DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
The Preliminary Amendments filed on 05 November 2025 has been acknowledged and entered.
Claims 1-20 have been canceled.
New Claims 21-40 have been added.
Claims 21-40 are currently pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/17/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement are being considered by the examiner. However, the Patent(s) and/or publication(s) cited in the office actions submitted in the information disclosure statement(s) have not been separately considered.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 22 April 2025. These drawings are acceptable.
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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 21-30 are directed to a method (i.e., a process). Claims 31-40 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claims 21-40 all fall within the one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong 1 (additional elements omitted) – Claims 21 and 31 recite:
receiving/receive [ ] communication data related to a user and third party and wherein the communication data identifies a delivery address pertaining to an entity;
receiving/receive [ ] a unique identifier, wherein the unique identifier is associated with the delivery address;
receiving/receive [ ] an interaction address corresponding to the delivery address;
determining/determine [ ] if the interaction address received matches the delivery address by authenticating the unique identifier wherein authenticating the unique identifier further comprises:
receiving/receiving a scanning data relating to the unique identifier;
comparing/comparing the scanning data relating to the unique identifier to the unique identifier associated with the delivery address; and
authenticating/authenticating the interaction address as a function of the comparison.
The aforementioned limitations recite “Managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people” which includes teaching and following rules or instructions. Therefore the claim(s) as a whole fall within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping of abstract ideas.
Step 2A Prong 2 - This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of “at least a processor” and “a remote device” in claim 21, and the additional element of “a location verification system,” “at least a processor,” “ a memory,” “instructions,” and “a remote device” in claim 31 are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as generic computer components performing generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, the additional elements, when analyzed individually and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it" (or an equivalent) or more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception in a generic computing environment (See MPEP 2106.05 (f) Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception).
Step 2B - As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The same analysis applies here in 2B. The additional elements, when analyzed individually and in combination, do not add significantly more to the exception. They are mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
As per Dependent Claims 22, 24, 28, 32, 34, and 38, the limitations merely narrow the previously recited abstract limitations. Dependent claims 22 and 32 recite the unique identifier is attached to a door located at the delivery address. Dependent claims 24 and 34 recite the communication data further comprises an instruction for delivery. Dependent claims 28 and 38 recite the scanning data is selected from the group consisting of: a time of a scan, device ID, a photograph, and a message. For the reasons described above with respect to claims 22, 24, 28, 32, 34, and 38, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent Claims 23 and 33 recite, “verifying the delivery address by comparing communication data and the delivery address associated with the unique identifier…” which is further directed to a method of organizing human activity as described in claims 21 and 31, respectively. Similar to claims 21 and 31, the recitation does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, or significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims do not add any additional elements to evaluate at Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
Dependent Claims 25 and 35 recite “…receiving the scanning data… “ which is further directed to a method of organizing human activity as described in claims 21 and 31, respectively. Similar to claims 21 and 31, the recitation does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, or significantly more than the abstract idea. Further, the recitation of “a wearable device” is another computer component recited at a high-level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Similar to claims 21 and 31, the recitation does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, or significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims do not add any additional elements to evaluate at Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
Dependent Claims 26 and 36 recite, “verifying a location…by comparing the interaction address and the delivery address associated with the unique identifier” which is further directed to a method of organizing human activity as described in claims 21 and 31, respectively. Similar to claims 21 and 31, the recitation does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, or significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims do not add any additional elements to evaluate at Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
Dependent Claims 27 and 37 recite, “generating a verification alert as a function of the verification” which is further directed to a method of organizing human activity as described in claims 21 and 31, respectively. Similar to claims 21 and 31, the recitation does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, or significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims do not add any additional elements to evaluate at Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
Dependent Claims 29 and 37 recite, “authenticating … using a user credential” which is further directed to a method of organizing human activity as described in claims 21 and 31, respectively. Similar to claims 21 and 31, the recitation does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, or significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims do not add any additional elements to evaluate at Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
Dependent Claims 30 and 40 recites, “verify a first location of the location of a first entity of the entity”; and “verify a second location of the location of a second entity of the entity” which are further directed to a method of organizing human activity as described in claims 21 and 31, respectively. Similar to claims 21 and 31, the recitation does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, or significantly more than the abstract idea. Further, the recitation of “at least a processor” is another computer component recited at a high-level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Similar to claims 21 and 31, the recitation does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, or significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims do not add any additional elements to evaluate at Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
Dependent Claims 22-30 and 32-40 have been given the full two part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. Dependent Claims 22-30 and 32-40, when analyzed individually, and in combination, are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The dependent claims fail to establish that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the additional recited limitations of the dependent claims merely further narrow the abstract idea of the independent claims. The dependent claims recite no additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Simply implementing the abstract idea on generic computer components is not a practical application of the judicial exception and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 21, 23-27, 29, 31, 33-37, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gillen et al. (US PG Pub. 20170323259 A1) in view of Venkat (US PG Pub. 20210342781 A1).
As per claim 21, Gillen et al. discloses a method of verifying a location of an entity, wherein the method comprises:
receiving, using at least a processor, communication data related to a user and third party and wherein the communication data identifies a delivery address pertaining to an entity (Gillen et al.: [0082],[0089] In example embodiments, a customer may register and/or establish a customer profile with a carrier indicating that a delivery address (or pick up address) associated with the customer (e.g., a home address, office address, and/or other address that items shipped to the customer may be delivered to the customer) has a service point device 117 located thereat);
receiving, using the at least a processor, a unique identifier, wherein the unique identifier is associated with the delivery address (Gillen et al.: [0076] In one embodiment, the carrier/transporter computing entity 100 can store information/data associated with each service point in an object or other data structure. The object or data structure may comprise a variety of information/data associated with each service point, such as a consignee name, pickup or delivery identifier, street name, street number, street prefix, street suffix, street type, city, state, province, territory, country, postal code, residential or commercial indicator, street classification, directionals (e.g., one way <specific to which way> or both ways), longitude and latitude, geocode, location identifier, and/or the like); and (Gillen et al.: [0088]-[0089] In one embodiment, in addition to the physical addresses, the customer (e.g., operating a customer computing device 110) may also input, request, or be automatically generated and assigned a “virtual address.” The virtual address can be a combination of alphanumeric characters to identify a customer or customer profile. The virtual address can be stored by the carrier/transporter computing entity 100 in association with the customer's profile);
receiving using the at least a processor, from a remote device, an interaction address corresponding to the delivery address (Gillen et al.: [0128] In some embodiments, said apparatus is implemented as a portable electronic device that is carried by a courier that delivers a package into a garage of said venue; wherein said location-determining unit comprises a Global Positioning System (GPS) component, and further comprises a camera configured to scan a unique label that is located on or near an external side of the garage door of a particular venue)
Gillen et al. does not explicitly disclose, however, Venkat discloses:
determining, using the at least a processor, if the interaction address received from the remote device matches the delivery address by authenticating the unique identifier wherein authenticating the unique identifier further comprises: (Venkat : [0039] The unique identifier can be written or printed on the parcel. Alternatively, a sticker including the barcode of the unique identifier can adhere to the parcel. The courier company can retrieve the current mailing address associated with the unique identifier, at step 420. The courier company can send a query to the system, wherein the query can include the unique identifier and authentication details. The courier company can either manually note the unique identifier from the parcel and feed the same into their system or scan the unique identifier. It is a known process, wherein the courier company can apply their barcodes for tracking the parcel. Based on the retrieved current mailing address, the parcel can be routed to the distribution point, at step 430. The parcel can be scanned during transit at intermediate stations for tracking the parcel, at step 440. At one or more of such stations, the mailing address of the parcel can be matched with the current mailing address in the system, at step 450. A check can be made at step 460 if the mailing address of the parcel matches the current address in the system. In case, the match fails, the parcel can be rerouted to the new address, at step 470. In case, the match is true at step 460, the parcel can be delivered to the mailing address, at step 480).
receiving a scanning data relating to the unique identifier (Venkat: [0039] The unique identifier can be written or printed on the parcel. Alternatively, a sticker including the barcode of the unique identifier can adhere to the parcel. The courier company can retrieve the current mailing address associated with the unique identifier, at step 420. The courier company can send a query to the system, wherein the query can include the unique identifier and authentication details. The courier company can either manually note the unique identifier from the parcel and feed the same into their system or scan the unique identifier. It is a known process, wherein the courier company can apply their barcodes for tracking the parcel. Based on the retrieved current mailing address, the parcel can be routed to the distribution point, at step 430. The parcel can be scanned during transit at intermediate stations for tracking the parcel, at step 440. At one or more of such stations, the mailing address of the parcel can be matched with the current mailing address in the system, at step 450. A check can be made at step 460 if the mailing address of the parcel matches the current address in the system. In case, the match fails, the parcel can be rerouted to the new address, at step 470. In case, the match is true at step 460, the parcel can be delivered to the mailing address, at step 480.);
comparing the scanning data relating to the unique identifier to the unique identifier associated with the delivery address (Venkat: [0039] At one or more of such stations, the mailing address of the parcel can be matched with the current mailing address in the system, at step 450. A check can be made at step 460 if the mailing address of the parcel matches the current address in the system); and
authenticating the interaction address as a function of the comparison (Venkat: [0039} The courier company can retrieve the current mailing address associated with the unique identifier, at step 420. The courier company can send a query to the system, wherein the query can include the unique identifier and authentication details). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the location verification system of Gillen et al. to include the comparison of scanning data related to the unique identifier as taught by Venkat since the unique identifier can be easily shared and stored like a mobile number; and being lesser in characters than a complete mailing address, the unique identifier takes less memory and does not require multiple fields to store the address (Venkat: [0035])
As per claims 23 and 33, Gillen et al. in view of Venkat discloses the method and system of claims 21 and 31, respectively. Gillen et al. does not further disclose, however, in Venkat discloses:
verifying, using the at least a processor, the delivery address by comparing communication data and the delivery address associated with the unique identifier stored in the memory (Venkat: [0039] The unique identifier can be written or printed on the parcel. Alternatively, a sticker including the barcode of the unique identifier can adhere to the parcel. The courier company can retrieve the current mailing address associated with the unique identifier, at step 420. The courier company can send a query to the system, wherein the query can include the unique identifier and authentication details. The courier company can either manually note the unique identifier from the parcel and feed the same into their system or scan the unique identifier. It is a known process, wherein the courier company can apply their barcodes for tracking the parcel. Based on the retrieved current mailing address, the parcel can be routed to the distribution point, at step 430. The parcel can be scanned during transit at intermediate stations for tracking the parcel, at step 440. At one or more of such stations, the mailing address of the parcel can be matched with the current mailing address in the system, at step 450. A check can be made at step 460 if the mailing address of the parcel matches the current address in the system. In case, the match fails, the parcel can be rerouted to the new address, at step 470. In case, the match is true at step 460, the parcel can be delivered to the mailing address, at step 480). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the location verification system of Gillen et al. to include the comparison of scanning data related to the unique identifier as taught by Venkat since the unique identifier can be easily shared and stored like a mobile number; and being lesser in characters than a complete mailing address, the unique identifier takes less memory and does not require multiple fields to store the address (Venkat: [0035])
As per claims 24 and 34, Gillen et al. in view of Venkat discloses the method and system of claims 21 and 31, respectively. Gillen et al. further discloses wherein the communication data further comprises an instruction for delivery (Gillen et al.: [0088] That is, each item/shipment the item/shipment is handled by carrier personnel, a user computing entity 120 (in communication with the carrier/transporter computing entity 100) operated by the carrier personnel can cause display of the appropriate handling or routing instructions while masking the actual physical delivery address. In other embodiments, however, once the item/shipment with the virtual address is inducted into the carrier's transportation and logistics network, carrier personnel may place a label on the item/shipment that indicates the physical); and Gillen et al.: [0091] In one embodiment, once a customer profile has been created by the carrier/transporter computing entity 100, the customer (e.g., operating a customer computing device 110) can provide various preferences associated with the customer delivery program to the carrier/transporter computing entity 100 via an interface, for example. For instance, the customer (e.g., operating a customer computing device 110) can provide a variety of preferences, such as communication preferences, service schedule preferences, delivery preferences, delivery options, remote activation preferences, and/or delivery instructions).
As per claims 25 and 35, Gillen et al. in view of Venkat discloses the method and system of claims 21 and 31, respectively. Gillen et al. further discloses, wherein receiving the scanning data further comprises receiving the scanning data from a wearable device (Gillen et al.: FIG. 1[100][110][120]; and [0037] In general, the terms computing entity, computer, entity, device, system, and/or similar words used herein interchangeably may refer to, for example, one or more computers, computing entities, desktops, mobile phones, tablets, phablets, notebooks, laptops, distributed systems, gaming consoles (e.g., Xbox, Play Station, Wii), watches, glasses, iBeacons, proximity beacons, key fobs, radio frequency identification (RFID) tags, ear pieces, scanners, televisions, dongles, cameras, wristbands, kiosks, input terminals, servers or server networks, blades, gateways, switches, processing devices, processing entities, set-top boxes, relays, routers, network access points, base stations, the like, and/or any combination of devices or entities adapted to perform the functions, operations, and/or processes described herein. Such functions, operations, and/or processes may include, for example, transmitting, receiving, operating on, processing, displaying, storing, determining, creating/generating, monitoring, evaluating, comparing, and/or similar terms used herein interchangeably. In one embodiment, these functions, operations, and/or processes can be performed on data, content, information, and/or similar terms used herein interchangeably); [0061].
As per claims 26 and 36, Gillen et al. in view of Venkat discloses the method and system of claims 21 and 31, respectively. Gillen et al. discloses:
verifying, using the at least a processor, a location of the remote device by comparing the interaction address and the delivery address associated with the unique identifier (Gillen et al.: [0097] . For example, the user computing entity 120 may collect data indicating the commencement or completion of a delivery at a service point. This may be based on service events (e.g., scan item, receiving consignee signature and the like), a sensed location of the user computing entity 120 (e.g., location within threshold distance of service point, entering/exiting geo-fence) and/or input received from the service provider (e.g., input indicating commencement or completion). By comparing this progress data against the dispatch plan, the carrier/transporter computing entity 100 and/or the user computing entity 120 can determine the progress of the delivery process… Similarly, telematics data indicating the starting of the vehicle (e.g., engine start, threshold speed, seat belt on) combined with location data being within a threshold distance of a predetermined service point may indicate the completion of a service point. In various embodiments, the location data and the contextual data may be matched through a common data element (e.g., a time stamp from GPS).
As per claims 27 and 37, Gillen et al. in view of Venkat discloses the method and system of claims 21 and 31, respectively. Gillen et al. further discloses:
generating, using the at least a processor, a verification alert as a function of the verification (Gillen et al.: [0138] If a scheduled communication is not received and/or a characteristic of the communication does not match expectations, an alert may be provided. For example, if the signal strength of a received scheduled communication is significantly different than a previously received communication, it may be determined that a characteristic of the communication does not match expectations. Some example characteristics of the communication may be signal strength, a location of the item 102 (e.g., geophysical coordinates) provided in the communication, the absence or change of the item 102 in an image captured by the imaging device 158, and/or the like).
As per claims 29 and 39, Gillen et al. in view of Venkat discloses the method and system of claims 21 and 31, respectively. Gillen et al. further discloses:
authenticating, using the at least a processor, the remote device using a user credential
(Gillen et al.: [0122] The customer may further indicate the location of the accessible location at the service point (e.g., at back door, on front porch, in garage, and/or the like). In some embodiments, the customer may further provide any information/data needed to access the accessible location (e.g., a gate code, a garage door code, and/or the like. In an example embodiment, the customer may provide permission through the customer computing entity 110 (e.g., the doorbell application operating thereon and/or the like) or the interior interface 162 for the garage door, for example, to be opened by the service point device 117 in response to the remote activation request and/or the authentication thereof).
As per claim 31, Gillen et al. discloses a location verification system, wherein location verification system comprises:
at least a processor (Gillen et al.: [0006]; Fig. 2)); and
a memory communicatively connected to the at least a processor, wherein the memory contains instructions configuring the at least a processor (Gillen et a.: [0006]; Fig. 2) to:
receive, communication data related to a user and third party and wherein the communication data identifies a delivery address pertaining to an entity (Gillen et al.: [0082] In example embodiments, a customer may register and/or establish a customer profile with a carrier indicating that a delivery address (or pick up address) associated with the customer (e.g., a home address, office address, and/or other address that items shipped to the customer may be delivered to the customer) has a service point device 117 located thereat);
receive, a unique identifier, wherein the unique identifier is associated with the delivery address (Gillen et al.: [0076] In one embodiment, the carrier/transporter computing entity 100 can store information/data associated with each service point in an object or other data structure. The object or data structure may comprise a variety of information/data associated with each service point, such as a consignee name, pickup or delivery identifier, street name, street number, street prefix, street suffix, street type, city, state, province, territory, country, postal code, residential or commercial indicator, street classification, directionals (e.g., one way <specific to which way> or both ways), longitude and latitude, geocode, location identifier, and/or the like);
receive, from a remote device, an interaction address corresponding to the delivery address (Gillen et al.: [0128] In some embodiments, said apparatus is implemented as a portable electronic device that is carried by a courier that delivers a package into a garage of said venue; wherein said location-determining unit comprises a Global Positioning System (GPS) component, and further comprises a camera configured to scan a unique label that is located on or near an external side of the garage door of a particular venue)
Gillen et al. does not explicitly disclose, however, Venkat discloses:
determine, if the interaction address received from the remote device matches the delivery address by authenticating the unique identifier wherein authenticating the unique identifier further comprises: (Venkat : [0039] The unique identifier can be written or printed on the parcel. Alternatively, a sticker including the barcode of the unique identifier can adhere to the parcel. The courier company can retrieve the current mailing address associated with the unique identifier, at step 420. The courier company can send a query to the system, wherein the query can include the unique identifier and authentication details. The courier company can either manually note the unique identifier from the parcel and feed the same into their system or scan the unique identifier. It is a known process, wherein the courier company can apply their barcodes for tracking the parcel. Based on the retrieved current mailing address, the parcel can be routed to the distribution point, at step 430. The parcel can be scanned during transit at intermediate stations for tracking the parcel, at step 440. At one or more of such stations, the mailing address of the parcel can be matched with the current mailing address in the system, at step 450. A check can be made at step 460 if the mailing address of the parcel matches the current address in the system. In case, the match fails, the parcel can be rerouted to the new address, at step 470. In case, the match is true at step 460, the parcel can be delivered to the mailing address, at step 480).
receiving a scanning data relating to the unique identifier (Venkat: [0039] The unique identifier can be written or printed on the parcel. Alternatively, a sticker including the barcode of the unique identifier can adhere to the parcel. The courier company can retrieve the current mailing address associated with the unique identifier, at step 420. The courier company can send a query to the system, wherein the query can include the unique identifier and authentication details. The courier company can either manually note the unique identifier from the parcel and feed the same into their system or scan the unique identifier. It is a known process, wherein the courier company can apply their barcodes for tracking the parcel. Based on the retrieved current mailing address, the parcel can be routed to the distribution point, at step 430. The parcel can be scanned during transit at intermediate stations for tracking the parcel, at step 440. At one or more of such stations, the mailing address of the parcel can be matched with the current mailing address in the system, at step 450. A check can be made at step 460 if the mailing address of the parcel matches the current address in the system. In case, the match fails, the parcel can be rerouted to the new address, at step 470. In case, the match is true at step 460, the parcel can be delivered to the mailing address, at step 480.);
comparing the scanning data relating to the unique identifier to the unique identifier associated with the delivery address (Venkat: [0039] At one or more of such stations, the mailing address of the parcel can be matched with the current mailing address in the system, at step 450. A check can be made at step 460 if the mailing address of the parcel matches the current address in the system); and
authenticating the interaction address as a function of the comparison (Venkat: [0039] The courier company can retrieve the current mailing address associated with the unique identifier, at step 420. The courier company can send a query to the system, wherein the query can include the unique identifier and authentication details). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the location verification system of Gillen et al. to include the comparison of scanning data related to the unique identifier as taught by Venkat since the unique identifier can be easily shared and stored like a mobile number; and being lesser in characters than a complete mailing address, the unique identifier takes less memory and does not require multiple fields to store the address (Venkat: [0035])
As per claims 30 and 40, Gillen et al. in view of Venkat discloses the method and system of claims 21 and 31, respectively. Gillen et al. further discloses:
verifying, using at least a processor, a first location of the location of a first entity of the entity (Gillen et al.: [0122] The customer may further indicate the location of the accessible location at the service point (e.g., at back door, on front porch, in garage, and/or the like). In some embodiments, the customer may further provide any information/data needed to access the accessible location (e.g., a gate code, a garage door code, and/or the like. In an example embodiment, the customer may provide permission through the customer computing entity 110 (e.g., the doorbell application operating thereon and/or the like) or the interior interface 162 for the garage door, for example, to be opened by the service point device 117 in response to the remote activation request and/or the authentication thereof); and
verifying, using at least a processor, a second location of the location of a second entity of the entity(Gillen et al.: [0122] The customer may further indicate the location of the accessible location at the service point (e.g., at back door, on front porch, in garage, and/or the like). In some embodiments, the customer may further provide any information/data needed to access the accessible location (e.g., a gate code, a garage door code, and/or the like. In an example embodiment, the customer may provide permission through the customer computing entity 110 (e.g., the doorbell application operating thereon and/or the like) or the interior interface 162 for the garage door, for example, to be opened by the service point device 117 in response to the remote activation request and/or the authentication thereof).
Claims 22 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gillen et al. (US PG Pub. 20170323259 A1) in view of Venkat (US PG Pub. 20170248435 A1) as applied to claim 21 and 31 above and in further view of Shinar et al. (US PG Pub. 2019/0342702 A1).
As per claims 22 and 32, Gillen et al. in view of Venkat discloses the method and system of claims 21 and 32. Gillen et al. further discloses wherein the unique identifier is attached to a door located at the delivery address (Shinar et al. : [0111] For example, in some embodiments, virtually any carrier or shipping provider may show up in front of any home, and as long as they can scan the barcode or QR code that is printed on the shipping label and/or the garage door itself, together with verification of the current location of the carrier, may enable such carrier to locally generate a wireless RF signal directly via a single CRC unit that can be used by the carrier to serve thousands of customers and that is dynamically configured on the fly and automatically to open (and close) numerous types of garage doors); also see [0038],[0043]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the location verification system of Gillen et al. to include the barcodes on doors as taught by Shinar et al. to provide a variety of location verifications for delivery.
Claims 28 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gillen et al. (US PG Pub. 20170323259 A1) in view of Venkat (US PG Pub. 20170248435 A1) as applied to claim 21 and 31 above and in further view of Nelson et al. (US PG Pub. 20150294262 A1).
As per claims 28 and 38, Gillen et al. in view of Venkat discloses the method and system of claims 21 and 31. Gillen et al. in view of Venkat does not explicitly disclose, however Nelson et al. discloses wherein the scanning data is selected from the group consisting of: a time of a scan, device ID, a photograph, and a message (Nelson et al.: [0076] For example, the item/shipment identifier may be automatically scanned by a barcode or MaxiCode device, an RFID interrogator, by a camera controller, or by a carrier employee using a handheld device (e.g., user computing entity 105) … In one embodiment, each time the item/shipment identifier is scanned or read, an appropriate device can transmit the item/shipment identifier and other appropriate information/data (e.g., location and time of the scan or reading) to the carrier system 100 and/or retailer system/third party system 125. The carrier system 100 and/or retailer system/third party system 125 can then receive and use the information/data to track the item as it is transported though the carrier's transportation and logistics network and update the shipping information/data accordingly). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the location verification system of Gillen et al. in view Venkat’s scanning data to include the scanning data including the time of a scan in order to provide readable options since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the 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 were predictable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1) “6 Way To Do Address Validation and Address Verification”, 12 May 2021, geoapify.com, 14 pages discloses address validation and address verification are two complementary processes used to ensure the quality and accuracy of address data; and together, they help businesses reduce errors, avoid failed deliveries, and improve overall data reliability.
2) Dhar, Divya, “How to enable deliveries to people and places without traditional addresses”, October 19, 2020, mapsplatform.google.com, 7 pages discloses billions of people don't have a precise address, which can make it difficult for them to receive deliveries; and some people with an address may prefer to accept deliveries at more specific locations, such as a back entrance or a loading dock. Google developed Plus Codes to bridge these addressing gaps and give the benefit of addresses to everyone and everything.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FREDA A. NELSON whose telephone number is (571)272-7076. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10:00am - 6:30pm.
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.
/F.A.N/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/SHANNON S CAMPBELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights