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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/23/25 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 5/23/25. These drawings are acceptable.
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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claims 1-18 of U. S. Patent No. 12,315,210 since the claims, if allowed, would improperly extend the "right to exclude" already granted in the patent. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 21, 28 and 35 of the present application encompass claims 1, 9 and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,315,210.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter, as follows in the Table below.
Instant Application
12,315,210
21. (New) A system comprising one or more computers and one or more storage devices on which are stored instructions that are operable, when executed by the one or more computers, to cause the one or more computers to perform operations comprising: maintaining, in a database, data that indicates an area of interest that was a) generated using historical data for packages delivered to a property and b) in a field of view of a camera at the property that captured one or more first images that did not depict a location at which a first package was delivered at the property; detecting, using one or more second images captured by the camera at the property, movement in the area of interest i) at the property, ii) that is included in the field of view of the camera and iii) was generated using the historical data for packages delivered to the property; determining, using the detected movement in the area of interest and the one or more second images captured by the camera, whether a package was likely delivered; and in response to determining that the package was not likely delivered, determining to skip performing one or more automated actions for the package.
9. A system comprising one or more computers and one or more storage devices on which are stored instructions that are operable, when executed by the one or more computers, to cause the one or more computers to perform operations comprising:
determining that a first package was delivered to a location not depicted in one or more first images captured by a camera at a property; in response to determining that the first package was likely delivered to the location not depicted in the one or more first images captured by the camera at the property, generating an area of interest in a field of view of the camera; detecting, using one or more second images captured by the camera at the property, movement in the area of interest i) at the property, ii) that is included in the field of view of the camera and iii) was generated using historical data for packages delivered to the property; determining, using the detected movement in the area of interest and the one or more second images captured by the camera, that a package was likely delivered; and in response to determining that the package was likely delivered, performing one or more automated actions for the package.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention was made to modify the cited steps as indicated in claim 21 of the instant US application since the omission/addition/alteration of the cited limitations would not have changed the process according to which the process of package tracking. Therefore, the ordinary skilled artisan would have been also motivated to modify claim 21 of the cited instant US application by altering the step of package tracking condition of patent 12,315,210. Claims 28 and 35 of the instant application are analogous to double patenting of claims 1 and 15 of patent No. 12,315,210 for the same reason as the claims discussed above. The cited altering elements would not interfere with the functionality of the steps previously claimed and would perform the same function. In re Karlson, 136, USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 21-40 is/are allowed upon overcoming the above rejection.
The following is an Examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance for claim(s) 21, 28 and 35. The closest prior arts Qian et al. (US 2022/0083782) discloses a system/method (see 100 in fig. 1) comprising one or more computers and one or more storage devices on which are stored instructions that are operable, when executed by the one or more computers (e.g. see ¶ [0013]), to cause the one or more computers to perform operations comprising: maintaining, in a database (see 314 in fig. 3), data that indicates an area of interest (see 130 in fig. 1) that was a) generated using historical data for packages delivered to a property (e.g. see ¶ [0106]) and b) in a field of view of a camera (see 122 in fig. 1) at the property that captured one or more first images that did not depict a location at which a first package was delivered at the property; detecting, using one or more second images captured by the camera at the property (see 302-304 in fig. 3), movement in the area of interest i) at the property (see 102 in fig. 1), ii) that is included in the field of view of the camera (see 130 in fig. 1) and iii) was generated using the historical data for packages delivered to the property (e.g. see ¶ [0164]); determining, using the detected movement in the area of interest and the one or more second images captured by the camera, whether a package was likely delivered (see 410 in fig. 5); and in response to determining that the package was not likely delivered (see “N” from 312 in fig. 3; e.g. see “whether a package is delivered” in ¶ [0129]), determining to skip performing one or more automated actions for the package (see skipping action 314 based on 313 in fig. 3) but fails to anticipate or render the above underlined limitation obvious.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Citation of Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1. Taheri et al. (US 2022/0335725), discloses monitoring presence or absence of object.
2. Gutke et al. (US 2022/0129841), discloses package detection and secure delivery.
3. Kerzner et al. (US 2022/0398750), discloses monitoring package delivery.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD T TORRENTE whose telephone number is (571)270-3702. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 6:45-3:15 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, Jay Patel can be reached at (571) 272-2988. 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.
/RICHARD T TORRENTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2485
Prosecution Insights