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 Claim(s)
This action is a second non-final office action in response to application 19/225,520 filed on May 05, 2026. Claim(s) 1-20 were previously pending and were rejected in the previous office action. Claim(s) 1-20 were left as originally/previously presented. Claim(s) 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s arguments, see page(s) 8-10 Applicant’s Response, filed May 05, 2026, with respect to 35 USC § 101 rejection of Claim(s) 1-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive as to the “returns pickup vehicle configured to transport items with zero packaging,” not being considered. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection has been made.
First, Applicant argues, on page(s) 8-9, that the amended Independent Claim(s) 1, 8, and 15, do not fall within the revised Step 2A Prong 1 framework under the grouping of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.” Examiner, respectfully, disagrees.
As an initial matter, Courts have provided various sub groupings within organizing human activity grouping encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. It is also noted that the number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping. Instead, the determination should be based on whether the activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Examiner, respectfully, notes that the specific limitation(s) that fall within the
subject matter groupings of the abstract idea. Independent Claim(s) 1, 8, and 15 limitations of “transport items with zero packaging,” “identify one or more product returns that do not require packaging and labelling,” “generate a return collection plan indicating the one or more product returns to be received and picked up, wherein the one or more product returns do not require packaging for transport,” “communicate the return collection plan to one or more collection resources,” “generate a loading plan for the one or more product returns,” “communicate the loading plan for a collection resource to access and follow in loading the one or more product returns,” “generate an inbound staging plan for the one or more product returns,” and” communicate the inbound staging plan to none or more receiving resources,” respectively, step(s)/function(s) are merely certain methods of organizing human activity: managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., social activities and/or following rules or instructions) and/or fundamental economic principles/practices and/or commercial or legal interactions (e.g., business relations).
Similar to, Credit Acceptance Corp v, Westlake Services, where the court found that that processing a credit application between a customer and deliverer, where the business relation is the relationship between the customer and the deliverer by determining delivery times and providing delivery information based on location and travel history is merely a business relationship, which, is a form of certain methods of organizing human activity. In this case, the claim(s) are similar to a business relationship between an entity and a customer. The entity can pick up return packages that have no packaging and labelling. The entity can then determine collection plans and loading plans for the items, which is merely a business relation. Thus, applicant’s claims fall within at least the enumerated grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity.
Furthermore, as an initial matter, the courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind." Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Similar to, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., when the court provided that a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps, which, were recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind.
Here, applicant’s claim limitations are recited at a high level of generality that can be performed in the human mind when the limitations recite identifying one or more product returns that do not require packaging and labelling (e.g., analyzing). The system can then generate a return collection plan indicating the one or more product returns to be received and picked up (e.g., analyzing). The system can then generate a loading plan for the one or more product returns (e.g., analyzing) The system can then generate an inbound staging plan for the one or more product returns (e.g., analyzing). The system can then communicate the return collection plan to one or more collection resources and communicate the inbound staging plan to one or more receiving resources (e.g., displaying), thus analyzing information, and then displaying the packaging collection and staging plans is merely related to a mental processes. Therefore, the claim(s) recite at least an abstract idea of mental processes. However, even assuming arguendo, that applicant has some merit that the claims cannot be performed mentally. The claims would still fall under certain methods of organizing human activity, see above analysis.
Second, Applicant argues, on page(s) 9-10, that the invention provides that the application is now integrated into a practical application thus sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Examiner, respectfully, disagrees with applicant’s arguments.
As an initial matter, it is important to note that first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. The claim itself does not need to explicitly recite the improvement described in the specification (e.g., "thereby increasing the bandwidth of the channel"), see MPEP 2106.04(d)(1). An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d at 1102-03; DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1259, 113 USPQ2d at 1107. In this respect, the improvement consideration overlaps with other considerations, specifically the particular machine consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)), and the mere instructions to apply an exception consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Thus, evaluation of those other considerations may assist examiners in making a determination of whether a claim satisfies the improvement consideration.
Here, in this case the specification discloses a solution that increase efficiency in reverse logistics by reducing high costs of shipping, unloading, and staging, see applicant’s specification paragraph(s) 0003, 0034-0035, and 0073. This is at best an improvement to the business process (e.g., abstract idea) itself rather than a technological improvement. First, the step(s) of accomplishing such desired improvement in the specification is made in blanket conclusory manner by facilitating efficient utilization of vehicle capacity such as by loading a first product return so as to not impede and/or otherwise hinder the loading of one or more other product returns, see applicant’s specification paragraph 0034-0035. Thus when the specification states the improvement in a conclusory manner the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology.
Furthermore, while applicant’s specification provides that the loading process for product returns are made more efficiently, see applicants specification paragraph(s) 0003 and 0034-0035. However, the Federal Circuit has repeatedly held that increase in speed or efficiency from generic computers is not enough to make a claim patent eligible. See, Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Servs., 859 F.3d 1044, 1056–57 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (using computers to perform routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to make a claim patent eligible) (citations omitted); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (using a computer to create electronic records, track multiple transactions, and automatically issue instructions is a form of “electronic recordkeeping” and using a computer to obtain data, adjust account balances, and automatically issue instructions does not improve the functioning of the computer itself).
Also, another important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d at 1102-03; DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1259, 113 USPQ2d at 1107. In this respect, the improvement consideration overlaps with other considerations, specifically the particular machine consideration (see MPEP §2106.05(b)), and the mere instructions to apply an exception consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Thus, evaluation of those other considerations may assist examiners in making a determination of whether a claim satisfies the improvement consideration.
Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv., the court has held that the use of a computer
or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive,
store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer
components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or
mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical
application or provide significantly more. Here, in this case applicant’s limitations merely
identifying, communicating, generating, communicating, generating, communicating, providing, respectively, product logistic information using computer components that operate in their ordinary capacity (e.g., a processor, a memory, a computer, and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium), which are no more than “applying,” the judicial exception.
Furthermore, similar to, TLI Communications, where the court found that there was no improvement upon computers or technology when mere gathering and
analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result(s). Here,
in this case identifying one or more product returns that do not require packaging and labelling (e.g., analyzing). The system can then generate a return collection plan indicating the one or more product returns to be received and picked up (e.g., analyzing). The system can then generate a loading plan for the one or more product returns (e.g., analyzing) The system can then generate an inbound staging plan for the one or more product returns (e.g., analyzing). The system can then communicate the return collection plan to one or more collection resources and communicate the inbound staging plan to one or more receiving resources (e.g., displaying), thus merely analyzing that logistical information and then communicating that logistical information to various resources are not sufficient to show an improvement in computers or technology of determining and presenting product return information.
Examiner, also, further notes the “returns pickup vehicle,” transporting, indicates a “field-of-use,” within the technological environment of providing instructions to a driver to pickup/deliver packages. As currently claimed, there is no improvement to the functioning of the returns pickup vehicle, and the instructions sent are similar to those that would be sent by an entity specifying to a driver where to pickup packages.
Furthermore, like in Affinity Labs v. DirecTv, the additional elements generally link transporting, respectively, by an returns pickup vehicle to move to a pickup location, which, does no more than merely confine the use of the abstract idea of providing instructions to a driver to travel to a pickup location thus failing to add an inventive concept to the claims.
Also, similar to, Credit Acceptance Corp v. Westlake Services, the court provided
that mere automation of manual processes is not sufficient to show an improvement in
computer-functionality. In this case, applicant’s specification paragraph 0055,
provides that the pickup vehicle can be operated by a driver following pickup and collection instructions. This paragraph provides that the driving of the pickup returns vehicle can be performed by a human thus merely automating a manual process is not enough to show an improvement.
Also, see the recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Here, the limitations in this case only provide result- oriented solution(s) and lack the detail(s) as to how the computer and/or pickup returns vehicle are accomplishing the results. Therefore, merely “applying,” the judicial exception. Therefore, applicant’s argument(s) are not persuasive.
Third, Applicant argues, on page 10, that Independent Claim 15 does not fall within “software per se,” because it clearly recites a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. Examiner, respectfully, disagrees with applicant’s arguments.
As an initial matter, Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., the court found that software
expressed as a code or a set of instructions detached from any medium is an idea without physical embodiment, thus doesn’t fall within one of the statutory categories, see MPEP 2106.03 (I).
In this case, applicant’s limitations recites software that uses instructions to cause the functions to happen, which, are merely executing the computer to retrieve these instructions, thus applicant has merely expressed software to perform these functions in a detached manner from the hardware itself. Therefore, as currently claimed Claim 15 is merely software per se, which, doesn’t fall within one of the statutory categories. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive
Examiner, respectfully, suggest that applicant can possibly consider amending the limitation to positively recite the hardware (e.g., computer) that performs the functions. Examiner, respectfully, suggest that applicant can consider amending the limitation to recite “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium embodied with software for planning a return of ordered products without packaging and labelling, the software when executed by a computer is configured to, cause the computer to execute:….”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments, see page(s) 10-12, filed on May 05, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of Claim(s) 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive as to Claim(s) 1-20.
Applicant argues, on page(s) 10-12 that Examiner reliance on Justis (US 2025/0209415 A1) fails to teach or suggest “a returns pickup vehicle configured to transport items with zero packaging.” Examiner, respectfully, disagrees.
As an initial matter, a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (reference disclosing optional inclusion of a particular component teaches compositions that both do and do not contain that component); Celeritas Technologies Ltd. v. Rockwell International Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361, 47 USPQ2d 1516, 1522-23 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (The court held that the prior art anticipated the claims even though it taught away from the claimed invention. "The fact that a modem with a single carrier data signal is shown to be less than optimal does not vitiate the fact that it is disclosed."); MPEP 2123. Also, see MPEP 1207.03(a)(II), which provides citing a different portion of a reference to elaborate upon that which has been cited previously does not constitute a new ground of rejection.
First, it is important to note that applicant’s limitation is not as narrowly claimed to just picking up a package. The limitation of “a returns pickup vehicle configured to transport items…,” is broadly recited. While the limitation can include picking up a package from an address, it is a broad term that encompasses the entire transport process including delivery to a final destination.
Secondly, in this case Justis et al. teaches an user can identify a package for return. The return can be initiated by the user and the return coordinator circuitry can determine the initial/current destination and final destination the product needs to be returned. Justis et al., further, teaches that the customer can only provide a QR code on the product and the package can be transported without a transit package, such that the shipment is shipped boxless (i.e., zero packaging), see paragraph 0063. Justis et al., also, teaches that the user does not have to write any transit information or print and tape any shipping labels, see paragraph 0046. The return coordinator circuitry can schedule one or more delivery services to transport the product between the initial destination (e.g., pickup) and the final destination, which the delivery service includes a private shipping company or postal service for picking up products and delivering those products (i.e., returns pickup vehicle configured to transport items), see paragraph(s) 0040 and 0045. Justis et al., further, teaches the customer can provide instructions for picking up the product. The customer can provide user preferences that request the delivery service to pick-up all the products from the customers’ mail address such as off the porch, behind a screen door or using a code to open the customer front door for collecting the package, see paragraph 0069. Justis et al., also, teaches the delivery services can scan the QR code on the product, which will tell the return coordinator circuitry that the delivery service is picking up the product at its’ current location (i.e., returns pickup vehicle configured transport items), see paragraph(s) 0160 and 0165. Justis et al., also, teaches the return coordinator circuitry can determine a transit plan based on the product being transported without a transit package (i.e., returns pickup vehicle configured transport items with zero packaging), see paragraph(s) 0064. Thus, Justis et al. teaches that a return product without being packaged can be picked up and then transported by a delivery service. Therefore, applicant’s arguments is not persuasive.
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 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1: Independent Claim 15 is merely software per se, which, does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. As the courts' definitions of machines, manufactures and compositions of matter indicate, a product must have a physical or tangible form in order to fall within one of these statutory categories. Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1348, 111 USPQ2d at 1719. Thus, the Federal Circuit has held that a product claim to an intangible collection of information, even if created by human effort, does not fall within any statutory category. Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1350, 111 USPQ2d at 1720 (claimed "device profile" comprising two sets of data did not meet any of the categories because it was neither a process nor a tangible product). Similarly, software expressed as code or a set of instructions detached from any medium is an idea without physical embodiment. See Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 550 U.S. 437, 449, 82 USPQ2d 1400, 1407 (2007); see also Benson, 409 U.S. 67, 175 USPQ2d 675 (An "idea" is not patent eligible). Thus, a product claim to a software program that does not also contain at least one structural limitation (such as a "means plus function" limitation) has no physical or tangible form, and thus does not fall within any statutory category. Another example of an intangible product that does not fall within a statutory category is a paradigm or business model for a marketing company. In re Ferguson, 558 F.3d 1359, 1364, 90 USPQ2d 1035, 1039-40 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
In this case, Independent Claim 15 is an idea without a physical embodiment when the claim recites “A non-transitory computer-readable medium embodied with software for planning a return of ordered products without packaging and labelling, the software when executed by a computer is configured to…,” because the software (i.e., instructions) rather than the intended physical embodiment (e.g., computer) is being used to perform/cause the function. Therefore, Independent Claim 15 does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. Examiner, respectfully, suggest that applicant can possibly consider amending the limitation to positively recite the hardware (e.g., computer) that performs the functions. Examiner, respectfully, suggest that applicant can consider amending the limitation to recite “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium embodied with software for planning a return of ordered products without packaging and labelling, the software when executed by a computer is configured to, cause the computer to execute:….” Examiner, respectfully, notes that since the applicant can easily amend to include the intended computer environment, the analysis is proceeded as if the computer is positively recited further analysis will be provided below.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A Prong 1: Independent Claim(s) 1, 8, and 15 recites an entity that is able to return packages. Independent Claim(s) 1, 8, and 15 as a whole recite limitation(s) that are directed to an abstract idea(s) of certain methods of organizing human activity: managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., social activities and/or following rules or instructions) and/or fundamental economic principles/practices (e.g., hedging) and/or commercial or legal interactions (e.g., business relations) and/or mental processes concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, and/or opinion).
Independent Claim(s) 1, 8, and 15 limitations of “transport items with zero packaging,” “identify one or more product returns that do not require packaging and labelling,” “generate a return collection plan indicating the one or more product returns to be received and picked up, wherein the one or more product returns do not require packaging for transport,” “communicate the return collection plan to one or more collection resources,” “generate a loading plan for the one or more product returns,” “communicate the loading plan for a collection resource to access and follow in loading the one or more product returns,” “generate an inbound staging plan for the one or more product returns,” and” communicate the inbound staging plan to none or more receiving resources,” respectively, step(s)/function(s) are merely certain methods of organizing human activity: managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., social activities and/or following rules or instructions) and/or fundamental economic principles/practices (e.g., hedging) and/or commercial or legal interactions (e.g., business relations) and/or mental processes concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, and/or opinion). Furthermore, as explained in the MPEP and the October 2019 update, where a series of step(s) recite judicial exceptions, examiners should combine all recited judicial exceptions and treat the claim as containing a single judicial exception for purposes of further eligibility analysis. (See, MPEP 2106.04, 2016.05(II) and October 2019 Update at Section I. B.). For instance, in this case, Independent Claim(s) 1, 8, and 15, are similar to an entity returning packages, based on generating return collection plans, loading plans, and inbound staging plans. The mere recitation of generic computer components (Claim 1: a returns pickup vehicle, a computer, a processor, and a memory; Claim 8: a returns pickup vehicle, a computer, a processor, and a memory; and Claim 15: a returns pickup vehicle, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and a computer) do not take the claims out of the enumerated group of certain methods of organizing human activity and/or mental processes. Therefore, Independent Claim(s) 1, 8, and 15, recites the above abstract idea
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims as a whole describes how to generally “apply,” the concept(s) of “providing, “transporting,” “identifying,” “generating,” “communicating,” “generating,” “communicating,” “generating,” and “communicating,” respectively, information in a computer environment. The limitations that amount to “apply it,” are as follows (Claim 1: pickup returns vehicle, a computer, a processor, and a memory; Claim 8: pickup returns vehicle, a computer, a processor, and a memory; and Claim 15: pickup returns vehicle, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and a computer). Examiner, notes that the pickup returns vehicle, computer, processor, memory, and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, respectively, are recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer.
Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv., the court has held that the use of a computer
or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive,
store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer
components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or
mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical
application or provide significantly more. Here, in this case applicant’s limitations merely
identifying, communicating, generating, communicating, generating, communicating, providing, respectively, product logistic information using computer components that operate in their ordinary capacity (e.g., a processor, a memory, a computer, and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium), which are no more than “applying,” the judicial exception.
Furthermore, similar to, TLI Communications, where the court found that there was no improvement upon computers or technology when mere gathering and
analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result(s). Here,
in this case identifying one or more product returns that do not require packaging and labelling (e.g., analyzing). The system can then generate a return collection plan indicating the one or more product returns to be received and picked up (e.g., analyzing). The system can then generate a loading plan for the one or more product returns (e.g., analyzing) The system can then generate an inbound staging plan for the one or more product returns (e.g., analyzing). The system can then communicate the return collection plan to one or more collection resources and communicate the inbound staging plan to one or more receiving resources (e.g., displaying), thus merely analyzing that logistical information and then communicating that logistical information to various resources are not sufficient to show an improvement in computers or technology of determining and presenting product return information.
Examiner, also, further notes the “returns pickup vehicle,” transporting, indicates a “field-of-use,” within the technological environment of providing instructions to a driver to pickup/deliver packages. As currently claimed, there is no improvement to the functioning of the returns pickup vehicle, and the instructions sent are similar to those that would be sent by an entity specifying to a driver where to pickup packages.
Furthermore, like in Affinity Labs v. DirecTv, the additional elements generally link transporting, respectively, by an returns pickup vehicle to move to a pickup location, which, does no more than merely confine the use of the abstract idea of providing instructions to a driver to travel to a pickup location thus failing to add an inventive concept to the claims.
Also, similar to, Credit Acceptance Corp v. Westlake Services, the court provided
that mere automation of manual processes is not sufficient to show an improvement in
computer-functionality. In this case, applicant’s specification paragraph 0055,
provides that the pickup vehicle can be operated by a driver following pickup and collection instructions. This paragraph provides that the driving of the pickup returns vehicle can be performed by a human thus merely automating a manual process is not enough to show an improvement.
Also, see the recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Each of the above limitations simply implement an abstract idea that is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, which, is not practical application(s) of the abstract idea. Therefore, when viewed in combination these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claims are directed to the above abstract idea(s).
Step 2B: The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as noted previously, the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply,” the abstract idea in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are ineligible.
Claim(s) 2, 5, 9, 12, 16, and 19: The various metrics of Dependent Claim(s) 2, 5, 9, 12, 16, and 19 merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations. For the reasons described above with respect to Independent Claim 1, 8, and 15 these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim(s) 3 and 10: The additional limitation(s) of describing “performing,” is further directed to a method of organizing human activity and mental processes, as described above for Independent Claim(s) 1 and 8, respectively. The limitations that amount to “apply it,” are a returns pickup vehicle, computer, and a non-transitory computer readable storage medium. Examiner, notes that the returns pickup vehicle, computer, and non-transitory computer readable storage medium, are generically claimed that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer.
Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv, the court has held that task to receive, store, or transmit data are additional elements that amount to no more than “applying,” the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Here, the additional elements is merely performing, information which is no more than “applying,” the judicial exception. The recitation(s) of “perform image recognition of the one or more product returns to verify the one or more product returns,” falls within certain methods of organizing human activity and/or mental processes.
Also, see gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747- 48; and arranging transactional information on a graphical user interface in a manner that assists traders in processing information more quickly, Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
Also, see electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (optical character recognition). For the reasons described above with respect to Claim(s) 3 and 10, the judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 4 and 11: The additional limitation(s) of describing “receiving,” and “verifying,” is further directed to a method of organizing human activity and mental processes, as described above for Independent Claim(s) 1 and 8, respectively. The limitations that amount to “apply it,” are a computer, a scanning app, a mobile device, and a non-transitory computer readable storage medium. Examiner, notes that the computer, scanning app, mobile device, and non-transitory computer readable storage medium, are generically claimed that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer.
Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv, the court has held that task to receive, store, or transmit data are additional elements that amount to no more than “applying,” the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Here, the additional elements is merely receiving, information which is no more than “applying,” the judicial exception. The recitation(s) of “receive a scan of the one or more product returns to verify one or more serial numbers of the one or more product returns,” falls within certain methods of organizing human activity and/or mental processes.
Also, see gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747- 48; and arranging transactional information on a graphical user interface in a manner that assists traders in processing information more quickly, Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
Also, see electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (optical character recognition). For the reasons described above with respect to Claim(s) 4 and 11, the judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 6, 13, and 20: The limitations that amount to “apply it,” are a returns pickup vehicle, a drone, an autonomous returns collection vehicle, and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. Examiner, notes that the a returns pickup vehicle, a drone, an autonomous returns collection vehicle, and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium are generically claimed that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer.
Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv, the court has held that task to receive, store, or transmit data are additional elements that amount to no more than “applying,” the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Also, see the recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). For the reasons described above with respect to Claim(s) 6, 13, and 20 the judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 7 and 14: The additional limitation(s) of describing “providing,” is further directed to a method of organizing human activity and mental processes, as described above for Independent Claim(s) 1 and 8, respectively. The limitations that amount to “apply it,” are a computer. Examiner, notes that the computer is generically claimed that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer.
Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv, the court has held that task to receive, store, or transmit data are additional elements that amount to no more than “applying,” the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Here, the additional elements is merely providing, information which is no more than “applying,” the judicial exception. The recitation(s) of “provide temporal authentication credentials for access for making pickup of the one or more product returns,” falls within certain methods of organizing human activity and/or mental processes.
Also, see gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747- 48; and arranging transactional information on a graphical user interface in a manner that assists traders in processing information more quickly, Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019). For the reasons described above with respect to Claim(s) 7 and 14 the judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 17: Step 1: Dependent Claim 17 is merely software per se, which, does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. As the courts' definitions of machines, manufactures and compositions of matter indicate, a product must have a physical or tangible form in order to fall within one of these statutory categories. Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1348, 111 USPQ2d at 1719. Thus, the Federal Circuit has held that a product claim to an intangible collection of information, even if created by human effort, does not fall within any statutory category. Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1350, 111 USPQ2d at 1720 (claimed "device profile" comprising two sets of data did not meet any of the categories because it was neither a process nor a tangible product). Similarly, software expressed as code or a set of instructions detached from any medium is an idea without physical embodiment. See Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 550 U.S. 437, 449, 82 USPQ2d 1400, 1407 (2007); see also Benson, 409 U.S. 67, 175 USPQ2d 675 (An "idea" is not patent eligible). Thus, a product claim to a software program that does not also contain at least one structural limitation (such as a "means plus function" limitation) has no physical or tangible form, and thus does not fall within any statutory category. Another example of an intangible product that does not fall within a statutory category is a paradigm or business model for a marketing company. In re Ferguson, 558 F.3d 1359, 1364, 90 USPQ2d 1035, 1039-40 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
In this case, Dependent Claim 17 is an idea without a physical embodiment when the claim recites “wherein the software when executed is further configured to:…,” because the software (i.e., instructions) rather than the intended physical embodiment (e.g., computer) is being used to perform/cause the function. Therefore, Dependent Claim 17 does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. Examiner, respectfully suggest applicant consider positively reciting that the hardware (e.g., computer) cause(s)/perform(s) the functions. Examiner, respectfully, notes that since the applicant can easily amend to include the intended computer environment, the analysis is proceeded as if the computer is positively recited further analysis will be provided below.
The additional limitation(s) of describing “perform,” is further directed to a method of organizing human activity and mental processes, as described above for Independent Claim 15, respectively. The limitations that amount to “apply it,” are a computer, and a non-transitory computer readable storage medium. Examiner, notes that the non-transitory computer readable storage medium, are generically claimed that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer.
Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv, the court has held that task to receive, store, or transmit data are additional elements that amount to no more than “applying,” the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Here, the additional elements is merely performing, information which is no more than “applying,” the judicial exception. The recitation(s) of “perform image recognition of the one or more product returns to verify the one or more product returns,” falls within certain methods of organizing human activity and/or mental processes.
Also, see gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747- 48; and arranging transactional information on a graphical user interface in a manner that assists traders in processing information more quickly, Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
Also, see electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (optical character recognition). For the reasons described above with respect to Claim 17 the judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 18: Step 1: Dependent Claim 18 is merely software per se, which, does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. As the courts' definitions of machines, manufactures and compositions of matter indicate, a product must have a physical or tangible form in order to fall within one of these statutory categories. Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1348, 111 USPQ2d at 1719. Thus, the Federal Circuit has held that a product claim to an intangible collection of information, even if created by human effort, does not fall within any statutory category. Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1350, 111 USPQ2d at 1720 (claimed "device profile" comprising two sets of data did not meet any of the categories because it was neither a process nor a tangible product). Similarly, software expressed as code or a set of instructions detached from any medium is an idea without physical embodiment. See Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 550 U.S. 437, 449, 82 USPQ2d 1400, 1407 (2007); see also Benson, 409 U.S. 67, 175 USPQ2d 675 (An "idea" is not patent eligible). Thus, a product claim to a software program that does not also contain at least one structural limitation (such as a "means plus function" limitation) has no physical or tangible form, and thus does not fall within any statutory category. Another example of an intangible product that does not fall within a statutory category is a paradigm or business model for a marketing company. In re Ferguson, 558 F.3d 1359, 1364, 90 USPQ2d 1035, 1039-40 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
In this case, Dependent Claim 18 is an idea without a physical embodiment when the claim recites “wherein the software when executed is further configured to:…,” because the software (i.e., instructions) rather than the intended physical embodiment (e.g., computer) is being used to perform/cause the function. Therefore, Dependent Claim 18 does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. Examiner, respectfully suggest applicant consider positively reciting that the hardware (e.g., computer) cause(s)/perform(s) the functions. Examiner, respectfully, notes that since the applicant can easily amend to include the intended computer environment, the analysis is proceeded as if the computer is positively recited further analysis will be provided below.
The additional limitation(s) of describing “receive,” and “verify,” is further directed to a method of organizing human activity and mental processes, as described above for Independent Claim 15, respectively. The limitations that amount to “apply it,” are a computer, a scanning app, a mobile device, and a non-transitory computer readable storage medium. Examiner, notes that the scanning app, mobile device, and non-transitory computer readable storage medium, are generically claimed that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer.
Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv, the court has held that task to receive, store, or transmit data are additional elements that amount to no more than “applying,” the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Here, the additional elements is merely receiving, information which is no more than “applying,” the judicial exception. The recitation(s) of “receive a scan of the one or more product returns to verify one or more serial numbers of the one or more product returns,” falls within certain methods of organizing human activity and/or mental processes.
Also, see gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747- 48; and arranging transactional information on a graphical user interface in a manner that assists traders in processing information more quickly, Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
Also, see electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (optical character recognition). For the reasons described above with respect to Claim 18 the judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
The dependent claim(s) 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20, above do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) in the dependent claim(s) above are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component(s), which, do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, Claim(s) 1-20 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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6, 8, 11, 13, 15, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Justis et al. (US 2025/0209415 A1)(provisional filed on May 10, 2024) in view of Nemati et al. (US 2018/0308048 A1) and further in view of Manohar et al. (US 2023/0259870 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Justis et al., teaches a system for planning a return of ordered products without packaging and labelling, comprising:
A returns pickup vehicle configured to transport items with zero packaging. (Paragraph(s) 0040, 0045-0046, 0063-0064, 0069, 0145, 0160, and 0165)( Justis et al. teaches an user can identify a package for return. The return can be initiated by the user and the return coordinator circuitry can determine the initial/current destination and final destination the product needs to be returned. Justis et al., further, teaches that the customer can only provide a QR code on the product and the package can be transported without a transit package, such that the shipment is shipped boxless (i.e., zero packaging), see paragraph 0063. Justis et al., also, teaches that the user does not have to write any transit information or print and tape any shipping labels, see paragraph 0046. The return coordinator circuitry can schedule one or more delivery services to transport the product between the initial destination (e.g., pickup) and the final destination, which the delivery service includes a private shipping company or postal service for picking up products and delivering those products (i.e., returns pickup vehicle configured to transport items), see paragraph(s) 0040 and 0045. Justis et al., further, teaches the customer can provide instructions for picking up the product. The customer can provide user preferences that request the delivery service to pick-up all the products from the customers’ mail address such as off the porch, behind a screen door or using a code to open the customer front door for collecting the package, see paragraph 0069. Justis et al., also, teaches the delivery services can scan the QR code on the product, which will tell the return coordinator circuitry that the delivery service is picking up the product at its’ current location (i.e., returns pickup vehicle configured transport items), see paragraph(s) 0160 and 0165. Justis et al., also, teaches the return coordinator circuitry can determine a transit plan based on the product being transported without a transit package (i.e., returns pickup vehicle configured transport items with zero packaging), see paragraph(s) 0064)
A computer, comprising a processor and memory, and configured to: (Paragraph(s) 0204-0206)(Justis teaches memory and a processor for performing the operations)
identify one or more product returns that do not require packaging and labelling. (Paragraph(s) 0046, 0063-0064, 0104, 0106, 0108, and 0118)(Justis teaches a user does not have to print and tape any shipping labels to a transit package (e.g., do not require labelling). The user can apply a QR code directly to the return item without packaging the return product (e.g., do not require packaging). The return coordinator circuitry can determine that a user has initiated a return for a product. The return coordinator circuitry will then require the user to scan the QR code on the item and provide return information and then apply the QR code to the directly on the product. The system can then associate the QR code with the return item, see paragraph 0118)
wherein the one or more product returns do not require packaging for transport by the returns pickup vehicle. (Paragraph(s) 0040, 0046, 0063-0064, 0108, and 0145)(Justis teaches a user does not have to print and tape any shipping labels to a transit package. The user can apply a QR code directly to the return item without packaging the return product (e.g., one product return do not require packaging). Justis, also, teaches that the QR code can be placed directly on the return product)
generate an inbound staging plan for the one or more product returns. (Paragraph(s) 0153-0154)(Justis teaches the manager circuitry can determine whether a final party instructions are requested. The final party is the representative of the final destination for the return item. The system can provide the final party with an action to be taken in regards to the return item (e.g., inbound staging plan))
communicate the inbound staging plan to one or more receiving resources. (Paragraph(s) 0153-0154)(Justis teaches the manager circuitry can determine whether a final party instructions are requested. The final party is the representative of the final destination for the return item. The system can provide the final party with an action to be taken in regards following the receipt of the return item (e.g., inbound staging plan). Justis, further, teaches that the system will provide the final party with the instructions)
With respect to the above limitations: while Justis teaches returning packages that do not need tape or packaging. Justis, further, teaches that the system will have a delivery vehicle to return the packages. However, Justis, doesn’t explicitly teach generating a return collection plan. Justis, also, doesn’t explicitly teach communicating the return collection plan to one of the collection resources. The system will generate loading plans, which the loading plan will be communicated to a collection resource.
But, Nemati et al. in the analogous art of returning items, teaches
generate a return collection plan indicating the one or more product returns to be received and picked up. (Paragraph(s) 0023, 0035, and 0037)(Nemati et al. teaches the server can retrieve a list of dimensions for items listed in the first and second report. The list of dimensions comprise volume and weight of the returned items. The server van then initiate a returned item collection process. Nemati et al., further, teaches the system can determine the order in which the stores are to be visited, which the system can select the stores to be visited for the expected returns based on various factors
communicate the return collection plan to one or more collection resources. (Paragraph(s) 0028 and 0035)(Nemati et al., teaches that the returned item collection process can include generating an instruction for a transport vehicle delivering goods to any store in the plurality of stores to collect returned items from each store in the plurality of stores and the system can transmit the instruction to the transport vehicle (e.g., collection resources). Nemati et al., further, teaches the collection of returned goods across multiple stores using a delivery transport vehicle. The server can determine a group of stores which includes store A, store B, and store C. The system can determine a sufficient number of returned goods, which can be assigned a transport vehicle to collect the returned goods)
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a system for returning a no label and no package return by a delivery vehicle of Justis, by incorporating the teachings of returning packages by creating a collection plan for the delivery vehicle and then communicate that plan to the vehicle of Nemati et al., with the motivation to improve the shipping and transportation systems. (Nemati et al.: Paragraph 0012)
With respect to the above limitations: while Nemati et al. teaches generating a return collection plan. Justis, also, doesn’t explicitly teach communicating the return collection plan to one of the collection resources. However, Justis and Nemati et al., do not explicitly teach a system will generate loading plans, which the loading plan will be communicated to a collection resource.
But, Manohar et al. in the analogous art of generating loading plans, teaches
generate loading plan for the one or more product returns. (Paragraph(s) 0063 and 0077-0079 )(Manohar et al. teaches generating first and second loading plans. The system will create a first loading plan for the vehicle for forward freight and a second loading plan for the reverse freight (e.g., product returns))
communicate the loading plan for a collection resource to access and follow in loading the one or more product returns on the returns pickup vehicle. (Paragraph(s) 0048, 0054, and 0070)(Manohar et al. teaches a loading plan that is communicated to freight management. The loading plan includes a loading strategy for the reverse freight consolidation process (e.g., product returns). The loading plans include a identification of packages that go to which destination location, the sequence of loading and optimal placement of the packages in each vehicle, a listing of stacking, loading, and unloading constraints, and other information (e.g., loading plan))
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a system for returning a no label and no package return by a delivery vehicle of Justis and the teachings of returning packages by creating a collection plan for the delivery vehicle and then communicate that plan to the vehicle of Nemati et al., by incorporating generating loading plans for a reverse logistics plan and then providing those loading plans to a freight management of Manohar et al., with the motivation to improve the cost for deliveries. (Manohar et al.: Paragraph 0054)
Regarding Claim 4, Justis/Nemati et al./Manohar et al., teaches all the a limitations as applied to Claim 1 and wherein the computer is further configured to: receive a scan of the one or more product returns performed via a scanning app of a mobile device to verify one or more serial numbers of the one or more product returns. (Paragraph 0043 and 0237)(Justis teaches a scan of a Quick Response code, the request including an identifier of the QR code, determine whether the identifier is associated with an item for delivery (e.g., verify), after a determination that identifier is associated with the item, cause display of a second user interface to present transit information corresponding to the item. Justis, also, teaches using a client device to scan the QR code)
Regarding Claim 6, Justis/Nemati et al./Manohar et al., teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 1.
However, Justis, doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the returns pickup vehicle comprises a drone or an autonomous returns collection vehicle.
But, Nemati et al., teaches wherein the returns pickup vehicle comprises a drone or an autonomous returns collection vehicle. (Paragraph(s) 0015 and 0035)(Nemati et al. teaches the vehicle can be a drone and/or an autonomous vehicle)
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a system for returning a no label and no package return by a delivery vehicle of Justis, by incorporating the teachings of returning packages using a drone and/or an autonomous vehicle of Nemati et al., with the motivation to improve the shipping and transportation systems. (Nemati et al.: Paragraph 0012)
Regarding Claim 8, Justis et al./Nemati et al./Manohar et al., teaches a computer-implemented method for planning a return of ordered products without packaging and labelling, comprising:
providing a returns pickup vehicle configured to transport items with zero packaging. (See, relevant rejection of Claim 1(a))
identifying, by a computer comprising a processor and memory, one or more product returns that do not require packaging and labelling. (See, relevant rejection of Claim 1(b)(a))
generating, by the computer, a return collection plan indicating the one or more product returns to be received and picked up. (See, relevant rejection of Claim 1(b)(b))
wherein the one or more product returns do not require packaging for transport by the returns pickup vehicle. (See, relevant rejection of Claim 1(b)(c))
communicating, by the computer, the return collection plan to one or more collection resources. (See, relevant rejection of Claim 1(b)(d))
generating, by the computer, loading plan for the one or more product returns. (See, relevant rejection of Claim 1(b)(e))
communicating, by the computer, the loading plan for a collection resource to access and follow in loading the one or more product returns on the returns pickup vehicle. (See, relevant rejection of Claim 1(b)(f))
generating, by the computer, an inbound staging plan for the one or more product returns. (See, relevant rejection of Claim 1(b)(g))
communicating, by the computer, the inbound staging plan to one or more receiving resources. (See, relevant rejection of Claim 1(b)(h))
Regarding Claim 11, Justis/Nemati et al./Manohar et al., teaches all the a limitations as applied to Claim 8 and further comprising: receiving, by the computer, a scan of the one or more product returns performed via a scanning app of a mobile device to verify one or more serial numbers of the one or more product returns. (See, relevant rejection(s) of Claim(s) 4 and 8)
Regarding Claim 13, Justis/Nemati et al./Manohar et al., teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 8 and wherein the returns pickup vehicle comprises a drone or an autonomous returns collection vehicle. (See, relevant rejection(s) of Claim(s) 6 and 20)
Regarding Claim 15, Justis et al./Nemati et al./Manohar et al., teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium embodied with software for planning a return of ordered products without packaging and labelling, the software when executed by a computer is configured to: (Paragraph 0096)(teaches a non-transitory computer readable computer and storage)
identify one or more product returns that do not require packaging and labelling. (See, relevant rejection of Claim 1(b)(a))
generate a return collection plan indicating the one or more product returns to be received and picked up. (See, relevant rejection of Claim 1(b)(b))
wherein the one or more product returns do not require packaging for transport by the returns pickup vehicle. (See, relevant rejection of Claim 1(b)(c))
communicate the return collection plan to one or more collection resources. (See, relevant rejection of Claim 1(b)(d))
generate loading plan for the one or more product returns. (See, relevant rejection of Claim 1(b)(e))
communicate the loading plan for a collection resource to access and follow in loading the one or more product returns on the returns pickup vehicle. (See, relevant rejection of Claim 1(b)(f))
generate an inbound staging plan for the one or more product returns. (See, relevant rejection of Claim 1(b)(g))
communicate the inbound staging plan to one or more receiving resources. (See, relevant rejection of Claim 1(b)(h))
Regarding Claim 18, Justis/Nemati et al./Manohar et al., teaches all the a limitations as applied to Claim 15 and wherein the software when executed is further configured to: receive a scan of the one or more product returns performed via a scanning app of a mobile device to verify one or more serial numbers of the one or more product returns. (See, relevant rejection(s) of Claim(s) 4 and 15)
Regarding Claim 20, Justis/Nemati et al./Manohar et al., teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 15 and wherein the returns pickup vehicle comprises a drone or an autonomous returns collection vehicle. (See, relevant rejection(s) of Claim(s) 6 and 20)
Claim(s) 2, 9, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Justis et al. (US 2025/0209415 A1)(provisional filed on May 10, 2024) in view of Nemati et al. (US 2018/0308048 A1) and Manohar et al. (US 2023/0259870 A1) and further in view of Javidan et al. (US 2021/0256472 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Justis, Nemati et al., and Manohar et al., teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 1.
However, Justis/Nemati et al./Manohar et al., do not explicitly teach wherein the one or more product returns that do not require packaging and labelling are identified based on one or more configurations of the returns pickup vehicle.
But, Javidan et al. in the analogous art of returning packages, teaches wherein the one or more product returns that do not require packaging and labelling are identified based on one or more configurations of the returns pickup vehicle. (Paragraph(s) 0021, 0024, 0036, 0052, and 0119)(Javidan et al. teaches an autonomous vehicle that is able to pick up return packages. The system reduces the need for the user to box and package (e.g., do not require packaging and labelling) for the returns. Javidan et al., also, teaches the vehicle includes lockers with different item sizes and shapes (e.g., configurations). Javidan et al., also, teaches that the delivery vehicle can be configured with different size lockers having any combination of locker numbers, sizes, and shapes, that are for different sized and shaped items. The system can preassign a particular item return for the locker in the delivery vehicle)
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a system for returning a no label and no package return by a delivery vehicle of Justis, returning packages by creating a collection plan for the delivery vehicle and then communicate that plan to the vehicle of Nemati et al., and generating loading plans for a reverse logistics plan and then providing those loading plans to a freight management of Manohar et al., by incorporating preassigning an item to a delivery vehicle, which the system can determine lockers based on the size and shape of the locker and the size and shape of the items of Javidan et al., with the motivation to improve delivery efficiency. (Javidan et al.: Paragraph 0024)
Regarding Claim 9, Justis/Nemati et al./Manohar et al./Javidan et al., teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 8 and wherein the one or more product returns that do not require packaging and labelling are identified based on one or more configurations of the returns pickup vehicle. (See, relevant rejection(s) of Claim(s) 2 and 8)
Regarding Claim 16, Justis/Nemati et al./Manohar et al./Javidan et al., teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 15 and wherein the one or more product returns that do not require packaging and labelling are identified based on one or more configurations of the returns pickup vehicle. (See, relevant rejection(s) of Claim(s) 2 and 15)
Claim(s) 3, 10, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Justis et al. (US 2025/0209415 A1)(provisional filed on May 10, 2024) in view of Nemati et al. (US 2018/0308048 A1) and Manohar et al. (US 2023/0259870 A1) and further in view of High et al. (US 2017/0261977 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Justis et al./Nemati et al./Manohar et al., teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 1.
However, Justis et al./Nemati et al./Manohar et al., do not explicitly teach wherein the computer is further configured to: perform image recognition of the one or more product returns to verify the one or more product returns.
But, High et al. in the analogous art of using cameras to detect the correct return package, teaches wherein the computer is further configured to: perform image recognition of the one or more product returns to verify the one or more product returns. (Paragraph(s) 0017, 0034, 0039, and 0046)(High et al. teaches a delivery drone that includes one or more sensors, which the sensors includes fixed cameras. The fixed cameras can capture sensor data. The delivery drone can detect sensor data through image recognition of images, which can confirm an identified object of an expected object at a predefined location. High et al., further, teaches that the sensor data can be used to verify a correct package at a location, which the system can identify a packages size, shape, and/or color. The UAS can then identify the package that is intended to be returned by a customer)
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a system for returning a no label and no package return by a delivery vehicle of Justis, returning packages by creating a collection plan for the delivery vehicle and then communicate that plan to the vehicle of Nemati et al., and generating loading plans for a reverse logistics plan and then providing those loading plans to a freight management of Manohar et al., by incorporating using cameras to determine the correct return package based on size, shape, and/or color of the package of High et al., with the motivation to improve customer service. (High et al.: Paragraph 0003)
Regarding Claim 10, Justis et al./Nemati et al./Manohar et al./High et al., teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 8 and further comprising: performing, by the computer, image recognition of the one or more product returns to verify the one or more product returns. (See, the relevant rejection(s) of Claim(s) 3 and 8)
Regarding Claim 17, Justis et al./Nemati et al./Manohar et al./High et al., teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 15 and wherein the software when executed is further configured to: perform image recognition of the one or more product returns to verify the one or more product returns. (See, the relevant rejection(s) of Claim(s) 3 and 15)
Claim(s) 5, 12, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Justis et al. (US 2025/0209415 A1)(provisional filed on May 10, 2024) in view of Nemati et al. (US 2018/0308048 A1) and Manohar et al. (US 2023/0259870 A1) and further in view of Rathi et al. (US 2021/0295242 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Justis et al./Nemati/Manohar et al., teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 1.
However, Justis et al./Nemati/Manohar et al., do not explicitly teach wherein the returns pickup vehicle comprises padded containers and receptacles.
But, Rathi et al. in the analogous art of returning packages, teaches wherein the returns pickup vehicle comprises padded containers and receptacles. (Paragraph(s) 0074-0075, 0079, 0093, and 0227-0229)(Rathi et al. teaches a receiver apparatus, which the receiver apparatus can be an autonomous vehicle, see paragraph 0074. The autonomous vehicle can have a portable locker, lock box, and/or compartment (e.g., container). The receiver apparatus can also be a delivery box at the customer location, such as a mailbox (e.g., receptacles), see paragraph 0079. The receiver apparatus can include a bin that is lined with memory foam (e.g., padded), see paragraph 0228. The system can be for returning a package, see paragraph(s) 0227-0229)
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a system for returning a no label and no package return by a delivery vehicle of Justis, returning packages by creating a collection plan for the delivery vehicle and then communicate that plan to the vehicle of Nemati et al., and generating loading plans for a reverse logistics plan and then providing those loading plans to a freight management of Manohar et al., by incorporating using an autonomous vehicle for picking up return packages. The delivery vehicle and the mailbox(s) can be lined with foam of Rathi et al., with the motivation to efficiently transport goods to a customer site. (Rathi et al.: Paragraph 0004)
Regarding Claim 12, Justis et al./Nemati/Manohar et al./Rathi et al., teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 8 and wherein the returns pickup vehicle comprises padded containers and receptacles. (See, the relevant rejection(s) of Claim(s) 5 and 8)
Regarding Claim 19, Justis et al./Nemati/Manohar et al./Rathi et al., teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 15 and wherein the returns pickup vehicle comprises padded containers and receptacles. (See, the relevant rejection(s) of Claim(s) 5 and 15)
Claim(s) 7 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Justis et al. (US 2025/0209415 A1)(provisional filed on May 10, 2024) in view of Nemati et al. (US 2018/0308048 A1) and Manohar et al. (US 2023/0259870 A1) and further in view of Banjo (US 2023/0132696 A1)
Regarding Claim 7, Justis et al./Nemati et al./Manohar et al., teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 1.
However, Justis et al./Nemati et al./Manohar et al., do not explicitly teach provide temporal authentication credentials for access for making pickup of the one or more product returns.
But, Banjo in the analogous art of picking up return packages, teaches provide temporal authentication credentials for access for making pickup of the one or more product returns. (Paragraph(s) 0044-0045)(Banjo teaches a delivery driver can arrive a pick-up location for picking up a return item. The delivery driver can perform a handshake with the pickup address doorbell and if the system matches the merchant then the system will push instructions to the mobile device for removing and scanning the return package)
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a system for returning a no label and no package return by a delivery vehicle of Justis, returning packages by creating a collection plan for the delivery vehicle and then communicate that plan to the vehicle of Nemati et al., and generating loading plans for a reverse logistics plan and then providing those loading plans to a freight management of Manohar et al., by incorporating authenticating a delivery driver’s mobile device via a handshake and if verified then the delivery driver can pick-up the return item of Banjo, with the motivation to improve last mile tracking and verification of returns. (Banjo: Paragraph 0003)
Regarding Claim 14, Justis et al./Nemati et al./Manohar et al./Banjo, teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 8 and providing, by the computer, temporal authentication credentials for access for making pickup of the one or more product returns. (See, relevant rejection(s) of Claim(s) 7 and 8)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
“Box Shipping is the Return Option of Choice for U.S. Consumers and Businesses,” by FedEx, February 12, 2024, (hereinafter Box). Box teaches consumers using no-label/no-box shipping to make returns at the FedEx store.
“Amazon offers returns with no box, tape, or label needed,” by Amazon Staff, June 18, 2024, (hereinafter Amazon). Amazon teaches a customer can initiate a return for an item. The customer can drop-off their items to a select stores, which the return items do not have be in the original manufacturer’s packaging or have labels.
“Introducing Package Pickup on DoorDash,” by DoorDash, January 4, 2023, (hereinafter DoorDash). DoorDash teaches DoorDash uses drivers to pickup return packages.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN A HEFLIN whose telephone number is (571)272-3524. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 - 5:00 M-F.
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.
/B.A.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/MICHAEL P HARRINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights