “aspects described herein are directed towards locating packages and/or delivery sites using electronic devices […] The package and/or delivery site locating process may be improved” (¶ [0006]). Thus, in view of the specification, the claimed invention is directed towards improving the process of delivering packages to delivery sites by enabling delivers to efficiently locate packages on a vehicle and locating the delivery site using electronic devices. The specification describes, at best, an improvement to the abstract idea itself (i.e., facilitating a commercial interaction) using general purpose computer components, as opposed to providing a technical solution to a technical problem that is rooted in technology. The Examiner notes that “it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself […] is not an improvement in technology” (See MPEP 2106.05(a)(II)). Claim 1, as currently drafted, does not provide features that may be considered to improve the functioning of the claimed computer technology because, as discussed above, the additional elements of the claim merely amount to generic computer tools being utilized in their ordinary capacity to implement the abstract idea of facilitating a commercial interaction.
On page 13 of the Response, the Applicant submits that “the combination of receiving package information with smart tag identifier, receiving-real time GPS data, and sending coordinated instructions to both a smart tag and a smart doorplate to output matching audio/visual signals is not a well-understood, routine, conventional activity”. As discussed above, these additional elements are considered to merely serve as generic computer tools and instructions to implement the abstract idea. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
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, 4-14, 16-18, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
First of all, claims must be directed to one or more of the following statutory categories: a process, a machine, a manufacture, or a composition of matter. Claims 1-2, 4-12, and 21 are directed to a process (“a method”), and claims 13-14 and 16 are directed to a machine (“a computing device”), and claims 17-18 and 20 are directed to a machine (“a system”). Thus, claims 1-2, 4-14, 16-18, and 20-21 satisfy Step One because they are all within one of the four statutory categories of eligible subject matter. Claims 1-2, 4-14, 16-18, and 20-21, however, are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding independent claim 1, the specific limitations that recite an abstract idea are:
Receiving […] information associated with a package to be delivered, wherein the information comprises: a device identifier of a smart tag attached to the package; and location information of a delivery site;
Receiving, in real time […] a current location of a vehicle that carries the package;
Therefore, claims 1 and 2, 4-12, and 21 by virtue of dependence, recite concepts of mental processes. In particular, the limitations identified above recite concepts of collecting information, observation, and evaluating information in a manner that is analogous to human mental work. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Furthermore, the limitations identified above recite concepts of commercial interactions in the form of facilitating business relations, such as facilitating package deliveries at a delivery site. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). This is further evidenced in the Applicant’s specification at ¶ [0005]-¶ [0006].
The judicial exception recited above is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the claim include a “computing device”, steps for receiving GPS data by a computing device in real time, and steps involving “based on the real-time GPS data indicating the current location is within a geographical area associated with the delivery site, sending, via a wireless connection to the smart tag, an instruction to output a first audio or visual signal comprising light of a first color; and sending, via a second wireless connection to a smart doorplate associated with the delivery site, an instruction to output a second audio or visual signal comprising light of the first color”. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements identified above merely serve as generic computer components and instructions by which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, the claim recites additional elements involving steps for transmitting information over a network (“sending, via a wireless connection to the smart tag, an instruction to output a first audio or visual signal” and “sending, via a second wireless connection to a smart doorplate associated with the delivery site, an instruction to output a second audio or visual signal”). These additional elements fail to integrate the claim into a practical application because the steps for transmitting information over a network amount to no more than mere data gathering/outputting, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements, in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A). Furthermore, the additional elements involving steps for transmitting information over a network fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the courts have found transmitting information over a network to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Because the invention is merely reciting well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, the additional elements of this claim which involve transmitting information over a network, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Regarding independent claim 13, the specific limitations that recite an abstract idea are:
Receiving information, associated with a package to be delivered, comprising: a device identifier of a smart tag attached to the package; and location information of a delivery site;
Receiving, in real time […] a current location of a vehicle that carries the package;
Therefore, claims 13 and 14, 16, by virtue of dependence, recite concepts of mental processes. In particular, the limitations identified above recite concepts of collecting information, observation, and evaluating information in a manner that is analogous to human mental work. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Furthermore, the limitations identified above recite concepts of commercial interactions in the form of facilitating business relations, such as facilitating package deliveries at a delivery site. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). This is further evidenced in the Applicant’s specification at ¶ [0005]-¶ [0006].
The judicial exception recited above is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the claim include a “computing device”, “one or more processors”, “memory storing instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, configure the computing device to perform actions”, steps for receiving GPS data by a computing device in real time, and steps involving “based on the real-time GPS data indicating the current location is within a geographical area associated with the delivery site, sending, via a wireless connection to the smart tag, an instruction to output a first audio or visual signal comprising light of a first color; and sending, via a second wireless connection to a smart doorplate associated with the delivery site, an instruction to output a second audio or visual signal comprising light of the first color”. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer components and instructions on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, the claim recites additional elements involving steps for transmitting information over a network (“sending, via a wireless connection to the smart tag, an instruction to output a first audio or visual signal” and “sending, via a second wireless connection to a smart doorplate associated with the delivery site, an instruction to output a second audio or visual signal”). These additional elements fail to integrate the claim into a practical application because the steps for transmitting information over a network amount to no more than mere data gathering/outputting, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements, in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A). Furthermore, the additional elements involving steps for transmitting information over a network fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the courts have found transmitting information over a network to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Because the invention is merely reciting well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, the additional elements of this claim which involve transmitting information over a network, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, claim 13 is not patent eligible.
Regarding independent claim 17, the specific limitations that recite an abstract idea are:
Receiving information, associated with a package to be delivered, comprising: a device identifier of a smart tag attached to the package; and location information of a delivery site;
Receiving, in real time […] a current location of a vehicle that carries the package.
Therefore, claims 17 and 18, 20, by virtue of dependence, recite concepts of mental processes. In particular, the limitations identified above recite concepts of collecting information, observation, and evaluating information in a manner that is analogous to human mental work. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Furthermore, the limitations identified above recite concepts of commercial interactions in the form of facilitating business relations, such as facilitating package deliveries at a delivery site. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). This is further evidenced in the Applicant’s specification at ¶ [0005]-¶ [0006].
The judicial exception recited above is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the claim include a “computing device”, “one or more processors”, “memory storing instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, configure the computing device to perform actions”, steps for receiving GPS data by a computing device in real time, and steps involving “based on the real-time GPS data indicating the current location is within a geographical area associated with the delivery site, sending, via a wireless connection to the smart tag, an instruction to output a first audio or visual signal comprising light of a first color; and sending, via a second wireless connection to a smart doorplate associated with the delivery site, an instruction to output a second audio or visual signal comprising light of the first color”, “the smart tag configured to output the first audio or visual signal comprising light of the first color”, and “the smart doorplate configured to output the second audio or visual signal”. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer components and instructions on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, the claim recites additional elements involving steps for transmitting information over a network (“sending, via a wireless connection to the smart tag, an instruction to output a first audio or visual signal” and “sending, via a second wireless connection to a smart doorplate associated with the delivery site, an instruction to output a second audio or visual signal”). These additional elements fail to integrate the claim into a practical application because the steps for transmitting information over a network amount to no more than mere data gathering/outputting, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements, in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A). Furthermore, the additional elements involving steps for transmitting information over a network fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the courts have found transmitting information over a network to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Because the invention is merely reciting well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, the additional elements of this claim which involve transmitting information over a network, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, claim 17 is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 recites the same abstract idea as claim 1, by virtue of dependence, and is rejected for substantially the same reasons. The claim further introduces the additional elements of “the computing device comprises a portable user device”, “the smart tag comprises an Internet of things (IoT) device”, and “the smart doorplate comprises an IoT device”.
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer components on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Claim 4 recites further steps for a vehicle carrying a second package, and receiving a second information associated with the second package. Thus, these limitations of claim 4 merely further describe the abstract ideas of mental processes and commercial interactions.
The claim further introduces the additional elements of “based on the current location being further within a second geographical area associated with a second delivery site where the second package is to be delivered, causing a second smart tag, attached to the second package, to output a light of a second color, wherein the second color is different from the first color”.
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer components and instructions on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Claim 5 recites the same abstract idea as claim 1, by virtue of dependence, and is rejected for substantially the same reasons. The claim further introduces the additional elements of “wherein the current location of the vehicle is further based on motion detection; or a near-distance communication between the smart doorplate at the delivery site and the computing device”.
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer components and instructions on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Claim 6 recites steps for associating, based on the receiving the information, the smart tag and the delivery site, and after delivery of the package to the delivery site, dissociating the smart tag and the delivery site. Thus, claim 6 merely further describes the abstract idea of mental processes (i.e., collecting information, organizing information) and commercial interaction. The claim does not recite any further additional elements beyond the additional elements previously addressed with regard to claim 1 from which the claim depends.
Claim 7 recites steps for sending an alert indicating the package is lost. Thus, claim 7 merely further describes the abstract idea of commercial interactions in the form of managing business relations.
The claim further introduces the additional elements of “determining that the smart tag, attached to the package is disconnected from the computing device before the package is delivered”.
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer components and instructions on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Claim 8 recites steps for determining whether a certificate indicating delivery of the package has been received before the vehicle moves out of the geographical area associated with the delivery site and sending, based on the certificate having not been received before the vehicle moved out of the geographical area, an alert indicating the package was delivered incorrectly. Thus, claim 8 merely further describes the abstract idea of mental processes (i.e., collecting information, analyzing information, and displaying a particular result of the collection and analysis) and commercial interactions.
The claim further introduces the additional elements of “an electronic certificate”. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer tools and instructions on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Claim 9 recites the same abstract idea as claim 1, by virtue of dependence, and is rejected for substantially the same reasons. The claim further introduces the additional elements of “based on the current location being within the geographical area associated with the delivery site, causing a wearable user device to output a third audio or visual signal, wherein the third audio or visual signal comprises a light corresponding to the first audio or visual signal”.
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer tools and instructions on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Claim 10 recites the same abstract idea as claim 1, by virtue of dependence, and is rejected for substantially the same reasons. The claim further introduces the additional elements of “wherein the delivery site is identified based on a Bluetooth identifier of the smart doorplate” and “wherein the smart doorplate is attached to a structure at the delivery site”.
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer tools and instructions on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Claim 11 recites steps for determining that the current location of the vehicle is within a predefined distance of at least two delivery sites, and determining, based on a respective distance between the current location and each of the at least two delivery sites, a parking location of the vehicle. Thus, claim 11 merely further describes the abstract idea of mental processes (i.e., collecting information and analyzing information) and commercial interactions. The claim does not recite any further additional elements beyond the additional elements previously addressed with regard to claim 1 from which the claim depends.
Claim 12 recites steps for wherein the predefined distance is a three-dimensional (3D) distance based on differences in latitude, longitude, and altitude between the current location and the delivery site. Thus, claim 11 merely further describes the abstract idea of mental processes (i.e., collecting information and analyzing information) and commercial interactions. The claim does not recite any further additional elements beyond the additional elements previously addressed with regard to claims 1 and 11 from which the claim depends.
Claim 14 recites the same abstract idea as claim 13, by virtue of dependence, and is rejected for substantially the same reasons. The claim further introduces the additional elements of “the computing device comprises a portable user device”, “the smart tag comprises an Internet of things (IoT) device”, and “the smart doorplate comprises an IoT device”.
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer components on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Claim 16 recites further steps for a vehicle carrying a second package, and receiving a second information associated with the second package. Thus, these limitations of claim 16 merely further describe the abstract ideas of mental processes and commercial interactions.
The claim further introduces the additional elements of “ based on the current location being further within a second geographical area associated with a second delivery site where the second package is to be delivered, causing a second smart tag, attached to the second package, to output a light of a second color, wherein the second color is different from the first color”.
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer components and instructions on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Claim 18 recites the same abstract idea as claim 17, by virtue of dependence, and is rejected for substantially the same reasons. The claim further introduces the additional elements of “the computing device comprises a portable user device”, “the smart tag comprises an Internet of things (IoT) device”, and “the smart doorplate comprises an IoT device”.
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer components on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Claim 20 recites further steps for a vehicle carrying a second package, and receiving a second information associated with the second package. Thus, these limitations of claim 20 merely further describe the abstract ideas of mental processes and commercial interactions.
The claim further introduces the additional elements of “based on determining the current location being further within a second geographical area associated with a second delivery site where the second package is to be delivered, causing a second smart tag, attached to the second package, to output a light of a second color, wherein the second color is different from the first color”.
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer components and instructions on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Claim 21 recites the same abstract idea as claim 1, by virtue of dependence, and is rejected for substantially the same reasons. The claim further introduces the additional elements of “selecting, for the second audio or visual signal and from a plurality of light colors, the first color, wherein the selecting is based on the first audio or visual signal comprising light of the first color”.
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer components on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, 10, 13-14, 17-18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hoppe et al. U.S. Publication No. 2020/0361497, hereafter known as Hoppe, in view of Stark U.S. Publication No. 2025/0159434, hereafter known as Stark, in further view of Polyakov et al. U.S. Publication No. 2022/0351321, hereafter known as Polyakov.
Claim 1: Hoppe teaches the following:
Receiving, by a computing device, information associated with a package to be delivered, wherein the information comprises: […] and location information of a delivery site; (¶ [0047]: a device may perform the described processes in response to a control unit executing software instructions stored by a non-transitory computer readable medium, such as the memory); (¶ [0033]: a delivery service request/order to a location may be confirmed by a user through an application which is then acknowledged by the service through the network to begin communication with a delivery driver. Once the service request is ready, the driver is provided with a link and route guidance to the location through an app).
Receiving, in real time by the computing device, global position system (GPS) data indicating a current location of a vehicle that carries the package, (¶ [0033]: the system, including a illuminated street address number sign, is capable of tracking the location of a delivery driver that is requested by a user at a location. Once the driver is within a certain proximity of the location, the street address number sign will illuminate. The sign may begin to pulse the lighted street address number to provider better awareness to the driver); (¶ [0055]: the client device is provided with the location of the driver); (¶ [0052]: the client device memory may store location data corresponding to the location of the client device/driver that is generated via GPS).
Based on the real-time GPS data indicating the current location is within a geographical area associated with the delivery site; […] sending, via a second wireless connection to a smart doorplate associated with the delivery site, an instruction to output a second audio or visual signal comprising light […]. (¶ [0033]: see above); (¶ [0026]: Fig. 3 is a schematic illustration of a user’s house with an illuminated display device); (¶ [0050]: the illuminated display device/illuminated street address number sign is capable of displaying the street address number(s) in association with specific global positioning coordinates to help easily identify and reduce the time required to navigate to a particular location by human delivery driver); (¶ [0036]: the display device may be available in various designs, e.g., a hanging chain, window installation, base, or mounted to a smart lock box); (¶ [0010]: A programmable electronic device (e.g. LED, LCD or light board) syncs with another device (e.g. phone, tablet, computer via a router) and through internet connectivity to provide a perceptible signal, such as light, indicating the location, to a delivery agent).
Hoppe does not explicitly teach receiving information associated with a package to be delivered comprising a device identifier of a smart tag attached to the package. Furthermore, Hoppe does not explicitly teach sending, via a wireless connection to the smart tag, an instruction to output a first audio or visual signal comprising a light of a first color based on the real-time GPS data indicating the current location is within a geographical area associated with the delivery site.
However, Stark teaches the following:
Receiving, by a computing device, information associated with a package to be delivered, wherein the information comprises: a device identifier of a smart tag attached to the package; and location information of a delivery site; (¶ [0016]: a system and method for causing an alert to be generated on a wireless tracking device); (¶ [0017]: the generation of alerts may be based on a comparison of a tracker location with a stored location to identify the location as a destination location); (¶ [0046]: the stored locations include shipping destinations for a package, and are stored in the memory of a tracking device controller); (¶ [0006]: The operations include comparing the location to stored locations in the memory and identifying the location as one of the stored locations); (¶ [0023]: wireless tracking device may be affixed to packages traveling within a vehicle); (¶ [0040]: the wireless tracking device includes a GPS module and SIM card); (¶ [0030]: A tracking device controller receives information including location data from each of the wireless tracking devices 400 a, 400 b. The wireless tracking devices 400 a, 400 b may transmit GPS coordinates at regular intervals. As such, the tracking device controller can determine when each individual wireless tracking device is moving or stationary).
Receiving, in real time by the computing device, global position system (GPS) data indicating a current location of a vehicle that carries the package; (¶ [0030]: A tracking device controller receives information including location data from the wireless tracking devices 400 a, 400 b. The wireless tracking devices 400 a, 400 b may transmit GPS coordinates at regular intervals); (¶ [0019]: GPS location data is transmitted in real-time); (¶ [0023]: wireless tracking device may be affixed to packages traveling within a vehicle); (¶ [0048]: upon making the determination that the tracking device is located at the stored destination location, the tracking device is further monitored for movement).
Based on the real-time GPS data indicating the current location is within a geographical area associated with the delivery site, sending, via a wireless connection to the smart tag, an instruction to output a first audio/visual signal comprising light of a first color; (¶ [0047]: if a package has reached its intended destination location, such as a street address, tracking may become undesirable when an object has reached its destination); (¶ [0048]: upon making the determination that the tracking device is at the stored destination location, the tracking device is monitored for movement); (¶ [0049]: Responsive to the detection of movement, an instruction is sent to the tracking device to generate an alert, such as generating a beep, audio tone, or flashing light).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Hoppe with the teachings of Stark by incorporating the features for receiving information associated with a package to be delivered comprising a device identifier of a smart tag and sending, to the smart tag, an instruction to output a first audio/visual signal comprising a light of a first color based on real-time GPS data indicating a current location of a vehicle is within a geographical area associated with a delivery site, as taught by Stark, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements. In combination, each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination are predictable. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification with the purpose “to generate an alert in order to prevent individuals or entities in possession of the tracking device from being tracked without prior consent” (¶ [0018]) and “the tracker can be disabled to avoid tracking without consent of an individual or entity retrieving the package from its destination” (¶ [0017]), as suggested by Stark.
Hoppe/Stark teaches features for sending an instruction to a smart doorplate associated with a delivery site to output an audio/visual signal comprising a color when a deliverer is within proximity, and sending an instruction to a tracking device attached to a package to output an audio/visual signal comprising a flashing light when in proximity to a delivery site. However, Hoppe/Stark does not explicitly teach that both of the sent audio/visual signals comprise the same color.
However, Polyakov teaches the following:
Sending, via a wireless connection to the smart […] an instruction to output a first audio or visual signal comprising light of a first color; and sending, via a second wireless connection to a smart doorplate associated with the delivery site, an instruction to output a second audio or visual signal comprising light of the first color. (¶ [0074]: a physical beacon, e.g., a location beacon); (¶ [0040]: the location beacon can be mounted to a door); (¶ [0069]: a virtual geofence zone can be established around a customer delivery destination. A deliverer approaching the destination can cross the geofence and triggers a signal sent to the location beacon, which can then illuminate the customer's location beacon. The location beacon can illuminate an animation, blink, or present a specific color, which makes it easier for the deliverer to spot the customer's location from their vehicle); (¶ [0086]: an interaction is detected between the physical beacon and the delivery person, where the interaction includes an event that occurs based on the physical beacon and delivery person being in physical proximity to each other); (¶ [0086]: the physical beacon and the delivery person can be close enough so that the beacon can trigger the transmission of a sensory signal through a device used by the delivery person); (¶ [0087]: a smart device in a car driven by the delivery person can serve to trigger an interaction with the physical beacon); (¶ [0090]: the physical beacon can transmit control instructions for generating the sensory signal to a smart device in proximity to the delivery person); (¶ [0079]: a sensory signal includes a visual signal or audio signal); (¶ [0092]: variable characteristics of the sensory signal can be selected. For example, a specific color can be used to illuminate the physical beacon); (¶ [0043]: location beacon can receive an illumination trigger from the platform server over the internet from a wireless connection); (¶ [0046]: A location beacon can be associated with a corresponding color that differentiates itself from other order’s location beacons. A deliverer can be provided with a color via the platform server that is associated with the order to be picked up).
Thus, the system of Polyakov comprises a physical/location beacon that can be placed at a customer’s home. When a delivery driver is within a proximity of the beacon, a sensory signal may be sent to the beacon such that it may illuminate a specific color. Moreover, the sensory signal may be further provided to a smart device within the driver’s vehicle – the sensory signal comprising the specific color. Moreover, location beacons can be associated with a corresponding color, and the corresponding color is also provided to the smart device associated with the driver/vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventio to have modified the system of Hoppe/Stark with the teachings of Polyakov by incorporating the features for enabling a device mounted at a customer’s destination and a smart device within a delivery driver’s vehicle to output a visual signal (i.e., specific color) upon determining that the driver is within a particular proximity to the device at the customer’s destination. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that such a modification would enable the illuminated display device and wireless tracking device affixed to a package within a driver’s vehicle, as taught by Hoppe/Stark, to illuminate a specific same color when the driver is determined to be in proximity to the illuminated display device installed at the customer’s destination. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification with the purpose of “guiding the deliverer 154 to the customer 156 in a more efficient manner” (¶ [0069]), as suggested by Polyakov.
Claim 2: Hoppe/Stark/Polyakov teaches the limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, Hoppe teaches the following:
Wherein: the computing device comprises a portable user device; […] or the smart doorplate comprises an IoT device. (¶ [0033]: The system comprises the illuminated street address number sign. The system begins with a service request/order confirmed by the user through an application which is then acknowledged by the service through the network (including a network based server) to begin communication with the illuminated street address number sign, and a mobile device application used by the driver ); (¶ [0051]: the client devices may include mobile terminals, personal computers, tablets, and smartphones); (¶ [0060]: the system includes a network with the identification device, i.e., the illuminated display device);
Claim 5: Hoppe/Stark/Polyakov teaches the limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, Hoppe/Stark does not explicitly teach, however Polyakov does teach, the following:
Wherein the determining the current location of the vehicle being within a geographical area associated with the delivery site is based on at least one of: […] a near-distance communication between the smart doorplate at the delivery site and the computing device; (¶ [0069]: a virtual geofence zone can be established around a customer delivery destination. A deliverer approaching the destination can cross the geofence and triggers a signal sent to the location beacon, which can then illuminate the customer's location beacon. The location beacon can illuminate an animation, blink, or present a specific color, which makes it easier for the deliverer to spot the customer's location from their vehicle); (¶ [0086]: the physical beacon and the delivery person can be close enough so that the beacon can trigger the transmission of a sensor signal through a device used by the delivery person); (¶ [0087]: an interaction between the physical beacon and the delivery person can be initiated when the delivery person crosses a boundary surrounding the physical beacon. For example, when the delivery person is within a boundary defined as 50 meters away from the physical beacon, then an interaction between the physical beacon and the delivery person can be triggered); (¶ [0090]: In controlling the device to generate and transmit the sensory signal, the physical beacon can either send the control instructions to the device over a LAN or a WAN).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Hoppe/Stark with the teachings of Polyakov by incorporating the features for determining the current location of the vehicle being within a geographical area associated with the delivery site is based on a near-distance communication between the smart doorplate at the delivery site and the computing device, as taught by Polyakov. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification when one considers “a deliverer approaching the destination can cross the geofence and triggers a signal sent to the location beacon, which can then illuminate the customer's location beacon […] which makes it easier for the deliverer to spot the customer's location from their vehicle” (¶ [0069]), as suggested by Polyakov.
Claim 6: Hoppe/Stark/Polyakov teaches the limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, Hoppe does not explicitly teach, however Stark does teach, the following:
Associating, based on the receiving the information, the smart tag and the delivery site; (¶ [0030]: A tracking device controller receives information including location data from each of the wireless tracking devices 400 a, 400 b. The wireless tracking devices 400 a, 400 b may transmit GPS coordinates at regular intervals); (¶ [0017]: the generation of alerts may be based on a comparison of a tracker location with a stored location to identify the location as a destination location); (¶ [0046]: the stored locations include shipping destinations for a package, and are stored in the memory of a tracking device controller).
After delivery of the package to the delivery site, dissociating the smart tag and the delivery site. (¶ [0017]: once the tracker reaches its destination location, the tracker can be disabled to avoid tracking without consent of an individual or entity retrieving the package from its destination); (¶ [0034]: tracking alert logic may utilize the collected data and the stored locations to determine when to send a notification to paired wireless devices offering an option to disable the paired wireless tracking devices).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Hoppe with the teachings of Stark by incorporating the features for associating, based on the received information, the smart tag and the delivery site and dissociating the smart tag and the delivery site after delivery of the package to the delivery site, as taught by Stark, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements. In combination, each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination are predictable. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification with the purpose “to prevent individuals or entities in possession of the tracking device from being tracked without prior consent” (¶ [0018]) and “the tracker can be disabled to avoid tracking without consent of an individual or entity retrieving the package from its destination” (¶ [0017]), as suggested by Stark.
Claim 10: Hoppe/Stark/Polyakov teaches the limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, Hoppe teaches the following:
Wherein the delivery site is identified based on a Bluetooth identifier of the smart doorplate, and wherein the smart doorplate is attached to a structure at the delivery site. (¶ [0037]: identification device, e.g., an illuminated display device or signal device); (¶ [0011]: The on-site location identification device includes a housing configured to be mounted at the selected delivery location); (¶ [0010]: embodiments include wireless communication (e.g. Bluetooth, Wi-Fi etc.) enabled hardware); (¶ [0051]: client device includes a Bluetooth transceiver); (¶ [0014]: The system includes an on-site identification device having a controllable electronic location identifier including a signal source and configured to communicate a location identifier. A control unit is coupled to the controllable electronic location identifier and configured to selectively control the controllable electronic location identifier to activate the signal source to vary at least one attribute of the location identifier to the delivery agent based upon a proximity of the delivery agent to the selected delivery location. A computing client device running a delivery service application and including a wireless communication unit is configured to communicate delivery agent location proximity data with the display device); (¶ [0056]: activate the signal source, e.g. light source or wireless signal); (¶ [0036]: the display device may be available in various designs, e.g., a hanging chain, window installation, base, or mounted to a smart lock box).
Claim 13: Hoppe teaches the following:
A computing device comprising: one or more processors; memory storing instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, configure the computing device to perform actions comprising: (¶ [0041]: device may include a processor and memory); (¶ [0047]: a device may perform the described processes in response to a control unit executing software instructions stored by a non-transitory computer readable medium, such as the memory).
The remaining limitations of claim 13 are substantially analogous to the limitations of claim 1. Accordingly, the remaining limitations of claim 13 are rejected for substantially the same reasons and rationale as set forth herein with regard to claim 1.
Claim 14: Hoppe/Stark/Polyakov teaches the limitations of claim 13. Furthermore, the limitations of claim 14 are substantially analogous to the limitations of claim 2. Accordingly, claim 14 is rejected for substantially the same reasons and rationale as set forth herein with regard to claim 2.
Claim 17: Hoppe teaches the following:
A computing device configured to perform actions comprising: receiving information, associated with a package to be delivered, comprising: […] and location information of a delivery site; (¶ [0047]: a device may perform the described processes in response to a control unit executing software instructions stored by a non-transitory computer readable medium, such as the memory); (¶ [0033]: a delivery service request/order to a location may be confirmed by a user through an application which is then acknowledged by the service through the network to begin communication with a delivery driver. Once the service request is ready, the driver is provided with a link and route guidance to the location through an app).
Receiving, in real time by the computing device, global position system (GPS) data indicating a current location of a vehicle that carries the package, (¶ [0033]: the system, including a illuminated street address number sign, is capable of tracking the location of a delivery driver that is requested by a user at a location. Once the driver is within a certain proximity of the location, the street address number sign will illuminate. The sign may begin to pulse the lighted street address number to provider better awareness to the driver); (¶ [0055]: the client device is provided with the location of the driver); (¶ [0052]: the client device memory may store location data corresponding to the location of the client device/driver that is generated via GPS).
Based on the real-time GPS data indicating the current location is within a geographical area associated with the delivery site; […] sending, via a second wireless connection to a smart doorplate associated with the delivery site, an instruction to output a second audio or visual signal comprising light […]. (¶ [0033]: see above); (¶ [0026]: Fig. 3 is a schematic illustration of a user’s house with an illuminated display device); (¶ [0050]: the illuminated display device/illuminated street address number sign is capable of displaying the street address number(s) in association with specific global positioning coordinates to help easily identify and reduce the time required to navigate to a particular location by human delivery driver); (¶ [0036]: the display device may be available in various designs, e.g., a hanging chain, window installation, base, or mounted to a smart lock box); (¶ [0010]: A programmable electronic device (e.g. LED, LCD or light board) syncs with another device (e.g. phone, tablet, computer via a router) and through internet connectivity to provide a perceptible signal, such as light, indicating the location, to a delivery agent).
The smart doorplate configured to output the second audio or visual signal. (¶ [0050]: see above); (¶ [0036]: see above); (¶ [0010]: see above).
Hoppe does not explicitly teach receiving information associated with a package to be delivered comprising a device identifier of a smart tag attached to the package. Furthermore, Hoppe does not explicitly teach sending, via a wireless connection to the smart tag, an instruction to output a first audio or visual signal comprising a light of a first color based on the real-time GPS data indicating the current location is within a geographical area associated with the delivery site.
However, Stark teaches the following:
Receiving information, associated with a package to be delivered, comprising: a device identifier of a smart tag attached to the package; and location information of a delivery site; (¶ [0016]: a system and method for causing an alert to be generated on a wireless tracking device); (¶ [0017]: the generation of alerts may be based on a comparison of a tracker location with a stored location to identify the location as a destination location); (¶ [0046]: the stored locations include shipping destinations for a package, and are stored in the memory of a tracking device controller); (¶ [0006]: The operations include comparing the location to stored locations in the memory and identifying the location as one of the stored locations); (¶ [0023]: wireless tracking device may be affixed to packages traveling within a vehicle); (¶ [0040]: the wireless tracking device includes a GPS module and SIM card); (¶ [0030]: A tracking device controller receives information including location data from each of the wireless tracking devices 400 a, 400 b. The wireless tracking devices 400 a, 400 b may transmit GPS coordinates at regular intervals. As such, the tracking device controller can determine when each individual wireless tracking device is moving or stationary).
Receiving, in real time by the computing device, global position system (GPS) data indicating a current location of a vehicle that carries the package; (¶ [0030]: A tracking device controller receives information including location data from the wireless tracking devices 400 a, 400 b. The wireless tracking devices 400 a, 400 b may transmit GPS coordinates at regular intervals); (¶ [0019]: GPS location data is transmitted in real-time); (¶ [0023]: wireless tracking device may be affixed to packages traveling within a vehicle); (¶ [0048]: upon making the determination that the tracking device is located at the stored destination location, the tracking device is further monitored for movement).
Based on the real-time GPS data indicating the current location is within a geographical area associated with the delivery site, sending, via a wireless connection to the smart tag, an instruction to output a first audio/visual signal comprising light of a first color; […] the smart tag configured to output the first audio or visual signal comprising light of the first color; (¶ [0047]: if a package has reached its intended destination location, such as a street address, tracking may become undesirable when an object has reached its destination); (¶ [0048]: upon making the determination that the tracking device is at the stored destination location, the tracking device is monitored for movement); (¶ [0049]: Responsive to the detection of movement, an instruction is sent to the tracking device to generate an alert, such as generating a beep, audio tone, or flashing light).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Hoppe with the teachings of Stark by incorporating the features for receiving information associated with a package to be delivered comprising a device identifier of a smart tag and sending, to the smart tag, an instruction to output a first audio/visual signal comprising a light of a first color based on real-time GPS data indicating a current location of a vehicle is within a geographical area associated with a delivery site, as taught by Stark, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements. In combination, each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination are predictable. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification with the purpose “to generate an alert in order to prevent individuals or entities in possession of the tracking device from being tracked without prior consent” (¶ [0018]) and “the tracker can be disabled to avoid tracking without consent of an individual or entity retrieving the package from its destination” (¶ [0017]), as suggested by Stark.
Hoppe/Stark teaches features for sending an instruction to a smart doorplate associated with a delivery site to output an audio/visual signal comprising a color when a deliverer is within proximity, and sending an instruction to a tracking device attached to a package to output an audio/visual signal comprising a flashing light when in proximity to a delivery site. However, Hoppe/Stark does not explicitly teach that both of the sent audio/visual signals comprise the same color.
However, Polyakov teaches the following:
Sending, via a wireless connection to the smart […] an instruction to output a first audio or visual signal comprising light of a first color; and sending, via a second wireless connection to a smart doorplate associated with the delivery site, an instruction to output a second audio or visual signal comprising light of the first color. (¶ [0074]: a physical beacon, e.g., a location beacon); (¶ [0040]: the location beacon can be mounted to a door); (¶ [0069]: a virtual geofence zone can be established around a customer delivery destination. A deliverer approaching the destination can cross the geofence and triggers a signal sent to the location beacon, which can then illuminate the customer's location beacon. The location beacon can illuminate an animation, blink, or present a specific color, which makes it easier for the deliverer to spot the customer's location from their vehicle); (¶ [0086]: an interaction is detected between the physical beacon and the delivery person, where the interaction includes an event that occurs based on the physical beacon and delivery person being in physical proximity to each other); (¶ [0086]: the physical beacon and the delivery person can be close enough so that the beacon can trigger the transmission of a sensory signal through a device used by the delivery person); (¶ [0087]: a smart device in a car driven by the delivery person can serve to trigger an interaction with the physical beacon); (¶ [0090]: the physical beacon can transmit control instructions for generating the sensory signal to a smart device in proximity to the delivery person); (¶ [0079]: a sensory signal includes a visual signal or audio signal); (¶ [0092]: variable characteristics of the sensory signal can be selected. For example, a specific color can be used to illuminate the physical beacon); (¶ [0043]: location beacon can receive an illumination trigger from the platform server over the internet from a wireless connection); (¶ [0046]: A location beacon can be associated with a corresponding color that differentiates itself from other order’s location beacons. A deliverer can be provided with a color via the platform server that is associated with the order to be picked up).
Thus, the system of Polyakov comprises a physical/location beacon that can be placed at a customer’s home. When a delivery driver is within a proximity of the beacon, a sensory signal may be sent to the beacon such that it may illuminate a specific color. Moreover, the sensory signal may be further provided to a smart device within the driver’s vehicle – the sensory signal comprising the specific color. Moreover, location beacons can be associated with a corresponding color, and the corresponding color is also provided to the smart device associated with the driver/vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventio to have modified the system of Hoppe/Stark with the teachings of Polyakov by incorporating the features for enabling a device mounted at a customer’s destination and a smart device within a delivery driver’s vehicle to output a visual signal (i.e., specific color) upon determining that the driver is within a particular proximity to the device at the customer’s destination. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that such a modification would enable the illuminated display device and wireless tracking device affixed to a package within a driver’s vehicle, as taught by Hoppe/Stark, to illuminate a specific same color when the driver is determined to be in proximity to the illuminated display device installed at the customer’s destination. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification with the purpose of “guiding the deliverer 154 to the customer 156 in a more efficient manner” (¶ [0069]), as suggested by Polyakov.
Claim 18: Hoppe/Stark/Polyakov teaches the limitations of claim 17. Furthermore, the limitations of claim 18 are substantially analogous to the limitations of claim 2. Accordingly, claim 18 is rejected for substantially the same reasons and rationale as set forth herein with regard to claim 2.
Claim 21: Hoppe/Stark/Polyakov teaches the limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, the Hoppe/Stark does not explicitly teach, however Polyakov does teach, the following:
Selecting, for the second audio or visual signal and from a plurality of light colors, the first color, wherein the selecting is based on the first audio or visual signal comprising light of the first color. (¶ [0086]: an interaction is detected between the physical beacon and the delivery person, where the interaction includes an event that occurs based on the physical beacon and delivery person being in physical proximity to each other); (¶ [0087]: a smart device in a car driven by the delivery person can serve to trigger an interaction with the physical beacon); (¶ [0090]: the physical beacon can transmit control instructions for generating the sensory signal to a smart device in proximity to the delivery person); (¶ [0079]: a sensory signal includes a visual signal or audio signal); (¶ [0092]: variable characteristics of the sensory signal can be selected. For example, a specific color can be used to illuminate the physical beacon); (¶ [0043]: location beacon can receive an illumination trigger from the platform server over the internet from a wireless connection); (¶ [0046]: A location beacon can be associated with a corresponding color that differentiates itself from other order’s location beacons. A deliverer can be provided with a color via the platform server that is associated with the order to be picked up).
Thus, the system of Polyakov comprises a physical/location beacon that can be placed at a customer’s home. When a delivery driver is within a proximity of the beacon, a sensory signal may be sent to the beacon such that it may illuminate a specific color. Moreover, the sensory signal may be further provided to a smart device within the driver’s vehicle – the sensory signal comprising the specific color. Moreover, location beacons can be associated with a corresponding color, and the corresponding color is also provided to the smart device associated with the driver/vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventio to have modified the system of Hoppe/Stark with the teachings of Polyakov by incorporating the features for selecting, for the second audio or visual signal and from a plurality of light colors, the first color, wherein the selecting is based on the first audio or visual signal comprising light of the first color. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that such a modification would enable the illuminated display device and wireless tracking device affixed to a package within a driver’s vehicle, as taught by Hoppe/Stark, to illuminate a specific same color when the driver is determined to be in proximity to the illuminated display device installed at the customer’s destination. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification with the purpose of “guiding the deliverer 154 to the customer 156 in a more efficient manner” (¶ [0069]), as suggested by Polyakov.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hoppe, in view of Stark, in further view of Polyakov, in further view of Shafer et al. U.S. Publication No. 2014/0351098, hereafter known as Shafer.
Claim 7: Hoppe/Stark/Polyakov teaches the limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, Hoppe does not explicitly teach, however Shafer does teach, the following:
Determining that the smart tag, attached to the package, is disconnected from the computing device before the package is delivered; (¶ [0066]: one or more monitoring devices may be affixed to respective products or other articles to facilitate monitoring of the article to which each monitoring device is affixed); (¶ [0005]: systems and methods are provided for leveraging a network for managing articles, such as in a commercial environment); (¶ [0039]: The network entity may comprise a server); (¶ [0121]: the network entity may be configured to initiate a timer upon receiving ping node location data from a monitoring device. If the network entity does not receive another signal from the monitoring device indicating the ping node location data, even if it is the same ping node location data, the network entity may initiate the lost tag alert protocol).
Sending an alert indicating the package is lost. (¶ [0122]: Upon initiation of the lost tag alert protocol, the network entity may report that the timer has expired. Then the network entity may log a no report event in a memory. The network entity may also be configured to transmit a lost tag alert message to an alert device. The alert device may receive the message and display the lost tag alert. The alert device may store the lost tag alert message to memory).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Hoppe/Stark/Polyakov with the teachings of Shafer by incorporating the features for determining that the smart tag, attached to the package, is disconnected from the computing device before the package is delivered and sending an alert indicating the package is lost, as taught by Shafer, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements. In combination, each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination are predictable. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification when one considers “this information may be helpful for the user in logging events or investigating the alert” (¶ [0126]), as suggested by Shafer.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hoppe, in view of Stark, in further view of Polyakov, in further view of Subramanian et al. U.S. Publication No. 2023/0089726, hereafter known as Subramanian.
Claim 8: Hoppe/Stark/Polyakov teaches the limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, Hoppe does not explicitly teach, however Subramanian does teach, the following:
Determining whether an electronic certificate indicating delivery of the package has been received before the vehicle moves out of the geographical area associated with the delivery site; (¶ [0055]: a beaconing device having video/image capability (or having access to live video/image captures taken from cameras) may be capable of identifying the drone in the video/image and provide real-time instructions to a drone for delivering a package to the precise delivery location (e.g., the patio). It may also record this video/image and/or send the video/image to a user to confirm delivery of the package); (¶ [0047]: Alternatively, the delivery may be made by a human deliverer that uses the delivery device, e.g., delivery vehicle); (¶ [0057]: embodiments may utilize different techniques for verifying precise delivery location, including using one or more pictures of the delivered package provided by the delivery device and information from one or more sensors (e.g., camera images)).
Sending, based on the electronic certificate had not been received before the vehicle moved out of the geographical area, an alert indicating the package was delivered incorrectly. (¶ [0055]: see above); (¶ [0057]: embodiments may utilize different techniques for verifying precise delivery location, including using one or more pictures of the delivered package provided by the delivery device and information from one or more sensors (e.g., camera images)); (¶ [0058]: a beaconing device may indicate the failure of delivery to the precise delivery location (e.g., instead of providing confirmation). The beaconing device and/or delivery device may notify a user of failure. Optionally, the user may have an ability to provide instructions and/or other input to the delivery device regarding the precise delivery location, rescheduling delivery, or the like).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Hoppe/Stark/Polyakov with the teachings of Subramanian by incorporating the features for determining whether an electronic certificate indicating delivery of the package has been received before the vehicle moves out of the geographical area associated with the delivery site and sending, based on the electronic certificate had not been received before the vehicle moved out of the geographical area, an alert indicating the package was delivered incorrectly, as taught by Subramanian, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements. In combination, each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination are predictable. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification with the purpose of further “helping ensure the package gets delivered to the correct precise location” (¶ [0025]), as suggested by Subramanian.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hoppe, in view of Stark, in further view of Polyakov, in further view of Bonafe et al. U.S. Publication No. 2024/0220745, hereafter known as Bonafe.
Claim 9: Hoppe/Stark/Polyakov teaches the limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, Hoppe does not explicitly teach, however Bonafe does teach, the following:
Based on the current location being within the geographical area associated with the delivery site, causing a wearable user device to output a third audio or visual signal, wherein the third audio or visual signal comprises a light corresponding to the first audio or visual signal. (¶ [0020]: When a delivery for the package occurs at the final delivery destination, a delivery driver may have to open the bulkhead door of the logistics vehicle and walk down the bed of the logistics vehicle to locate the package and then drop off the package at the final delivery destination); (¶ [0024]: the present disclosure provide one or more technical solutions to one or more of these technical problems); (¶ [0079]: the vehicle includes a plurality of light devices coupled to respective storage units); (¶ [0091]: an asset is located within a storage unit); (¶ [0026]: the system transmits a control signal to a first light device (e.g., a Light Emitting Diode (LED)), of multiple light devices, where each light device is coupled to a respective storage unit. Such transmission of the control signal causes the first light device to emit light, where the emission of the light indicates that the asset is located within the first storage unit. In this way, for example, carrier personnel may receive a visual indication of where a package is located so that the personnel may know where to walk to within the logistics vehicle to find the package); (¶ [0092]: transmitting a control signal that causes the user device to indicate that the asset is located within the area associated with the location includes transmitting a notification to the user device associated with a driver of the logistics vehicle, where the notification instructs the driver where, in the logistics vehicle, to pick the asset from); (¶ [0080]: “indication” described herein is a message (e.g., received over the network(s) 110), a notification, a flag, signal or other indicator); (¶ [0110]: the term device may include watches and glasses).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Hoppe/Stark/Polyakov with the teaching of Bonafe by incorporating the features for causing a wearable user device to output a third audio or visual signal, wherein the third audio or visual signal comprises a light corresponding to the first audio or visual signal based on the determination that the current location is within the geographical area associated with the delivery site, as taught by Bonafe, into the system of Hoppe/Stark that is configured to cause a plurality of devices (i.e., an illuminated display device at a destination location and wireless tracker coupled to a package) to output a visual/audible signal upon determining that a delivery driver is proximate to a delivery destination location. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification when one considers a “carrier personnel may receive a visual indication of where a package is located so that the personnel may know where to walk to within the logistics vehicle to find the package” (¶ [0027]), as suggested by Bonafe.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hoppe, in view of Stark, in further view of Polyakov, in further view of Bolton et al. U.S. Patent No. 10,198,707, hereafter known as Bolton.
Claim 11: Hoppe/Stark/Polyakov teaches the limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, Hoppe does not teach, however Bolton does teach, the following:
Determining that the current location of the vehicle is within a predefined distance of at least two delivery sites; (Col. 36, lines 17-20: delivery vehicles may comprise a location determining device (e.g., a GPS device) configured to record and relay the paths traveled by the corresponding vehicle); (col. 57, lines 61-67: the system is configured to identify one or more optimal park positions for servicing one or more serviceable points. The optimal park position is based upon a determination that a particular vehicle operator is scheduled to visit two or more associated serviceable points on a single day); (col. 58, lines 30-45: the system is configured to inform the driver in advance of the driver arriving at a location to deliver the shipments. For example, the system may provide an advance alert to the driver upon the driver being within a predefined threshold distance. The alert provides an indication of the location of the determined optimal park position).
Determining, based on a respective distance between the current location and each of the at least two delivery sites, a parking location of the vehicle. (col. 58, lines 30-45: the system is configured to inform the driver in advance of the driver arriving at a location to deliver the shipments. For example, the system may provide an advance alert to the driver upon the driver being within a predefined threshold distance. The alert provides an indication of the location of the determined optimal park position); (col. 58, lines 55-58: the alert may not indicate an optimal park position, but may instead provide the driver with advance notice to seek out an optimal park position).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Hoppe/Stark/Polyakov with the teachings of Bolton by incorporating the features for determining that the current location of the vehicle is within a predefined distance of at least two delivery sites and determining, based on a respective distance between the current location and each of the at least two delivery sites, a parking location of the vehicle, as taught by Bolton, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements. In combination, each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination are predictable. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “in order to service all of the grouped serviceable points without needing to move the vehicle” (col. 58, lines 8-10) and “to minimize the amount of out-of-vehicle (e.g., walking) travel necessary to reach each of the multiple serviceable points without moving the vehicle” (col. 58, lines 58-60), as suggested by Bolton.
Claim 12: Hoppe/Stark/Polyakov teaches the limitations of claim 11. Furthermore, Hoppe does not teach, however Bolton does teach, the following:
Wherein the predefined distance is a three-dimensional (3D) distance based on differences in latitude, longitude, and altitude between the current location and the delivery site. (Col. 36, lines 17-20: delivery vehicles may comprise a location determining device (e.g., a GPS device) configured to record and relay the paths traveled by the corresponding vehicle); (col. 58, lines 30-45: the system is configured to inform the driver in advance of the driver arriving at a location to deliver the shipments. For example, the system may provide an advance alert to the driver upon the driver being within a predefined threshold distance. The alert provides an indication of the location of the determined optimal park position). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that GPS can calculate distance in 3D, as GPS devices are capable of determining positions in three-dimensional space.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Hoppe/Stark/Polyakov with the teachings of Bolton by incorporating the features for determining that the current location of the vehicle is within a predefined distance of at least two delivery sites, wherein the predefined distance is a three-dimensional (3D) distance based on differences in latitude, longitude, and altitude between the current location and the delivery site, as taught by Bolton, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements. In combination, each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination are predictable. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “in order to service all of the grouped serviceable points without needing to move the vehicle” (col. 58, lines 8-10) and “to minimize the amount of out-of-vehicle (e.g., walking) travel necessary to reach each of the multiple serviceable points without moving the vehicle” (col. 58, lines 58-60), as suggested by Bolton.
Examiner Notes
Claims 4, 16, and 20 have been found to overcome the cited art of record. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of claims 4, 16, and 20 being found to overcome the cited art of record. None of the prior art of record, taken individual or in combination, teach or suggest the specific series of logical operations of independent claims 4, 16, and 20. Further, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the teachings or suggestions of the prior art of record without the benefit of hindsight.
The prior art references most closely resembling the Applicant’s claimed invention are as follows:
Stark U.S. Publication No. 2025/0159434;
Polyakov et al. U.S. Publication No. 2022/0351321;
Munoz U.S. Publication No. 2022/0237557;
Bonafe et al. U.S. Publication No. 2025/0103832;
Hoppe et al. U.S. Publication No. 2020/0361497;
Stark discloses a system configured to cause an alert to be generated on a wireless tracking device affixed to a package. Upon determining that the tracking device is located at a destination location, the tracking device may be monitored for movement and generate an alert such as a beep, audio tone, or flashing light. Stark, however, does not explicitly teach the specific series of logical operations recited in claims 4, 16, and 20. In particular, Stark does not explicitly teach a delivery vehicle carrying a first and second package, determining that the delivery vehicle is within a second geographical area associated with a second delivery site where the second package is to be delivered, and causing a second smart tag attached to the second package to output a color of light that is different from the color of light output from a first smart tag attached to a first package (i.e., “Based on the determining, causing a second smart tag, attached to the second package, to output a light of a second color, wherein the second color is different from the first color”).
Polyakov discloses a system wherein physical beacons may be associated with individual items in a warehouse setting. The physical beacons may illuminate different colors to indicate different items (e.g., red for Item A) when a delivery agent is in physical proximity to the physical beacons. Polyakov, however, does not explicitly teach the specific series of logical operations recited in claims 4, 16, and 20. In particular, Polyakov does not explicitly teach a delivery vehicle carrying a first and second package, determining that the delivery vehicle is within a second geographical area associated with a second delivery site where the second package is to be delivered, and causing a second smart tag attached to the second package to output a color of light that is different from the color of light output from a first smart tag attached to a first package (i.e., “Based on the determining, causing a second smart tag, attached to the second package, to output a light of a second color, wherein the second color is different from the first color”).
Munoz discloses a system that may group parcels by convenient delivery routes. Once a package’s drop off destination has been reached via the system’s GPS, a signal from the system will emit an LED light sensor to aid the driver in scanning their vehicle to retrieve a package. Munoz, however, does not explicitly teach the specific series of logical operations recited in claims 4, 16, and 20. In particular, Munoz does not explicitly teach determining that the delivery vehicle is within a second geographical area associated with a second delivery site where the second package is to be delivered, and causing a second smart tag attached to the second package to output a color of light that is different from the color of light output from a first smart tag attached to a first package (i.e., “Based on the determining, causing a second smart tag, attached to the second package, to output a light of a second color, wherein the second color is different from the first color”).
Bonafe discloses a system comprising a vehicle which includes a plurality of light devices couple to respective storage units. The system may transmit a control signal to a first light device of multiple light devices to cause the first light device to emit light, wherein the emission of light indicates the asset is located within the storage unit. Bonafe, however, does not explicitly teach the specific series of logical operations recited in claim 4, 16, and 20. In particular, Bonafe does not explicitly teach determining that the delivery vehicle is within a second geographical area associated with a second delivery site where the second package is to be delivered, and causing a second smart tag attached to the second package to output a color of light that is different from the color of light output from a first smart tag attached to a first package (i.e., “Based on the determining, causing a second smart tag, attached to the second package, to output a light of a second color, wherein the second color is different from the first color”).
Hoppe discloses a system wherein a delivery agent identifier (i.e., a display device) may be mounted anywhere within or on a delivery vehicle. Visual effects, colors of light, or unique images may be displayed via the delivery agent identifier when the delivery agent is in proximity to a delivery customer. For example, the delivery customer would be notified to look for a blue light or a video image of a yellow banana being displayed by the delivery agent identifier of the delivery agent. Hoppe, however, does not explicitly teach the specific series of logical operations recited in claim 4, 16, and 20. In particular, Hoppe does not explicitly teach a delivery vehicle carrying a first and second package, determining that the delivery vehicle is within a second geographical area associated with a second delivery site where the second package is to be delivered, and causing a second smart tag attached to the second package to output a color of light that is different from the color of light output from a first smart tag attached to a first package (i.e., “Based on the determining, causing a second smart tag, attached to the second package, to output a light of a second color, wherein the second color is different from the first color”).
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 JORGE G DEL TORO-ORTEGA whose telephone number is (571)272-5319. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00AM-6:00PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571) 272-5587. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JORGE G DEL TORO-ORTEGA/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/SHANNON S CAMPBELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights