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 .
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.
Novel/Non-Obvious Subject Matter
Examiner has determined that claims 2-7, 9-10, 12-13, 16, and 19-20 of Applicant’s claims have overcome having prior art rejections. The reason for this is that Examiner does not believe that, at the time of Applicant’s priority date, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine prior art disclosures to result in the particular combinations of elements/limitations in the claims, including the particular configurations of the elements/limitations with respect to each other in the particular combinations, without the use of impermissible hindsight.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: In the last line of claim 3, please remove the comma before the period to correct an apparent typographical error.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per Claim(s) 1, Claim(s) 1 recite(s):
- receiving a request for delivery of a physical item to a non-stationary entity;
- obtaining, responsive to the receiving the request, first positional information comprising a location of the non-stationary entity, the first positional information obtained from a service provider monitoring a positional status of the non-stationary entity;
- determining a pattern of movement of the non-stationary entity based on the first positional information;
- determining an indication that the non-stationary entity is able to receive the physical item from a delivery vehicle while moving;
- determining a delivery strategy according to the pattern of movement and the indication that the non-stationary entity is able to receive the physical item while moving.
Each of the above limitations falls within the abstract-idea category of “Certain methods of organizing human activity.” Specifically, those limitations relate to the following subject matter that is grouped into the category of “Certain methods of organizing human activity”:
- commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations): plans shipping, which encompasses a commonly commercial activity;
- managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions): manages interactions between a shipping service provider and a recipient, both of which may involve people.
To the extent that any of these limitations are recited alongside recitations of generic computer components, as described below in this rejection: If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers subject matter recognized as certain methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim(s) recite the following additional elements/limitations, each of which are addressed in the list below with the reason(s) why they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
- a processing system including a processor; a non-stationary entity: These element(s)/limitation(s) amount to mere instructions to apply an exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In making this determination, examiners may consider whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Mere instructions to apply an exception is a consideration with respect to both integration of an abstract idea into a practical application and significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) states: “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 provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).” This is the case with these particular claim element(s)/limitation(s). Those elements/limitations do not meaningfully limit the claim because implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. Therefore, these particular claim element(s)/limitation(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for at least this reason.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim(s) are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, either individually or as an ordered combination. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of computer-related components amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claim(s) are not patent eligible.
As per dependent claim(s) 2 and 5-10, these claim(s) incorporate the above abstract idea via their dependencies on the respective independent claim(s). The additional element(s)/limitation(s) of the respective independent claim(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they add significantly more, with respect to those dependent claim(s), under the same reasoning as above with respect to the respective independent claim(s).
Those dependent claim(s) add the following generic computer components, which do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor add significantly more, under the same reasoning as given above with respect to generic computer components in the independent claim(s). Those additional generic computer components and their corresponding dependent claim(s) are as follows:
- a mobile communication device operating within a physical environment (claim 2);
- mobile network operator (claim 2);
- self-sovereign identity (claim 5).
The remaining added elements/limitations of those dependent claim(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor add significantly more because they all merely add further functional step(s) and/or detail to the abstract idea; as part of the abstract idea, they cannot integrate into a practical application or be significantly more than the abstract idea of which they are a part. For example, the remaining portion of claim 9 merely adds two more steps to the abstract idea.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor add significantly more. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 5-10 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application and is without significantly more.
Claim(s) 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per Claim(s) 11, Claim(s) 11 recite(s):
- obtaining first positional information comprising a location of a non-stationary entity having a unique identifier and mobile within an environment, the first positional information obtained from a service provider monitoring a positional status of the non-stationary entity;
- determining a pattern of movement of the non-stationary entity based on the first positional information;
- determining an indication that the non-stationary entity is able to receive a physical item while moving;
- determining a delivery strategy according to the pattern of movement and the indication that the non-stationary entity is able to receive the physical item while moving.
Each of the above limitations falls within the abstract-idea category of “Certain methods of organizing human activity.” Specifically, those limitations relate to the following subject matter that is grouped into the category of “Certain methods of organizing human activity”:
- commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations): plans shipping, which encompasses a commonly commercial activity;
- managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions): manages interactions between a shipping service provider and a recipient, both of which may involve people.
To the extent that any of these limitations are recited alongside recitations of generic computer components, as described below in this rejection: If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers subject matter recognized as certain methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim(s) recite the following additional elements/limitations, each of which are addressed in the list below with the reason(s) why they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
- a system, comprising: a processing system including a processor; and a memory that stores executable instructions thereon that, when executed by the processing system, cause the processing system to perform operations; a non-stationary entity: These element(s)/limitation(s) amount to mere instructions to apply an exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In making this determination, examiners may consider whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Mere instructions to apply an exception is a consideration with respect to both integration of an abstract idea into a practical application and significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) states: “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 provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).” This is the case with these particular claim element(s)/limitation(s). Those elements/limitations do not meaningfully limit the claim because implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. Therefore, these particular claim element(s)/limitation(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for at least this reason.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim(s) are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, either individually or as an ordered combination. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of computer-related components amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claim(s) are not patent eligible.
As per dependent claim(s) 12-16, these claim(s) incorporate the above abstract idea via their dependencies on the respective independent claim(s). The additional element(s)/limitation(s) of the respective independent claim(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they add significantly more, with respect to those dependent claim(s), under the same reasoning as above with respect to the respective independent claim(s).
Those dependent claim(s) add the following generic computer components, which do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor add significantly more, under the same reasoning as given above with respect to generic computer components in the independent claim(s). Those additional generic computer components and their corresponding dependent claim(s) are as follows:
- a mobile communication device operating within a physical environment (claim 12);
- a mobile network operator (claim 12);
- a self-sovereign identity (claim 13);
- a mobile communication device in communication with a mobile network (claim 14);
- wherein the mobile network is adapted to support wireless communications to the mobile communication device via a licensed spectrum (claim 16).
(NOTE: Claim 15 communicates with a vehicle via the mobile network to provide information. The fact that the output here is a vehicle does not render eligibility because this amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of insignificant application. The vehicle here is not actually being controlled by the system but is just an endpoint for receiving information. In addition, there is Berkheimer evidence for Step 2B of this part of the 101 analysis, showing that communicating with a vehicle via the mobile network to provide information is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. See Kang, US 20160082952 A1, the BACKGROUND section, paragraphs [0001]-[0003]. For example, paragraph [0002] states: “Many vehicles are now equipped with telematics systems in which digital data is communicated both to and from the vehicle. With these systems, it is possible to send remote commands over data networks. In a typical telematics system, a data communications module (DCM) in the vehicle is configured to transmit or receive data using a cellular or other type of mobile network.” Therefore, this feature does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.)
The remaining added elements/limitations of those dependent claim(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor add significantly more because they all merely add further functional step(s) and/or detail to the abstract idea; as part of the abstract idea, they cannot integrate into a practical application or be significantly more than the abstract idea of which they are a part. For example, the remaining portion of claim 13 merely adds a data model in virtual space.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor add significantly more. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Claim(s) 11-16 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application and is without significantly more.
Claim(s) 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per Claim(s) 17, Claim(s) 17 recite(s):
- obtaining first positional information comprising a location of a non-stationary entity mobile within an environment, the first positional information obtained from a service provider monitoring a positional status of the non-stationary entity;
- determining a pattern of movement of the non-stationary entity based on the first positional information;
- determining an indication that the non-stationary entity is able to receive a physical item while moving;
- determining a delivery strategy according to the pattern of movement and the indication that the non-stationary entity is able to receive the physical item while moving.
Each of the above limitations falls within the abstract-idea category of “Certain methods of organizing human activity.” Specifically, those limitations relate to the following subject matter that is grouped into the category of “Certain methods of organizing human activity”:
- commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations): plans shipping, which encompasses a commonly commercial activity;
- managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions): manages interactions between a shipping service provider and a recipient, both of which may involve people.
To the extent that any of these limitations are recited alongside recitations of generic computer components, as described below in this rejection: If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers subject matter recognized as certain methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim(s) recite the following additional elements/limitations, each of which are addressed in the list below with the reason(s) why they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
- a non-transitory, machine-readable medium, storing executable instructions thereon that, when executed by a processing system including a processor, cause the processing system to perform operations; a non-stationary entity mobile within an environment: These element(s)/limitation(s) amount to mere instructions to apply an exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In making this determination, examiners may consider whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Mere instructions to apply an exception is a consideration with respect to both integration of an abstract idea into a practical application and significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) states: “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 provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).” This is the case with these particular claim element(s)/limitation(s). Those elements/limitations do not meaningfully limit the claim because implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. Therefore, these particular claim element(s)/limitation(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for at least this reason.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim(s) are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, either individually or as an ordered combination. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of computer-related components amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claim(s) are not patent eligible.
As per dependent claim(s) 18-20, these claim(s) incorporate the above abstract idea via their dependencies on the respective independent claim(s). The additional element(s)/limitation(s) of the respective independent claim(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they add significantly more, with respect to those dependent claim(s), under the same reasoning as above with respect to the respective independent claim(s).
Those dependent claim(s) add the following generic computer components, which do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor add significantly more, under the same reasoning as given above with respect to generic computer components in the independent claim(s). Those additional generic computer components and their corresponding dependent claim(s) are as follows:
- a mobile communication device operating within a physical environment (claim 18);
- a mobile network operator (claim 18).
The remaining added elements/limitations of those dependent claim(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor add significantly more because they all merely add further functional step(s) and/or detail to the abstract idea; as part of the abstract idea, they cannot integrate into a practical application or be significantly more than the abstract idea of which they are a part. For example, the remaining portion of claim 19 merely adds a data model in virtual space.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor add significantly more. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Claim(s) 17-20 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application and is without significantly more.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 8, 11, 14-15, and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hodges, US 20200051000 A1, in view of Splaine, US 20160323706 A1, in further view of Rephlo, US 20190035182 A1, in further view of Prakash, US 20160196756 A1.
As per Claim 1, Hodges discloses:
- a method (paragraph [0003] (“In one embodiment, by way of example only, a method for managing real time parcel delivery in an internet of things (IoT) computing environment, again by a processor, is provided.”));
- receiving, by a processing system including a processor, a request for delivery of a physical item to a non-stationary entity (paragraph [0015] (most of paragraph); paragraph [0016] (most of paragraph); paragraph [0019] (most of paragraph); paragraph [0069] (most of paragraph));
- obtaining, by the processing system and responsive to the receiving the request, first positional information comprising a location of the non-stationary entity (paragraph [0018] (“In one aspect, for managing real time parcel delivery in an IoT computing environment, the present invention may dynamically and/or automatically detect a recipient of a parcel that is “in route” and scheduled for delivery is no longer at the scheduled location for receiving the package. As such, the present invention may automatically locate the use via one or more IoT computing device (e.g., GPS tracking) and identify and/or recommend (e.g., intelligently/cognitively identifying and recommending) to the recipient, the delivery service, or both one or more intercepting points.”); paragraph [0077] (“In step 4), using the recipient's location services (e.g., using an IoT computing device to identify the location of the recipient), all possible intercept locations available to the recipient's current location may be identified, learned, and/or sorted them by time to intercept.”); paragraph [0083] (some of paragraph));
- determining, by the processing system, a pattern of movement of the non-stationary entity based on the first positional information (paragraph [0020] (“In an additional aspect, the present invention may learn of one or more scheduled deliveries (e.g., a subscription service where one or more parcels are delivered on a timed schedule) and also learn and/or predict one or more behavior patterns and/or activities of daily living (“ADL”) of a recipient.”); paragraph [0023] (whole paragraph); paragraph [0070] (“Also, the interception location component 440 may detect (in association with or independent from parsing the calendar) that the recipient 408 is located at interception location 404 (which may be an exercise facility).”; “Using the collected feedback, the interception location component 440 may arrange and coordinate the time and location 404 suitable to both the recipient and the delivery service for delivering the package.”); paragraph [0072] (most of paragraph));
- determining, by the processing system, a delivery strategy according to the pattern of movement (paragraph [0020] (“In an additional aspect, the present invention may learn of one or more scheduled deliveries (e.g., a subscription service where one or more parcels are delivered on a timed schedule) and also learn and/or predict one or more behavior patterns and/or activities of daily living (“ADL”) of a recipient.”; “Thus, the present invention may manage managing real time parcel delivery in an IoT computing environment by recommending one or more intercepting points and/one or more preapproved/authorized third party recipients for the recipient to receive the delivery upon detecting/determining the originally scheduled delivery service conflicts with the learned/predicted behavior patterns of the user and/or delivery patterns of each driver/vehicle of a delivery service.”); paragraph [0023] (whole paragraph); paragraph [0070] (“Also, the interception location component 440 may detect (in association with or independent from parsing the calendar) that the recipient 408 is located at interception location 404 (which may be an exercise facility).”; “Using the collected feedback, the interception location component 440 may arrange and coordinate the time and location 404 suitable to both the recipient and the delivery service for delivering the package.”); paragraph [0072] (most of paragraph)).
Hodges fails to disclose the positional information obtained from a service provider monitoring a positional status of the entity. Splaine discloses the positional information obtained from a service provider monitoring a positional status of the entity (paragraph [0030] (most of paragraph)). 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 invention of Hodges such that the positional information is obtained from a service provider monitoring a positional status of the entity, as disclosed by Splaine, 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.
The modified Hodges fails to disclose wherein a delivery strategy requires a delivery vehicle docking on a docking station, associated with the non-stationary entity, for the non-stationary entity to be able to receive the physical item from the delivery vehicle while moving. Rephlo discloses wherein a delivery strategy requires a delivery vehicle docking on a docking station, associated with the non-stationary entity, for the non-stationary entity to be able to receive the physical item from the delivery vehicle while moving (paragraph [0119] (most of paragraph); claim 22). 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 invention of the modified Hodges such that a delivery strategy requires a delivery vehicle docking on a docking station, associated with the non-stationary entity, for the non-stationary entity to be able to receive the physical item from the delivery vehicle while moving, as disclosed by Rephlo, 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.
The modified Hodges fails to disclose determining, by the processing system, an indication that the delivery vehicle is able to dock on a docking station while the docking station is moving; determining, by the processing system, a delivery strategy according to the indication that the delivery vehicle is able to dock on a docking station while the docking station is moving. Prakash discloses determining, by the processing system, an indication that the delivery vehicle is able to dock on a docking station while the docking station is moving (paragraph [0117] (“Further, the processor may communicate with the vehicle devices to obtain information about the location and destination of each vehicle, their receptivity to UAV docking, and so on.”); paragraph [0118] (“Non-exhaustive and non-limiting examples of additional information include: the current speed of the vehicle; the type of docking station that the vehicle is equipped with; whether the vehicles is willing to make small deviations in its course or route to allow the delivery vehicle to dock; whether the vehicle is willing to slow down to allow the delivery UAV to dock; environmental conditions (e.g., wind speed, rain, obstructions, tunnels, etc.); the maximum UAV weight and/or size the candidate vehicle may accept; the package weight; the package size; the UAV weight; the UAV dimensions; the lading conditions of the UAV (laden/unladen); and other information.”); paragraph [0119] (most of paragraph); paragraph [0120] (whole paragraph); paragraph [0121] (some of paragraph)); determining, by the processing system, a delivery strategy according to the indication that the delivery vehicle is able to dock on a docking station while the docking station is moving (paragraph [0117] (“Further, the processor may communicate with the vehicle devices to obtain information about the location and destination of each vehicle, their receptivity to UAV docking, and so on.”); paragraph [0118] (“Non-exhaustive and non-limiting examples of additional information include: the current speed of the vehicle; the type of docking station that the vehicle is equipped with; whether the vehicles is willing to make small deviations in its course or route to allow the delivery vehicle to dock; whether the vehicle is willing to slow down to allow the delivery UAV to dock; environmental conditions (e.g., wind speed, rain, obstructions, tunnels, etc.); the maximum UAV weight and/or size the candidate vehicle may accept; the package weight; the package size; the UAV weight; the UAV dimensions; the lading conditions of the UAV (laden/unladen); and other information.”); paragraph [0119] (most of paragraph); paragraph [0120] (whole paragraph); paragraph [0121] (some of paragraph)). 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 invention of the modified Hodges such that the invention determines, by the processing system, an indication that the delivery vehicle is able to dock on a docking station while the docking station is moving; and the invention determines, by the processing system, a delivery strategy according to the indication that the delivery vehicle is able to dock on a docking station while the docking station is moving, as disclosed by Prakash, 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.
As per Claim 8, Hodges further discloses detecting, by the processing system, a delivery opportunity based on a separation distance between the non-stationary entity and a delivery vehicle not exceeding a delivery threshold, wherein the delivery vehicle comprises a non-living delivery vehicle, and wherein the first positional information comprises geocoordinates having an accuracy approximating the delivery threshold (paragraph [0017]; paragraph [0018]; paragraphs [0020]-[0021]; paragraph [0077]; paragraph [0083]).
The modified Hodges fails to disclose wherein the location is obtained from a service provider. Splaine further discloses wherein the location is obtained from a service provider (paragraph [0030]). 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 invention of the modified Hodges such that the location is obtained from a service provider, as disclosed by Splaine, 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.
The modified Hodges fails to disclose wherein the delivery opportunity comprises a transfer of the physical item to a mobile user traveling with the non-stationary entity, while the non-stationary entity is moving. Rephlo further discloses wherein the delivery opportunity comprises a transfer of the physical item to a mobile user traveling with the non-stationary entity, while the non-stationary entity is moving (paragraph [0119]; claim 22). 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 invention of the modified Hodges such that the delivery opportunity comprises a transfer of the physical item to a mobile user traveling with the non-stationary entity, while the non-stationary entity is moving, as disclosed by Rephlo, 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.
As per Claim 11, Hodges discloses:
- a system (paragraph [0001] (“The present invention relates in general to computing systems, and more particularly to, various embodiments for managing real time parcel delivery in an internet of things (IoT) computing environment by a processor.”));
- a processing system including a processor (paragraph [0001] (“The present invention relates in general to computing systems, and more particularly to, various embodiments for managing real time parcel delivery in an internet of things (IoT) computing environment by a processor.”));
- a memory that stores executable instructions thereon that, when executed by the processing system, cause the processing system to perform operations (paragraph [0048] (whole paragraph));
- obtaining first positional information comprising a location of a non-stationary entity having a unique identifier and mobile within an environment (paragraph [0018] (“In one aspect, for managing real time parcel delivery in an IoT computing environment, the present invention may dynamically and/or automatically detect a recipient of a parcel that is “in route” and scheduled for delivery is no longer at the scheduled location for receiving the package. As such, the present invention may automatically locate the use via one or more IoT computing device (e.g., GPS tracking) and identify and/or recommend (e.g., intelligently/cognitively identifying and recommending) to the recipient, the delivery service, or both one or more intercepting points.”); paragraph [0069] (“The notification component 470 may notify the delivery service of the one or more intercepting locations (e.g., location 404), a parcel identifier (ID), a name of the recipient (e.g., name of recipient 408), vehicle 406 information associated with the recipient, location information of vehicle 406 and/or one or more IoT computing devices 412 and/or 414 (e.g., smart phone, wearable sensors/smart watch, cameras, or other IoT devices) associated with the recipient 408, location information of the vehicle 406 associated with the recipient, or a combination thereof.”); paragraph [0077] (“In step 4), using the recipient's location services (e.g., using an IoT computing device to identify the location of the recipient), all possible intercept locations available to the recipient's current location may be identified, learned, and/or sorted them by time to intercept.”); paragraph [0083] (some of paragraph));
- determining a pattern of movement of the non-stationary entity based on the first positional information (paragraph [0020] (“In an additional aspect, the present invention may learn of one or more scheduled deliveries (e.g., a subscription service where one or more parcels are delivered on a timed schedule) and also learn and/or predict one or more behavior patterns and/or activities of daily living (“ADL”) of a recipient.”); paragraph [0023] (whole paragraph); paragraph [0070] (“Also, the interception location component 440 may detect (in association with or independent from parsing the calendar) that the recipient 408 is located at interception location 404 (which may be an exercise facility).”; “Using the collected feedback, the interception location component 440 may arrange and coordinate the time and location 404 suitable to both the recipient and the delivery service for delivering the package.”); paragraph [0072] (most of paragraph));
- determining a delivery strategy according to the pattern of movement (paragraph [0020] (“In an additional aspect, the present invention may learn of one or more scheduled deliveries (e.g., a subscription service where one or more parcels are delivered on a timed schedule) and also learn and/or predict one or more behavior patterns and/or activities of daily living (“ADL”) of a recipient.”; “Thus, the present invention may manage managing real time parcel delivery in an IoT computing environment by recommending one or more intercepting points and/one or more preapproved/authorized third party recipients for the recipient to receive the delivery upon detecting/determining the originally scheduled delivery service conflicts with the learned/predicted behavior patterns of the user and/or delivery patterns of each driver/vehicle of a delivery service.”); paragraph [0023] (whole paragraph); paragraph [0070] (“Also, the interception location component 440 may detect (in association with or independent from parsing the calendar) that the recipient 408 is located at interception location 404 (which may be an exercise facility).”; “Using the collected feedback, the interception location component 440 may arrange and coordinate the time and location 404 suitable to both the recipient and the delivery service for delivering the package.”); paragraph [0072] (most of paragraph)).
Hodges fails to disclose the positional information obtained from a service provider monitoring a positional status of the entity. Splaine discloses the positional information obtained from a service provider monitoring a positional status of the entity (paragraph [0030] (most of paragraph)). 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 invention of Hodges such that the positional information is obtained from a service provider monitoring a positional status of the entity, as disclosed by Splaine, 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.
The modified Hodges fails to disclose wherein a delivery strategy requires a delivery vehicle docking on a docking station, associated with the non-stationary entity, for the non-stationary entity to be able to receive the physical item from the delivery vehicle while moving. Rephlo discloses wherein a delivery strategy requires a delivery vehicle docking on a docking station, associated with the non-stationary entity, for the non-stationary entity to be able to receive the physical item from the delivery vehicle while moving (paragraph [0119] (most of paragraph); claim 22). 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 invention of the modified Hodges such that a delivery strategy requires a delivery vehicle docking on a docking station, associated with the non-stationary entity, for the non-stationary entity to be able to receive the physical item from the delivery vehicle while moving, as disclosed by Rephlo, 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.
The modified Hodges fails to disclose determining an indication that the delivery vehicle is able to dock on a docking station while the docking station is moving; determining a delivery strategy according to the indication that the delivery vehicle is able to dock on a docking station while the docking station is moving. Prakash discloses determining an indication that the delivery vehicle is able to dock on a docking station while the docking station is moving (paragraph [0117] (“Further, the processor may communicate with the vehicle devices to obtain information about the location and destination of each vehicle, their receptivity to UAV docking, and so on.”); paragraph [0118] (“Non-exhaustive and non-limiting examples of additional information include: the current speed of the vehicle; the type of docking station that the vehicle is equipped with; whether the vehicles is willing to make small deviations in its course or route to allow the delivery vehicle to dock; whether the vehicle is willing to slow down to allow the delivery UAV to dock; environmental conditions (e.g., wind speed, rain, obstructions, tunnels, etc.); the maximum UAV weight and/or size the candidate vehicle may accept; the package weight; the package size; the UAV weight; the UAV dimensions; the lading conditions of the UAV (laden/unladen); and other information.”); paragraph [0119] (most of paragraph); paragraph [0120] (whole paragraph); paragraph [0121] (some of paragraph)); determining a delivery strategy according to the indication that the delivery vehicle is able to dock on a docking station while the docking station is moving (paragraph [0117] (“Further, the processor may communicate with the vehicle devices to obtain information about the location and destination of each vehicle, their receptivity to UAV docking, and so on.”); paragraph [0118] (“Non-exhaustive and non-limiting examples of additional information include: the current speed of the vehicle; the type of docking station that the vehicle is equipped with; whether the vehicles is willing to make small deviations in its course or route to allow the delivery vehicle to dock; whether the vehicle is willing to slow down to allow the delivery UAV to dock; environmental conditions (e.g., wind speed, rain, obstructions, tunnels, etc.); the maximum UAV weight and/or size the candidate vehicle may accept; the package weight; the package size; the UAV weight; the UAV dimensions; the lading conditions of the UAV (laden/unladen); and other information.”); paragraph [0119] (most of paragraph); paragraph [0120] (whole paragraph); paragraph [0121] (some of paragraph)). 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 invention of the modified Hodges such that the invention determines an indication that the delivery vehicle is able to dock on a docking station while the docking station is moving; and the invention determines a delivery strategy according to the indication that the delivery vehicle is able to dock on a docking station while the docking station is moving, as disclosed by Prakash, 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.
As per Claim 14, Hodges further discloses wherein a delivery vehicle mobile within the environment is adapted to deliver the item, and wherein the delivery vehicle comprises a mobile communication device in communication with a mobile network (Figure 2; paragraph [0016]; paragraph [0055]).
As per Claim 15, Hodges further discloses communicating with the delivery vehicle via the mobile network to provide directions to the delivery vehicle (Figure 2; Figure 4; paragraph [0016]; paragraphs [0017]-[0018]; paragraph [0055]; paragraph [0065]; paragraph [0067]; paragraph [0069]).
As per Claim 17, Hodges discloses:
- a non-transitory, machine-readable medium, storing executable instructions thereon that, when executed by a processing system including a processor, cause the processing system to perform operations (paragraph [0048] (whole paragraph));
- obtaining first positional information comprising a location of a non-stationary entity mobile within an environment (paragraph [0018] (“In one aspect, for managing real time parcel delivery in an IoT computing environment, the present invention may dynamically and/or automatically detect a recipient of a parcel that is “in route” and scheduled for delivery is no longer at the scheduled location for receiving the package. As such, the present invention may automatically locate the use via one or more IoT computing device (e.g., GPS tracking) and identify and/or recommend (e.g., intelligently/cognitively identifying and recommending) to the recipient, the delivery service, or both one or more intercepting points.”); paragraph [0077] (“In step 4), using the recipient's location services (e.g., using an IoT computing device to identify the location of the recipient), all possible intercept locations available to the recipient's current location may be identified, learned, and/or sorted them by time to intercept.”); paragraph [0083] (some of paragraph));
- determining a pattern of movement of the non-stationary entity based on the first positional information (paragraph [0020] (“In an additional aspect, the present invention may learn of one or more scheduled deliveries (e.g., a subscription service where one or more parcels are delivered on a timed schedule) and also learn and/or predict one or more behavior patterns and/or activities of daily living (“ADL”) of a recipient.”); paragraph [0023] (whole paragraph); paragraph [0070] (“Also, the interception location component 440 may detect (in association with or independent from parsing the calendar) that the recipient 408 is located at interception location 404 (which may be an exercise facility).”; “Using the collected feedback, the interception location component 440 may arrange and coordinate the time and location 404 suitable to both the recipient and the delivery service for delivering the package.”); paragraph [0072] (most of paragraph));
- determining a delivery strategy according to the pattern of movement (paragraph [0020] (“In an additional aspect, the present invention may learn of one or more scheduled deliveries (e.g., a subscription service where one or more parcels are delivered on a timed schedule) and also learn and/or predict one or more behavior patterns and/or activities of daily living (“ADL”) of a recipient.”; “Thus, the present invention may manage managing real time parcel delivery in an IoT computing environment by recommending one or more intercepting points and/one or more preapproved/authorized third party recipients for the recipient to receive the delivery upon detecting/determining the originally scheduled delivery service conflicts with the learned/predicted behavior patterns of the user and/or delivery patterns of each driver/vehicle of a delivery service.”); paragraph [0023] (whole paragraph); paragraph [0070] (“Also, the interception location component 440 may detect (in association with or independent from parsing the calendar) that the recipient 408 is located at interception location 404 (which may be an exercise facility).”; “Using the collected feedback, the interception location component 440 may arrange and coordinate the time and location 404 suitable to both the recipient and the delivery service for delivering the package.”); paragraph [0072] (most of paragraph)).
Hodges fails to disclose the positional information obtained from a service provider monitoring a positional status of the entity. Splaine discloses the positional information obtained from a service provider monitoring a positional status of the entity (paragraph [0030] (most of paragraph)). 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 invention of Hodges such that the positional information is obtained from a service provider monitoring a positional status of the entity, as disclosed by Splaine, 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.
The modified Hodges fails to disclose wherein a delivery strategy requires a delivery vehicle docking on a docking station, associated with the non-stationary entity, for the non-stationary entity to be able to receive the physical item from the delivery vehicle while moving. Rephlo discloses wherein a delivery strategy requires a delivery vehicle docking on a docking station, associated with the non-stationary entity, for the non-stationary entity to be able to receive the physical item from the delivery vehicle while moving (paragraph [0119] (most of paragraph); claim 22). 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 invention of the modified Hodges such that a delivery strategy requires a delivery vehicle docking on a docking station, associated with the non-stationary entity, for the non-stationary entity to be able to receive the physical item from the delivery vehicle while moving, as disclosed by Rephlo, 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.
The modified Hodges fails to disclose determining an indication that the delivery vehicle is able to dock on a docking station while the docking station is moving; determining a delivery strategy according to the indication that the delivery vehicle is able to dock on a docking station while the docking station is moving. Prakash discloses determining an indication that the delivery vehicle is able to dock on a docking station while the docking station is moving (paragraph [0117] (“Further, the processor may communicate with the vehicle devices to obtain information about the location and destination of each vehicle, their receptivity to UAV docking, and so on.”); paragraph [0118] (“Non-exhaustive and non-limiting examples of additional information include: the current speed of the vehicle; the type of docking station that the vehicle is equipped with; whether the vehicles is willing to make small deviations in its course or route to allow the delivery vehicle to dock; whether the vehicle is willing to slow down to allow the delivery UAV to dock; environmental conditions (e.g., wind speed, rain, obstructions, tunnels, etc.); the maximum UAV weight and/or size the candidate vehicle may accept; the package weight; the package size; the UAV weight; the UAV dimensions; the lading conditions of the UAV (laden/unladen); and other information.”); paragraph [0119] (most of paragraph); paragraph [0120] (whole paragraph); paragraph [0121] (some of paragraph)); determining a delivery strategy according to the indication that the delivery vehicle is able to dock on a docking station while the docking station is moving (paragraph [0117] (“Further, the processor may communicate with the vehicle devices to obtain information about the location and destination of each vehicle, their receptivity to UAV docking, and so on.”); paragraph [0118] (“Non-exhaustive and non-limiting examples of additional information include: the current speed of the vehicle; the type of docking station that the vehicle is equipped with; whether the vehicles is willing to make small deviations in its course or route to allow the delivery vehicle to dock; whether the vehicle is willing to slow down to allow the delivery UAV to dock; environmental conditions (e.g., wind speed, rain, obstructions, tunnels, etc.); the maximum UAV weight and/or size the candidate vehicle may accept; the package weight; the package size; the UAV weight; the UAV dimensions; the lading conditions of the UAV (laden/unladen); and other information.”); paragraph [0119] (most of paragraph); paragraph [0120] (whole paragraph); paragraph [0121] (some of paragraph)). 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 invention of the modified Hodges such that the invention determines an indication that the delivery vehicle is able to dock on a docking station while the docking station is moving; and the invention determines a delivery strategy according to the indication that the delivery vehicle is able to dock on a docking station while the docking station is moving, as disclosed by Prakash, 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.
As per Claim 18, Hodges further discloses wherein the non-stationary entity comprises a mobile communication device operating within a physical environment (Figure 2; paragraph [0055]; paragraph [0069]).
The modified Hodges fails to disclose wherein the service provider comprises a mobile network operator. Splaine further discloses wherein the service provider comprises a mobile network operator (paragraph [0030]). 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 invention of the modified Hodges such that the service provider comprises a mobile network operator, as disclosed by Splaine, 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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 and 19-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12333476 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because: claims 1-20 are anticipated by claims 1-17 and 19-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12333476 B2, as detailed in the following table:
Claim of Current Application
Corresponding Claim(s) of 12333476 B2
1
1, 11, 17
2
2, 12
3
1, 11, 17
4
3, 4
5
5, 13, 19
6
6, 20
7
8
8
1, 7, 11, 17
9
9
10
10
11
1, 11, 17
12
2, 12
13
5, 13, 19
14
1, 11, 17
15
14, 15
16
16
17
1, 11, 17
18
2, 12
19
5, 13, 19
20
6, 20
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Yuzawa, US 20200117217 A1 (delivery system and method, and delivery processing device).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN ERB whose telephone number is (571)272-7606. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 11:30 AM - 8 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JEFFREY ZIMMERMAN can be reached at (571) 272-4602. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
nhe
/NATHAN ERB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights