Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/02/2025 was filed before the mailing of this action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 are canceled. Claims 21-40 are new claims. Claims 21-40 are pending.
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 21, 28, and 35 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,387,163. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant patent application and the identified claims of the U.S. patent application both recite the limitations of: receiving, by one or more processors, a request from a customer device to transport a package having one or more characteristics from a first location to a second location; generating order information for the package, the order information comprising a unique global identifier; transmitting a push notification to a driver device, the driver device identified by comparing the one or more characteristics to stored driver certifications; receiving an acceptance from the driver device; generating and transmitting route information associated with a highest ranked itinerary to the driver device; receiving scan information comprising a geotag and a scanned identifier from the driver device, the scan information generated at the first location in response to a scan of a package label on the package; verifying the scanned identifier against the unique global identifier associated with the package and verifying that the geotag matches the first location; and causing the customer device to generate a graphical representation of the route information, the first location, the second location, and a location of the driver device.
Claims 22, 29, and 36 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,387,163. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant patent application and the identified claims of the U.S. patent application both recite the limitations of: determining the highest ranked itinerary by: generating a set of possible itineraries, each itinerary comprising one or more segments; eliminating itinerary segments from the set of possible itineraries based on an incompatibility in an eliminated segment with a characteristic in the one or more characteristics to create an updated set of possible itineraries; sorting the updated set of possible itineraries based on distance to create a sorted set of possible itineraries; and selecting a highest ranked itinerary from the sorted set of possible itineraries.
Claims 23, 30, and 37 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,387,163. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant patent application and the identified claims of the U.S. patent application both recite the limitations of: the request comprises a current GPS location of the package, further comprising: determining, from among a plurality of devices, a closest driver device to the current GPS location of the package; and identifying the closest driver device as the driver device.
Claims 24, 31, and 38 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,387,163. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant patent application and the identified claims of the U.S. patent application both recite the limitations of: receiving second scan information comprising a second geotag, the second scan information generated at the second location in response to a second scan of the package label on the package; determining that the second location is a starting point of a subsequent trip with a carrier; generating an electronic representation of a transit document for transport of the package on the subsequent trip with the carrier, wherein a format of the transit document matches a format required by the carrier; and transmitting the electronic representation of the transit document to the carrier.
Claims 27 and 34 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2, 9, and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,387,163. The claims are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant patent application and the identified claims of the U.S. patent application both recite the limitations of: wherein the one or more characteristics comprise a weight, a volume, a hazard level, a content, a durability, a shape, one or more dimensional measurements, a fragility, and/or a density.
Claims 25 and 26 are also rejected due to their dependency on the rejected claims above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 21-27 recite a method (i.e. process), claims 28-34 recite a system (i.e. machine), and claims 35-40 recite non-transitory computer-readable medium (i.e. machine or article of manufacture). Therefore claims 21-40 fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Claims 21, 28, and 35 recite the limitations of receiving a request from a [customer device] to transport a package having one or more characteristics from a first location to a second location; generating order information for the package, the order information comprising a unique global identifier; transmitting a push notification to a [driver device], the [driver device] identified by comparing the one or more characteristics to stored driver certifications; receiving an acceptance from the [driver device]; generating and transmitting route information associated with a highest ranked itinerary to the [driver device]; receiving scan information comprising a geotag and a scanned identifier from the [driver device], the scan information generated at the first location in response to a scan of a package label on the package; verifying the scanned identifier against the unique global identifier associated with the package and verifying that the geotag matches the first location; and causing the [customer device] to generate a graphical representation of the route information, the first location, the second location, and a location of the driver device. The Federal Circuit has explained that "the 'directed to' inquiry applies a stage-one filter to claims, considered in light of the specification, based on whether 'their character as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter."' Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). Step 2A Prong One of the Alice/Mayo framework evaluates whether an abstract idea is set forth or described in a claim. The claimed invention is drawn towards performing logistical management in the transport, and the claim limitations directly correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal interactions, behavior, relationships; following rules or instructions business relations), as evidenced by the claims detailing receiving a request from a customer (via a customer device) to transport a package having one or more characteristics from a first location to a second location; generating order information for the package, the order information comprising a unique global identifier; transmitting a push notification to a driver (via a driver device), the driver device identified by comparing the one or more characteristics to stored driver certifications; receiving an acceptance from the driver (via the driver device); generating and transmitting route information associated with a highest ranked itinerary to the driver (via a driver device); receiving scan information comprising a geotag and a scanned identifier from the driver (via a driver device), the scan information generated at the first location in response to a scan of a package label on the package; verifying the scanned identifier against the unique global identifier associated with the package and verifying that the geotag matches the first location; and causing the customer device to generate a graphical representation of the route information, the first location, the second location, and a location of the driver device. The claims also directly correspond to mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) as evidenced by the limitations detailing the observation and evaluation of data (e.g., identifying the driver device by comparing the one or more characteristics to stored driver certifications, verifying the scanned identifier against the unique global identifier associated with the package and verifying that the geotag matches the first location). The claims considered in light of the specification, indicate that their character as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter. The claims recite an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application simply because the claims recite the additional elements of: one or more processors (claims 21 and 28), a customer device, a driver device, a graphical representation, a memory (claim 28), a non-transitory computer-readable device (claim 35), a computing device (claim 35). The additional elements are computer components recited at a high-level of generality performing the above-mentioned limitations. The combination of the additional elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. Additionally, the graphical representation amounts to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use (logistical management). Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims 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 elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 25, 32, and 39 revote the limitations that in response to receiving the scan information, causing a [graphical user interface] associated with the [driver device] to receive a signature. The limitation is further directed to the judicial exception analyzed above in Step 2A Prong One. The claim also recites the additional elements of a graphical user interface and the driver device which amounts to “apply it” or merely using a computer as a tool to implement the judicial exception, under Step 2A Prong Two. Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, under Step 2B, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 22-24, 26, 27, 29-31, 33, 34, 36-38, and 40 recite additional limitations that are further directed to the abstract idea analyzed in the rejected claims above. The claims also recite additional elements that have been analyzed in the rejected claims above. Thus, claims 22-24, 26, 27, 29-31, 33, 34, 36-38, and 40 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-40 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
The closest patent or patent application prior art reference found that is relevant to the applicant’s invention includes Kim (2015/0278758) which discloses a shipment coordination service, which may be a company or a business, coordinates shipment of a package between an origin and a destination using one or more carriers. The shipment coordination service may have one or more processing centers associated with it for processing packages. The shipment coordination service can use an origin carrier to deliver the package from an origin to an origin processing center, and a destination carrier can deliver the package from a destination processing center or another intermediate location to the destination. The shipment coordination service may also use an intermediate carrier to deliver the package from one processing center to another processing center or to another intermediate location. The reference also discloses scanning information regarding the package to be transported. The reference does not appear to explicitly disclose the detailed limitations of the applicant’s claims regarding geotagging, and push notifications to a driver device and comparing characteristics of the packages to stored driver certifications. The claims appear to overcome the prior art.
The closest non-patent literature prior art reference found that is relevant to the applicant’s invention includes the publication “ICT in multimodal transport and technological trends: Unleashing potential for the future” (Harris, 2014) which discloses the role of information and communication technologies in freight transport, including tracking methods and systems. The reference does not appear to explicitly disclose the detailed limitations of the applicant’s claims regarding geotagging, and push notifications to a driver device and comparing characteristics of the packages to stored driver certifications. The claims appear to overcome the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIONE N SIMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5513. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 7:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m..
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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at (571) 270-1833. 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.
DIONE N. SIMPSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3628
/DIONE N. SIMPSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights