DETAILED ACTION
Notice of AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Application
Claims 2-21 have been examined in this application. Claim 1 was canceled and new claims 2-21 were added in the preliminary amendment filed 1/29/2026. This communication is the first action on the merits.
Priority
This application is a continuation of U.S. Appl. No. 18/477,409 filed on September
28, 2023, which is a continuation of U.S. Appl. No. 17/859,166 filed on July 7, 2022, which is a continuation of U.S. Appl. No. 14/801,345 filed on July 16, 2015, which is a continuation of U.S. Appl. No. 13/619,074 filed on September 14, 2012, which claims the benefits of U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/535,686, filed on September 16, 2011, and of U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/618,329, filed on March 30, 2012.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed 7/11/2025 has been considered.
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 2-3 and 19-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12367448 (US12367448B2). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claim 2: All of the limitations of instant claim 2 are anticipated by claim 18 of the ‘448 patent.
Claim 3: All of the limitations of instant claim 3 are anticipated by claim 18 of the ‘448 patent.
Claim 19: All of the limitations of instant claim 19 are anticipated by claim 18 of the ‘448 patent.
Claim 20: All of the limitations of instant claim 20 are anticipated by claim 18 of the ‘448 patent.
Claim 4 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12367448 (US12367448B2). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claim 4: All of the limitations of instant claim 4 are anticipated by claim 20 of the ‘448 patent.
Claims 5-6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12367448 (US12367448B2) in view of US 20080004995 A1 to Klingenburg et al. (Klingenburg).
Claim 5: All of the limitations of instant 5 are taught by claim 3 of the ‘448 patent except for: automatically scheduling delivery of the supplemental content when the supplemental content is associated with the delivery item. However, Klingenburg teaches automatically scheduling delivery of the supplemental content when the supplemental content is associated with the delivery item (Klingenburg: ¶ 0063-0066 showing user can choose to receive email notifications on the day of the scheduled delivery, wherein the notification is transmitted to the user device).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include scheduling delivery of supplemental content associated with a delivery item as taught by Klingenburg in the system of claim 3 of the ‘448 patent, 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.
Claim 6: As per above, instant claim 5 is taught by claim 3 of the ‘448 patent/Klingenburg. Claim 3 of the ‘448 patent does not explicitly teach the further limitations of instant claim 6 for identifying, based on the supplemental electronic content tracking data, the supplemental electronic content associated with the delivery item, wherein the supplemental electronic content comprises at least one of a video file, an audio file, a graphical file, or a link to a webpage.
However, Klingenburg teaches identifying, based on the supplemental electronic content tracking data, the supplemental electronic content associated with the delivery item, wherein the supplemental electronic content comprises at least one of a video file, an audio file, a graphical file, or a link to a webpage (Klingenburg: ¶ 0148 showing hyperlink included in the tracking email which is directed to a webpage). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include identifying supplemental content associated with a delivery item (tracking email comprising a hyperlink) as taught by Klingenburg in the system of claim 3 of the ‘448 patent/Klingenburg, for the same reasons described in the rejection of claim 5 above.
Claims 7-8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12367448 (US12367448B2) in view of US 20080004995 A1 to Klingenburg et al. (Klingenburg).
Claim 7: The limitations of instant claim 7 are taught by claim 7 of the ‘448 patent, except for the following limitations, which are taught by Klingenburg:
automatically scheduling delivery of the supplemental content when the supplemental content is associated with the delivery item (Klingenburg: ¶ 0063-0066 showing user can choose to receive email notifications on the day of the scheduled delivery, wherein the notification is transmitted to the user device)
scanning a tracking identifier associated with the delivery item (Klingenburg: ¶ 0095-0096, ¶ 0132 showing scanning identifier on the delivery item); and generating supplemental electronic content tracking data based on the scanned tracking identifier (Klingenburg: ¶ 0095-0096 showing when the package data is read by scanning, the notification may be generated and transmitted to the consignee)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include automatically scheduling the email notifications and scanning a tracking identifier to trigger the notification as taught by Klingenburg in the system of claim 7 of the ‘448 patent, 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.
Claim 8: As seen above, instant claim 7 is taught by claim 7 of the ‘448 patent/Klingenburg. The further limitations of instant claim 8 are also taught by claim 7 of the ‘448 patent (see specifically claim 5 of the ‘448 patent, the limitations of which are included in claim 7 of the ‘448 patent).
Claims 9-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12367448 (US12367448B2) in view of US 20080004995 A1 to Klingenburg et al. (Klingenburg).
Claim 9: The limitations of instant claim 9 are taught by claim 8 of the ‘448 patent, except for the following limitations which are taught by Klingenburg:
automatically scheduling delivery of the supplemental content when the supplemental content is associated with the delivery item (Klingenburg: ¶ 0063-0066 showing user can choose to receive email notifications on the day of the scheduled delivery, wherein the notification is transmitted to the user device)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include scheduling delivery of supplemental content associated with a delivery item as taught by Klingenburg in the system of claim 9 of the ‘448 patent, 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.
Claim 10: As per above, instant claim 9 is taught by claim 8 of the ‘448 patent/Klingenburg. The further limitations of instant claim 10 are also taught by claim 8 of the ‘448 patent.
Claim 11: As per above, instant claim 9 is taught by claim 8 of the ‘448 patent/Klingenburg. The following limitations of instant claim 11 are not taught by claim 8 of the ‘448 patent, however, Klingenburg teaches:
scanning a tracking identifier associated with the delivery item (Klingenburg: ¶ 0095-0096, ¶ 0132 showing scanning identifier on the delivery item); and generating supplemental electronic content tracking data based on the scanned tracking identifier (Klingenburg: ¶ 0095-0096 showing when the package data is read by scanning, the notification may be generated and transmitted to the consignee)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include automatically scheduling the email notifications and scanning a tracking identifier to trigger the notification as taught by Klingenburg in the system of claim 8 of the ‘448 patent/Klingenburg, 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.
Claim 12: As per above, instant claim 11 is taught by claim 8 of the ‘448 patent/Klingenburg. The following limitations of instant claim 12 are not taught by claim 8 of the ‘448 patent, however, Klingenburg teaches:
identifying, based on the supplemental electronic content tracking data, the supplemental electronic content associated with the delivery item, wherein the supplemental electronic content comprises at least one of a video file, an audio file, a graphical file, or a link to a webpage (Klingenburg: ¶ 0148 showing hyperlink included in the tracking email which is directed to a webpage)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include identifying the supplemental delivery content, being a link to a webpage (tracking email comprising a hyperlink) with a delivery item as taught by Klingenburg in the system of claim 8 of the ‘448 patent/Klingenburg, for the same reasons described in the rejection of claim 11 above.
Claim 13 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12367448 (US12367448B2) in view of US 20080004995 A1 to Klingenburg et al. (Klingenburg).
Claim 13: The limitations of instant claim 13 are taught by claim 7 of the ‘448, except for the following limitations, which are taught by Klingenburg:
automatically scheduling delivery of the supplemental content when the supplemental content is associated with the delivery item (Klingenburg: ¶ 0063-0066 showing user can choose to receive email notifications on the day of the scheduled delivery, wherein the notification is transmitted to the user device)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include scheduling delivery of supplemental content associated with a delivery item as taught by Klingenburg in the system of claim 7 of the ‘448 patent, 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.
Claim 14 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12367448 (US12367448B2) in view of US 20080004995 A1 to Klingenburg et al. (Klingenburg).
Claim 14: The limitations of instant claim 14 are taught by claim 13 of the ‘448 patent, except for the following limitations, which are taught by Klingenburg:
automatically scheduling delivery of the supplemental content when the supplemental content is associated with the delivery item (Klingenburg: ¶ 0063-0066 showing user can choose to receive email notifications on the day of the scheduled delivery, wherein the notification is transmitted to the user device)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include scheduling delivery of supplemental content associated with a delivery item as taught by Klingenburg in the system of claim 13 of the ‘448 patent, 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.
Claim 15 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12367448 (US12367448B2). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claim 15: All of the limitations of instant claim 15 are anticipated by the limitations of claim 20 of the ‘448 patent.
Claim 16 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12367448 (US12367448B2) in view of US 20080004995 A1 to Klingenburg et al. (Klingenburg).
Claim 16: The limitations of instant claim 16 are taught by claim 14 of the ‘448 patent, except for the following limitations, which are taught by Klingenburg:
automatically scheduling delivery of the supplemental content when the supplemental content is associated with the delivery item (Klingenburg: ¶ 0063-0066 showing user can choose to receive email notifications on the day of the scheduled delivery, wherein the notification is transmitted to the user device)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include scheduling delivery of supplemental content associated with a delivery item as taught by Klingenburg in the system of claim 14 of the ‘448 patent, 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.
Claim 17 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12367448 (US12367448B2) in view of US 20080004995 A1 to Klingenburg et al. (Klingenburg).
Claim 17: The limitations of instant claim 17 are taught by claim 15 of the ‘448 patent, except for the following limitations, which are taught by Klingenburg:
automatically scheduling delivery of the supplemental content when the supplemental content is associated with the delivery item (Klingenburg: ¶ 0063-0066 showing user can choose to receive email notifications on the day of the scheduled delivery, wherein the notification is transmitted to the user device)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include scheduling delivery of supplemental content associated with a delivery item as taught by Klingenburg in the system of claim 15 of the ‘448 patent, 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.
Claim 18 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12367448 (US12367448B2) in view of US 20080004995 A1 to Klingenburg et al. (Klingenburg).
Claim 18: The limitations of instant claim 18 are taught by claim 16 of the ‘448 patent, except for the following limitations, which are taught by Klingenburg:
automatically scheduling delivery of the supplemental content when the supplemental content is associated with the delivery item (Klingenburg: ¶ 0063-0066 showing user can choose to receive email notifications on the day of the scheduled delivery, wherein the notification is transmitted to the user device)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include scheduling delivery of supplemental content associated with a delivery item as taught by Klingenburg in the system of claim 16 of the ‘448 patent, 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.
Claim 21 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12367448 (US12367448B2). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claim 21: All of the limitations of instant claim 21 are anticipated by claim 18 of the ‘488 patent.
Claims 2-4 and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11797913 (US11797913B2) in view of US 20060041481 A1 to Stowe.
Claim 2: The limitations of instant claim 2 are taught by claim 14 of the ’913 patent, except for the following (due to the difference in statutory class), which are taught by Stowe:
a computer-readable storage medium storing instructions; and a processor that is operably connected to the computer-readable storage medium and that executes the instructions to perform operations (Stowe: ¶ 0049 showing computer readable memory storing instructions executed by processing devices)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the computer readable memory storing processor executed instructions as taught by Stowe in the system of claim 14 of the ‘913 patent, 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.
Claim 3: As per above, instant claim 2 is taught by claim 14 of the ‘913 patent/Stowe. The further limitations of instant claim 3 are taught by claim 14 of the ‘913 patent.
Claim 4: As per above instant claim 3 is taught by claim 14 of the ‘913 patent/Stowe. The following limitations of instant claim 4 are not taught by the ‘913 patent, however, Stowe teaches:
receiving supplemental physical content tracking data identifying a position within a mail distribution network of the supplemental physical content; and determining a delivery date of the supplemental physical content based on the supplemental physical content tracking data (Stowe: ¶ 0059 and ¶ 0063; also see ¶ 0103, ¶ 0063, ¶ 0051 showing determining current tracking status of second shipments and holding/accelerating shipment of one or more other shipments at a location so that they can be delivered on the same day)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included receiving the tracking data identifying a position and delivery date of the mail item of Stowe in the system of claim 14 of the ‘913 patent/Stowe with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation to "provide a customer-convenient, efficient and cost-effective means of combining a plurality of parcels intended for delivery at a specific location by a carrier into a minimum number of deliveries at that location" (Stowe: ¶ 0013) and "aggregate the delivery of multiple parcels to a location such that the number of deliveries to that location decreases" (Stowe: ¶ 0005).
Claim 19: See the rejection of claim 2 above.
Claims 5-6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11797913 (US11797913B2) in view of US 20060041481 A1 to Stowe, and further in view of US 20080004995 A1 to Klingenburg et al. (Klingenburg).
Claim 5: As per above, instant claim 2 is taught by claim 14 of the ‘913 patent/Stowe. The further limitations of instant claim 5 are not taught by claim 14 of the ‘913 patent/Stowe, however, Klingenburg teaches:
wherein the operations further comprise: scanning a tracking identifier associated with the delivery item (Klingenburg: ¶ 0095, ¶ 0096, ¶ 0132 showing scanning identifier on the delivery item); and
generating supplemental electronic content tracking data based on the scanned tracking identifier (Klingenburg: ¶ 0095-0096 showing when the package data is read by scanning it, notification is generated for the consignee)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include automatically scheduling the email notifications and scanning a tracking identifier to trigger the notification as taught by Klingenburg in the system of claim 14 of the ‘913 patent/Stowe, 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.
Claim 6: As per above, instant claim 5 is taught by claim 14 of the ‘913 patent/Stowe/Klingenburg. The further limitations of instant claim 6 are not taught by claim 14 of the ‘913 patent/Stowe, however, Klingenburg teaches:
identifying, based on the supplemental electronic content tracking data, the supplemental electronic content associated with the delivery item, wherein the supplemental electronic content comprises at least one of a video file, an audio file, a graphical file, or a link to a webpage (Klingenburg: ¶ 0148 showing hyperlink included in the tracking email which is directed to a webpage)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include identifying the supplemental delivery content, being a link to a webpage (tracking email comprising a hyperlink) with a delivery item as taught by Klingenburg in the system of claim 14 of the ‘913 patent/Stowe/Klingenburg, for the same reasons described in the rejection of claim 5 above.
Claims 7-8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11797913 (US11797913B2) in view of US 20060041481 A1 to Stowe, further in view of US 20080004995 A1 to Klingenburg et al. (Klingenburg), and further in view of US 20120179606 A1 to Sagi et al. (Sagi).
Claim 7: As per above, instant claim 5 is taught by claim 14 of the ‘913 patent/Stowe/Klingenburg. With respect to the following limitations of instant claim 7, the ‘913 patent/Stowe do not teach, however, Klingenburg teaches:
identifying a user based on the supplemental electronic content tracking data (Klingenburg: ¶ 0095-0100, ¶ 0102-0103 showing when a package is scanned, system looks up consignee profile to identify delivery preferences);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include identifying a user according to package scan (tracking data) as taught by Klingenburg in the system of claim 14 of the ‘913 patent/Stowe/Klingenburg, 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.
With respect to the remaining imitations of instant claim 7, the ‘913 patent/Stowe/Klingenburg do not explicitly teach, however, Sagi teaches:
accessing advertisement preferences for the user (Sagi: ¶ 0021, ¶ 0034, ¶ 0041, ¶ 0051 showing recipient preferences for marking/promotional materials); and
selecting, for delivery, at least one of the supplemental physical content or the supplemental electronic content based on the advertisement preferences (Sagi: ¶ 0021, ¶ 0038, ¶ 0041, ¶ 0051 showing supplemental content delivered to the user based on the preferences)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include delivering content according to the user advertisement preferences as taught by Sagi in the system of claim 14 of the ‘913 patent/Stowe/Klingenburg, 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.
Claim 8: The further limitations of instant claim 8 are taught by claim 14 of the ‘913 patent (note that claim 14 of the ‘913 patent includes claim 13 of the ‘913 patent).
Claims 9-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11797913. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claim 9: All of the limitations of instant claim 9 are anticipated by claim 14 of the ‘913 patent.
Claim 10: The limitations of instant claim 10 are anticipated by claim 14 of the ‘913 patent.
Claims 11-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11797913 (US11797913B2) in view of US 20080004995 A1 to Klingenburg et al. (Klingenburg).
Claim 11: As per above, instant claim 9 is anticipated by claim 14 of the ‘913 patent. The ‘913 patent does not teach the following limitations of instant claim 11, however, Klingenburg teaches:
scanning a tracking identifier associated with the delivery item (Klingenburg: ¶ 0095, ¶ 0096, ¶ 0132 showing scanning identifier on the delivery item); and
generating supplemental electronic content tracking data based on the scanned tracking identifier (Klingenburg: ¶ 0095-0096 showing when the package data is read by scanning it, notification is generated for the consignee)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include automatically scheduling the email notifications and scanning a tracking identifier to trigger the notification as taught by Klingenburg in the system of claim 14 of the ‘913 patent, 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.
Claim 12: As per above, instant claim 11 is taught by claim 14 of the ‘913 patent/Klingenburg. The ‘913 patent does not teach the following limitations of instant claim 12, however, Klingenburg teaches:
identifying, based on the supplemental electronic content tracking data, the supplemental electronic content associated with the delivery item, wherein the supplemental electronic content comprises at least one of a video file, an audio file, a graphical file, or a link to a webpage (Klingenburg: ¶ 0148 showing hyperlink included in the tracking email which is directed to a webpage)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include identifying the supplemental delivery content, being a link to a webpage (tracking email comprising a hyperlink) with a delivery item as taught by Klingenburg in the system of claim 14 of the ‘913 patent/Klingenburg, for the same reasons described in the rejection of claim 11 above.
Claims 13-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11797913 (US11797913B2) in view of US 20080004995 A1 to Klingenburg et al. (Klingenburg), and further in view of US 20120179606 A1 to Sagi et al. (Sagi).
Claim 13: As per above, instant claim 9 is anticipated by claim 14 of the ‘913 patent. With respect to the following limitations of instant claim 7, the ‘913 patent do not teach, however, Klingenburg teaches:
identifying a user based on the supplemental electronic content tracking data (Klingenburg: ¶ 0095-0100, ¶ 0102-0103 showing when a package is scanned, system looks up consignee profile to identify delivery preferences);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include identifying a user according to package scan (tracking data) as taught by Klingenburg in the system of claim 14 of the ‘913 patent, 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.
With respect to the remaining imitations of instant claim 13, the ‘913 patent/Klingenburg do not explicitly teach, however, Sagi teaches:
accessing advertisement preferences for the user (Sagi: ¶ 0021, ¶ 0034, ¶ 0041, ¶ 0051 showing recipient preferences for marking/promotional materials); and
selecting, for delivery, at least one of the supplemental physical content or the supplemental electronic content based on the advertisement preferences (Sagi: ¶ 0021, ¶ 0038, ¶ 0041, ¶ 0051 showing supplemental content delivered to the user based on the preferences)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include delivering content according to the user advertisement preferences as taught by Sagi in the system of claim 14 of the ‘913 patent/Klingenburg, 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.
Claim 14: The further limitations of instant claim 14 are taught by claim 14 of the ‘913 patent (note that claim 14 of the ‘913 patent includes claim 13 of the ‘913 patent).
Claim 15 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11797913 (US11797913B2) in view of US 20060041481 A1 to Stowe.
Claim 15: As per above instant claim 9 is anticipated by claim 14 of the ‘913 patent. The following limitations of instant claim 15 are not taught by the ‘913 patent, however, Stowe teaches:
receiving supplemental physical content tracking data identifying a position within a mail distribution network of the supplemental physical content; and determining a delivery date of the supplemental physical content based on the supplemental physical content tracking data (Stowe: ¶ 0059 and ¶ 0063; also see ¶ 0103, ¶ 0063, ¶ 0051 showing determining current tracking status of second shipments and holding/accelerating shipment of one or more other shipments at a location so that they can be delivered on the same day)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included receiving the tracking data identifying a position and delivery date of the mail item of Stowe in the system of claim 14 of the ‘913 patent with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation to "provide a customer-convenient, efficient and cost-effective means of combining a plurality of parcels intended for delivery at a specific location by a carrier into a minimum number of deliveries at that location" (Stowe: ¶ 0013) and "aggregate the delivery of multiple parcels to a location such that the number of deliveries to that location decreases" (Stowe: ¶ 0005).
Claim 16 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11797913 (US11797913B2) in view of US 20120179606 A1 to Sagi et al. (Sagi).
Claim 16: The limitations of claim 9 are anticipated by claim 14 of the ‘913 patent. The limitations of claim 16 are not taught by claim 14 of the ‘913 patent, however, Sagi teaches:
automatically providing, by the processor, reminders based on events in the electronic calendar, or automatically sending, by the processor, electronic communications based on the events, or automatically sending, by the processor, greeting cards periodically based on the events (Sagi: ¶ 0021, ¶ 0027, ¶ 0041, ¶ 0045, ¶ 0051 showing reminders based on calendar entries associated with the mailpieces, e.g. a due date associated with a bill or other event)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include providing reminders based on the calendar entries as taught by Sagi in the system of claim 14 of the ‘913 patent, 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.
Claim 17 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11797913 (US11797913B2) in view of US 20120179606 A1 to Sagi et al. (Sagi), and further in view of US 20050278657 A1 to Davidson et al. (Davidson).
Claim 17: As per above, instant claim 16 is taught by claim 14 of the ‘913 patent/Sagi. The further limitations of claim 17 are not taught by claim 14 of the ‘913 patent/Sagi, however, Davidson teaches:
linking, by the processor, the electronic calendar to a social graph of a user; and importing, by the processor, the events or milestones to the electronic calendar (Davidson: ¶ 0024-0026, ¶ 0029, ¶ 0034-0035, ¶ 0040, ¶ 0060, ¶ 0062, ¶ 0068-0072 showing personal event information contained in a personal event data repository is linked and important into the calendar for viewing alongside shipment information, which as per Fig. 13 the personal events can include “Lunch with John…”, i.e. a social graph linked to the calendar)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the linking and addition of calendar entries indicating personal/social events of the user of Davidson in the system of claim 14 of the ‘913 patent/Sagi with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation that it "enables efficient management and tracking of shipments using a convenient and easy to read calendar interface" (Davidson: ¶ 0001).
Claim 18 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11797913 (US11797913B2) in view of US 20120179606 A1 to Sagi et al. (Sagi), further in view of US 20050278657 A1 to Davidson et al. (Davidson), and further in view of JP 2006178847 A to Ito et al. (Ito).
Claim 18: As per above, instant claim 17 is taught by claim 14 of the ‘913 patent/Sagi/Davidson. The following limitation of claim 18 are not taught by claim 14 of the ‘913 patent, however, Sagi teaches:
activating, by the processor, alerts for the events or the milestones that appear on the electronic calendar (Sagi: ¶ 0021, ¶0027, ¶ 0041, ¶ 0045, ¶ 0051 showing reminders based on calendar entries associated with the mailpieces, e.g. a due date associated with a bill or another event)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include providing alerts based on the calendar entries as taught by Sagi in the system of claim 14 of the ‘913 patent/Sagi/Davidson, 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.
With respect to the following limitation of instant claim 18, the ‘913 patent/Sagi/Davidson do not explicitly teach, however, Ito teaches:
and linking, by the processor, the user with a shipping creation tool to send the delivery item based on the events or the milestones (Ito: ¶ 0005-0008, ¶ 0012, ¶ 0025, ¶ 0032-0033 showing user can create shipments/schedule the printing of shipping labels for mail items based on upcoming event dates, e.g. birthdays or anniversaries; also see ¶ 0022 “event database” and “event schedule” and ¶ 0033 showing electronic calendar in which the relevant dates are input)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the print of a label for an item based on a due date at a destination (e.g. on a birthday or anniversary) of Ito in the system of claim 14 of the ‘913 patent/Sagi/Davidson with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation that the claimed invention, with the motivation that "if you want to affix a destination label to commercial direct mail, you want to output the address label at an effective timing, such as sending a direct mail in time for some event or anniversary, etc., and affix it to the shipment" (Ito: ¶ 0003).
Claims 20-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11797913 (US11797913B2) in view of US 20070043846 A1 to Grayson et al. (Grayson).
Claim 20: The limitations of instant claim 20 are taught by claim 14 of the ’913 patent, except for the following limitations, which are taught by Grayson:
the delivery item including one or more features (Grayson: ¶ 0022 showing delivery information includes a tag indicating a type of item, where the tags indicate actions to be triggered by electronic content associated with the item; also see ¶ 0052-0053 showing the electronic content originates by scanning paper document such as a bill or mailpiece; also see ¶ 0111 showing content tagged as a bill and processed to allow for additional functions such as adding a due date into a calendar and performing payment processing),
the tracked data including data indicating that one or more of the supplemental physical content or the supplemental electronic content is associated with the delivery item (Grayson: ¶ 0135-0136 showing received electronic content including tracking data associated with billing statements or physical mail item, i.e. delivery item, showing received 1/3/2005 or “expected 1/3/2005” and including an indication of electronic content that is an electronic representation of the physical mailpiece, i.e. indicating supplemental electronic content associated with the delivery item as seen in Figs. 6 and 8; ¶ 0052-0053 specifies the items in the mailbox may originate from scanned paper document, e.g. statements, bills or other mailpieces in order to generate the electronic content),
the one or more features of the delivery item prompting one or more of delivery or display of the supplemental physical content or the supplemental electronic content (Grayson: ¶ 0022 showing “The received information may include a tag indicating its type, in which case the electronic content distribution module is operable to determine the type of the information based on the tag. Respective tags in the received information may indicate at least one of: an action to be triggered by the electronic content, software application activity to be triggered by the electronic content, whether a response to the electronic content is required, whether the electronic content comprises a transactional element”; also see Fig. 6/¶ 0135-0137 and Fig. 8/¶ 0139 showing displaying the electronic content that as per above is based on the tag/type of electronic content, wherein as per ¶ 0139 the electronic content is a bill and “the content is displayed along with various options including the ability to pay the bill and to file or archive it, as shown in FIG. 8. When the content is opened for the first time, any due dates or important trigger dates may be automatically populated in the calendar, at the right side on the screen. A user might thereafter be notified of bill due dates or other important dates by a calendar notice pop-up alert”; and ¶ 0111 showing the electronic content is “tagged <bill>, and processed by the electronic content distribution module 24 to allow for additional functions such as adding a payment due date into a calendar and payment processing by a user at a user system”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the indicating of supplemental electronic content associated with a bill/statement/mail item/etc. and including a feature/tag specifying display of electronic content associated with the bill/statement/mail item/etc. of Grayson in the system of claim 14 of the ‘913 patent with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation to “provide for improved electronic content management…A closed content management system in which the use of electronic addresses is managed and controlled allows transfer of electronic content to geo-specific electronic addresses while at the same time offering a level of control over unsolicited communications” (Grayson: ¶ 0010). Furthermore, it would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to do so, 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.
Claim 21: The further limitations of claim 21 are taught by claim 14 of the ‘913 patent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 2-8 recite “An electronic device, comprising: a computer-readable storage medium storing instructions; and a processor” (i.e. a machine); claims 9-18 recite “A computer-implemented method” (i.e. a process); and claims 19-21 recite “A system for managing content associated with a delivery item, the system comprising: a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions; and a processor” (i.e. a machine). These claims fall under one of the four categories of statutory subject matter and as a result, pass Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility test. However, “Determining that a claim falls within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) in Step 1 does not end the eligibility analysis, because claims directed to nothing more than abstract ideas (such as a mathematical formula or equation), natural phenomena, and laws of nature are not eligible for patent protection.” See MPEP 2106.04. Accordingly, the examiner continues the subject matter eligibility analysis below.
Step 2A Prong One:
Independent claims 2, 9, and 19 recite limitations for managing content associated with a delivery item, comprising:
receiving tracking data regarding a delivery item;
determining, based on the tracking data, whether supplemental content is associated with the delivery item, the supplemental content comprising supplemental physical content and supplemental electronic content;
scheduling delivery of the supplemental content when the supplemental content is associated with the delivery item;
identifying, based on the tracking data, a due date of a response to the delivery item; and
adding the due date of the response to a calendar, wherein the calendar includes an indication that both the supplemental physical content and the supplemental electronic content are anticipated to be delivered on an expected delivery date
The limitations of independent claims 2, 9 and 19 above are determined to recite an abstract idea (i.e. tracking a mail item, identifying content associated with the tracked mail item, and adding content associated with the mail item to a calendar) for the reasons discussed in the following continued Step 2A Prong One analysis. Note that “An abstract idea can generally be described at different levels of abstraction.” Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1240-41 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
As per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II), claim limitations which recite commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations) or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) fall into the “certain methods of organizing human activity” category of judicial exceptions. Therefore, since the processes described by the limitations above amount to a commercial interaction (i.e. tracking a mail item, identifying content associated with the tracked mail item, and adding content associated with the mail item to a calendar), the claims fall into the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
As described in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), “[T]he "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions.” and “If a claim recites a limitation that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, the limitation falls within the mental processes grouping, and the claim recites an abstract idea.” The limitations recited by the representative independent claims 2, 9 and 19 above, under the broadest reasonable interpretation and but for the use of generic computer components, cover concepts (e.g. observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion) that can reasonably be performed in the human mind or by the human mind with the aid of simple tools such as pen and paper.
For example, the “receiving” step amounts to an observation, while the “determining,” “scheduling,” and “adding” steps would be considered evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Note that adding information to a calendar, but for the recitation of generic computer implementation, can otherwise be performed with the use of a pen and a paper calendar. Therefore, as the processes above described by the representative independent claims 2, 9 and 19 can be characterized as mental processes (i.e. observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion), but for the recitation of generic computer components in the claims, the claims fall under the “mental processes” category of judicial exceptions (i.e. abstract ideas).
As claims 2, 9 and 19 are identified by the examiner as reciting concepts that fall under more than one abstract idea grouping (i.e. “certain methods or organizing human activity” and “mental processes”), the examiner considers the limitations together as a single abstract idea for the purposes of the Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B analysis, in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(II)(B).
Step 2A Prong Two:
Claims 2, 9 and 19 recite the following additional elements:
“An electronic device, comprising: a computer-readable storage medium storing instructions; and a processor that is operably connected to the computer-readable storage medium and that executes the instructions to perform operations” of claim 2
“A computer-implemented method, implemented by a computer system…the computer system comprising a processor communicating with a client device, the client device including a user interface that is separate from the processor” of claim 9,
“A system for managing content associated with a delivery item, the system comprising: a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions; and a processor that is operably connected to the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and that executes the instructions to perform operations” of claim 19
“automatically” (implying computer automation/implementation) of claims 2, 9 and 19
“an electronic calendar” and “electronic content” of claims 2, 9 and 19
The judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) recited in claims 2, 9 and 19 is not integrated into a practical application because the claims recite mere instructions to apply the abstract idea (i.e. tracking a mail item, identifying content associated with the tracked mail item, and adding content associated with the mail item to a calendar) using generic computers/computer components (i.e. “An electronic device, comprising: a computer-readable storage medium storing instructions; and a processor that is operably connected to the computer-readable storage medium and that executes the instructions to perform operations” of claim 2; “A system for managing content associated with a delivery item, the system comprising: a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions; and a processor that is operably connected to the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and that executes the instructions to perform operations” of claim 9; “A system for managing content associated with a delivery item, the system comprising: a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions; and a processor that is operably connected to the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and that executes the instructions to perform operations” of claim 19; and the performance of steps “automatically” and using “an electronic calendar” of claims 2, 9, and 19). See MPEP 2106.05(f), showing “[C]laims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp.”
Note that while the claims recite identifying “electronic content” associated with the tracking data, this limitation merely generally links the performance of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (where electronic content is associated with a mail item). Furthermore, even if adding a due date to an electronic calendar requires sending data to an electronic calendar, this describes generic computer functions using the processor in its ordinary capacity to transmit information, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Therefore, because the claims, considered as a whole, do not recite anything that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Claims 2, 9 and 19 do not include additional elements, whether considered alone or as an ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) because as mentioned above, the claims recite mere instructions to apply the abstract idea (i.e. tracking a mail item, identifying content associated with the tracked mail item, and adding content associated with the mail item to a calendar) using generic computers/computer components (i.e. “An electronic device, comprising: a computer-readable storage medium storing instructions; and a processor that is operably connected to the computer-readable storage medium and that executes the instructions to perform operations” of claim 2; “A system for managing content associated with a delivery item, the system comprising: a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions; and a processor that is operably connected to the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and that executes the instructions to perform operations” of claim 9; “A system for managing content associated with a delivery item, the system comprising: a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions; and a processor that is operably connected to the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and that executes the instructions to perform operations” of claim 19; and the performance of steps “automatically” and using “an electronic calendar” of claims 2, 9, and 19). See MPEP 2106.05(f), showing “[C]laims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp.”
Note that while the claims recite identifying “electronic content” associated with the tracking data, this limitation merely generally links the performance of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (where electronic content is associated with a mail item). Furthermore, even if adding a due date to an electronic calendar requires sending data to an electronic calendar, this describes generic computer functions using the processor in its ordinary capacity to transmit information, which does not add significantly more than the abstract idea. Considering the additional elements as an ordered combination does not add anything that amounts to significantly more. Therefore, claims 2, 9, and 19 do not recite anything that amounts to significantly more.
Dependent Claims 3-8, 10-18, and 20-21:
Dependent claims 3-8, 10-18, and 20-21 are directed to the same abstract idea as independent claims 2, 9 and 19 above as they do not recite anything that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application or amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 3 and 10 recite “automatically creating and printing postage for the response based on the due date on the electronic calendar” – however, this step is recited at a high level of generality that does not describe the particulars of how the postage is created or printed to suggest an inventive concept, and under the broadest reasonable interpretation, “creating and printing postage based on the due date on the electronic calendar…” clearly describes a longstanding and widely used commercial interaction to create/print postage, which is involved in nearly any shipping or mailing transaction as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Furthermore, it also describes a mental process that could be performed manual by a human with the aid of pen or other writing utensils to mark postage materials with a postage indicia. Therefore, this limitation further describes the abstract idea recited in claims 2 and 9 above. Performing this process “automatically” at most describes applying the abstract idea using generic computers (e.g. automating the process using generic computer implementation). However, assuming, arguendo, that “automatically creating and printing postage…” is considered as a separate additional element in the claims, it still merely provides insignificant extra-solution activity that does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(g), showing “An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent.” Further, see US. Patent No. 4535419 to Dlugos, showing “an electronic postage meter such as a Pitney Bowes Model 6500, produced by the Pitney Bowes Corporation of Stamford, Conn., may be used in place of the mechanical meters described above and the decimal position in the printed postage value set electronically (Interfacing such an electronic postage meter to the system described above would be a conventional task will within the skill of a person skilled in the art and it is believed need not be further described for an understanding of the subject invention.)” (Dlugos: Col. 12: 64 – Col. 13: 5). Therefore, it is clear that as early as 1982, using electronic postage printers to generate and print postage was already considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, and would not add significantly more than the abstract idea, even if considered as an ordered combination with the preceding claims.
Claims 4, 7, 13, and 15 recite limitations which merely further describe the abstract idea above, for: receiving supplemental physical content tracking data identifying a position within a mail distribution network of the supplemental physical content; and determining a delivery date of the supplemental physical content based on the supplemental physical content tracking data (claims 4/15); and identifying a user based on the supplemental electronic content tracking data; accessing advertisement preferences for the user; and selecting, for delivery, at least one of the supplemental physical content or the supplemental electronic content based on the advertisement preferences (claims 7/13).
Claims 5 and 11 recite “scanning a tracking identifier associated with the delivery item; and generating supplemental electronic content tracking data based on the scanned tracking identifier” – however, the limitations to scan a tracking identifier merely amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g. mere data collection) using existing methods for collecting information (e.g. scanning), and “electronically scanning or extracting data” has been identified by the courts as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(II) citing Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank). Generating supplemental electronic content tracking data merely further describes the abstract idea above.
Claims 6 and 12 recite “identifying, based on the supplemental electronic content tracking data, the supplemental electronic content associated with the delivery item, wherein the supplemental electronic content comprises at least one of a video file, an audio file, a graphical file, or a link to a webpage” - however, these limitations at most link the performance of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (different types of electronic content recited at a high level of generality), but do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more.
Claims 8 and 14 recite “displaying the supplemental electronic content in a user interface based on a selection of the supplemental electronic content identified by the user” and claim 21 recites “presenting, within a user interface, on the corresponding delivery date, the supplemental electronic content to the user” – however, these limitations merely further describe the abstract idea (“displaying the supplemental electronic content…based on a selection of the supplemental electronic content identified by the user” and “presenting…on the corresponding delivery date, the supplemental electronic content to the user”) using generic computer components (“within a user interface” of claims 8, 14, and 21).
Claim 16 recites limitations further describing the abstract idea (“providing…reminders based on events in the…calendar, or…sending…communications based on the events, or…sending…greeting cards periodically based on the events”) being applied using generic computers and/or computers operating in their ordinary capacity to transmit data (“automatically providing…,” “electronic calendar,” “automatically sending, by the processor, electronic communications…,” “automatically sending, by the processor…”).
Claim 17 recites limitations that merely generally link the performance of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and at most receive/transmit data using generic computers functioning in their ordinary capacity (“linking, by the processor, the electronic calendar to a social graph of a user; and importing, by the processor, the events or milestones to the electronic calendar”).
Claim 18 recites the limitations “activating, by the processor, alerts for the events or the milestones that appear on the electronic calendar; and linking, by the processor, the user with a shipping creation tool to send the delivery item based on the events or the milestones,” which further describes the abstract idea (“activating…alerts for the events or the milestones that appear on the…calendar; and linking…the user with a shipping creation tool to send the delivery item based on the events or the milestones”) being applied using generic computer implementation (“by the processor,” “electronic calendar”).
Claim 20 recites limitations further describing the abstract idea (“tracking data about the delivery item, the delivery item including one or more features, the tracked data including data indicating that one or more of the supplemental physical content or the supplemental electronic content is associated with the delivery item, the one or more features of the delivery item prompting one or more of delivery or display of the supplemental physical content or the supplemental electronic content; identifying, based on the tracked data, the supplemental physical content associated with the delivery item; and generating a…command to schedule a delivery of the supplemental physical content at a delivery point of a user, the scheduled delivery being associated with a corresponding delivery date” being applied using generic computer implementation (“an electronic command” and displaying the electronic content on a computer, to any extent that is even recited).
Therefore, claims 2-21 are ineligible under § 101.
Novelty/Non-Obviousness
Claims 2-21 are novel and nonobvious over the prior art for the following reasons:
No combination of the prior art, as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have rendered independent claims 2, 9, or 19 obvious.
With respect to independent claim 2 (using claim 2 as representative), US 20120179606 A1 to Sagi et al. (Sagi) teaches an electronic device (Sagi: ¶ 0029, ¶ 0033, ¶ 0071 showing server(s) for implementing the system), comprising: a computer-readable storage medium storing instructions; and a processor that is operably connected to the computer-readable storage medium and that executes the instructions to perform operations (Sagi: ¶ 0071 “Such servers includes at least one processor, RAM memory for data and instructions, disk memory, network and external storage connections”) comprising: obtaining first tracking data regarding a delivery item (Sagi: ¶ 0020-0021, ¶ 0043, ¶ 0049-0050, showing receiving electronic information regarding a processed mail piece from a print stream processor; also see ¶ 0022 “time sensitive data related to a first mail piece that is received electronically from a print stream processor”; ¶ 0027 “aggregate time-sensitive data for mail pieces received electronically, by physical mail and/or by user uploading of documents into the system such as for secure storage and record keeping”), identifying a due date of a response to the delivery item a (Sagi: ¶ 0021, ¶ 0041, ¶ 0045-0046, ¶ 0052, ¶ 0054-0056 showing identifying due date associated with the mail from the processed mail piece data;); automatically adding the due date of the response to an electronic calendar (Sagi: ¶ 0021, ¶ 0041, ¶ 0046, ¶ 0052, ¶ 0057 information extracted from the mailpiece data, including the due date, is used to create a calendar entry on an electronic calendar including the due date; note that Grayson at ¶ 0139 also shows “When the content is opened for the first time, any due dates or important trigger dates may be automatically populated in the calendar, at the right side on the screen”).
US 20070043846 A1 to Grayson et al. (Grayson) teaches the delivery item including one or more features (Grayson: ¶ 0022 “The received information may include a tag indicating its type, in which case the electronic content distribution module is operable to determine the type of the information based on the tag. Respective tags in the received information may indicate at least one of: an action to be triggered by the electronic content, software application activity to be triggered by the electronic content, whether a response to the electronic content is required, whether the electronic content comprises a transactional element”; see ¶ 0052-0053 this electronic content displayed originates by scanning paper document, for example bill or mailpiece; also ¶ 0111 showing content is tagged <bill>, and processed by the electronic content distribution module for adding a payment due date into a calendar), first tracking data including data indicating supplemental electronic content associated with a delivery item (Grayson: ¶ 0135-0136 received electronic content including tracking data associated with billing statements or physical mail item, i.e. delivery item, showing received 1/3/2005 or “expected 1/3/2005” and including an indication of electronic content that is an electronic representation of the physical mailpiece, i.e. indicating supplemental electronic content associated with the delivery item as seen in Figs. 6 and 8; ¶ 0052-0053 specifies the items in the mailbox may originate from scanned paper document, e.g. statements, bills or other mailpieces in order to generate the electronic content), the one or more features of the delivery item prompting one or more of delivery or display of the supplemental electronic content (Grayson: ¶ 0022 showing “The received information may include a tag indicating its type, in which case the electronic content distribution module is operable to determine the type of the information based on the tag. Respective tags in the received information may indicate at least one of: an action to be triggered by the electronic content, software application activity to be triggered by the electronic content, whether a response to the electronic content is required, whether the electronic content comprises a transactional element”; also Fig. 6/¶ 0135-0137 and Fig. 8/¶ 0139 showing displaying the electronic content that as per above is based on the tag/type of electronic content, wherein as per ¶ 0139 the electronic content is a bill and “the content is displayed along with various options including the ability to pay the bill and to file or archive it, as shown in FIG. 8. When the content is opened for the first time, any due dates or important trigger dates may be automatically populated in the calendar, at the right side on the screen. A user might thereafter be notified of bill due dates or other important dates by a calendar notice pop-up alert”; and ¶ 0111 showing the electronic content is “tagged <bill>, and processed by the electronic content distribution module 24 to allow for additional functions such as adding a payment due date into a calendar and payment processing by a user at a user system”); wherein the supplemental electronic content comprises at least one of a video file, an audio file, a graphical file, or a link to a webpage (Grayson: ¶ 0069, ¶ 0100, ¶ 0120, ¶ 0133 showing electronic content is presented as or on a web page).
JP 2006178847 A to Ito et al. (Ito) automatically printing a label for a mail item to be shipped based on a printing date derived from a due date for arrival of the mail item to be shipped (Ito: ¶ 0005-0008, ¶ 0012, ¶ 0025, ¶ 0032-0033; also see ¶ 0022 “event database” and “event schedule” and ¶ 0033 showing electronic calendar in which the relevant dates are input); and linking, by the processor, the user with a shipping creation tool to send the delivery item based on the events or the milestones (Ito: ¶ 0005-0008, ¶ 0012, ¶ 0025, ¶ 0032-0033 showing allowing the user to create shipments/schedule the printing of shipping labels for mail items based on upcoming event dates, e.g. birthdays or anniversaries; also see ¶ 0022 “event database” and “event schedule” and ¶ 0033 showing electronic calendar in which the relevant dates are input). However, Sagi, Grayson, and Ito still would not teach “wherein the electronic calendar comprises: an indication that both the supplemental physical content and the supplemental electronic content are anticipated to be delivered on an expected delivery date” when considered in the context of the claims as a whole.
Other prior art:
US 20080004995 A1 to Klingenburg et al. (Klingenburg) teaches scanning a tracking identifier associated with the delivery item (Klingenburg: ¶ 0095, ¶ 0096, ¶ 0132 scanning the identifier on the delivery item); generating the tracking data based on the scanned tracking identifier (Klingenburg: ¶ 0095-0096 showing when the package data is read by scanning it, notification may be generated to the consignee); displaying supplemental electronic content in a user interface based on a corresponding identifier selected by a user (Klingenburg: ¶ 0126-0128, ¶ 0133, ¶ 0136-0138, ¶ 0148, ¶ 0150 showing tracking information emails are provided with a hyperlink, also ¶ 0150 showing “The consignor's web site may then provide a means for the consignee (path 566) to access directly the carrier's web site …The consignor may provide this link to the consignee via an email, through a hyperlink on the consignor's web site”); identifying the user based on the first tracking data (Klingenburg: ¶ 0095-0100, ¶ 0102-0103 system looks up if the consignee profile indicates any delivery preferences); allowing a user to select an identifier of the supplemental electronic content and displaying the supplemental electronic content corresponding to the identifier (Klingenburg: ¶ 0126-0128, ¶ 0136-0138, ¶ 0148, ¶ 0150 showing tracking information emails are also provided to the consignor to be displayed on the consignors website, also ¶ 0150 showing “The consignor's web site may then provide a means for the consignee (path 566) to access directly the carrier's web site to obtain the DAF and proceed as in step 524. The consignor may provide this link to the consignee via an email, through a hyperlink on the consignor's web site”), and presenting, on a user interface, on the corresponding delivery date, the supplemental electronic content to the user (Klingenburg: ¶ 0063-0066 showing the user can choose to receive email notifications the day of the delivery, where the notification is transmitted to the user’s device to provide to the user).
US 20050278657 A1 to Davidson et al. (Davidson) teaches wherein the electronic calendar comprises: a monthly calendar showing each day and an amount of delivery items received or expected to be received on each day (Davidson: Figs. 3-6 and ¶ 0029-0030, ¶ 0036, ¶ 0060, ¶0062 showing each day on the calendar and providing the user a view of how many shipments are coming in each day; also see ¶ 0071 showing user can click link from the calendar interface to see number of pieces in each shipment); automatically adding, by the processor, an expected delivery date for the delivery item to the electronic calendar (Davidson: ¶ 0009, ¶ 0030, ¶ 0060-0062, Figs. 3-6, ¶ 0069-0070, ¶ 0074 showing shipment events are linked to the calendar, which indicates inbound shipments on specific dates); linking, by the processor, the electronic calendar to a social graph of a user; and importing, by the processor, the events or milestones to the electronic calendar (Davidson: ¶ 0024-0026, ¶ 0029, ¶ 0034-0035, ¶ 0040, ¶ 0060, ¶ 0062, ¶ 0068-0072 showing person event information contained in a personal event data repository is linked and imported into the calendar for viewing alongside the shipment information, which as per at least Fig. 13 the personal events could include “Lunch with John…”, i.e. a social personal event).
NPL Reference U to “Pitney Bowes” (see NPL Reference U of the currently attached PTO-892) teaches providing a hybrid digital physical mail delivery service for viewing bills, direct marketing materials, catalogs, and other content from multiple providers using a single application (Pitney Bowes: Pgs. 1-2). Foreign patent publication WO 2009151884 A1 to Martin also teaches processing mailpieces to include promotional indicia (i.e. a supplemental promotion) on the envelope of a mailpiece (Martin: Figs. 2a and 3; ¶ 0019-0025).
US 20060041481 A1 to Stowe also tracks the delivery dates a plurality of mail piece items (Stowe: ¶ 0053-0057), and receiving second tracking data identifying a position within a mail distribution network of the supplemental physical content; and determining the corresponding delivery date based on the second tracking data (Stowe: ¶ 0059 and ¶ 0063 as above; also see ¶ 0103, ¶ 0063, ¶ 0051 showing determining current tracking status of shipments and holding/accelerating the shipment of one or more of the shipments at a location so that they can be delivered on the same day) - but none of the cited references, or any other references known to the examiner would be able to be reasonably combined with Sagi, Grayson, and Ito in order to teach the limitation for “wherein the electronic calendar includes an indication that both the supplemental physical content and the supplemental electronic content are anticipated to be delivered on an expected delivery date” when considered in the context of the claims as a whole. Further, it would not have been obvious to modify the combination of Sagi, Grayson, and Ito with any of the above references to arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 3-8, 10-18, 20-21 depend from claims 2, 9, and 19. Therefore, claims 2-21 are novel and nonobvious over the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hunter Molnar whose telephone number is (571)272-8271. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30 - 4:00 EST.
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.
/HUNTER MOLNAR/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights