

Google Parcel Service? Search giant patents shipping notifications - EvanKelly
http://www.geekwire.com/2011/google-parcel-service-search-giant-patents-shipping-notifications

======
_delirium
While the patent is still pretty dumb, the claim is a _bit_ more specific than
this article summarizes. The claim seems carefully worded to exclude Amazon,
UPS, and USPS shipping notifications, by limiting itself to "a broker computer
system independent of the shipper and a merchant". UPS and the USPS are
shippers of course, and Amazon is the merchant for the queries it brokers.

However, it seems like a real stretch for non-obviousness: they're trying to
patent the idea of doing exactly what every shipping-status system does, only
as a third party that simply queries those services, and then sends emails to
the user when something changes.

Maybe it's a business-method patent rather than a technology patent. It's not
even a patent on notification-system querying, because Amazon does that, only
it does it for products it sold. It seems the only thing the claim is claiming
as novel is the business idea of doing it as a third-party monitoring service.

~~~
EvanKelly
Is doing the same thing as someone already does, but from a different role in
the relationship really patentable?

Apparently.

~~~
mburns
Toasted bread was patented in 2000:

<http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=IpwDAAAAEBAJ>

~~~
CamperBob
At 2500 degrees? That's novel, I guess, but it sounds more like a patent for
_sublimating_ the bread than for toasting it.

~~~
EvanKelly
I can't believe I read an entire patent on "Bread Refreshing", but I agree
that this is different than what conventional toasters do.

I thought it was interesting that they restricted time from 3 - 90 seconds. I
wonder what kind of bread can undergo 3000 degree temperatures for 90 seconds
and still be edible.

------
dctoedt
Here's the text of claim 1, with extra paragraphing and bracketed letters
added:

\--snip--

1\. A method of providing notification of impending delivery of a shipment
shipped by a shipper to a shipping address specified by a customer,
comprising:

[a] periodically querying, by a broker computer system independent of the
shipper and a merchant and which enabled the customer to purchase an item
contained in the shipment from the merchant, a shipper computer system to
obtain status information for the shipment with each query,

[b] wherein a periodic query of the shipment computer system comprises:

[b1] requesting status information from the shipper computer system by
providing a shipment identifier of the shipment to the shipper computer
system; and

[b2] receiving status information in response thereto;

[c] responsive to status information obtained with a periodic query indicating
an estimated delivery date for the shipment,

[c1] halting, by the broker computer system, the periodic queries and

[c2] scheduling the restart of periodic queries of the shipper computer system
a day prior to the estimated delivery date;

[d] restarting, by the broker computer system, periodic queries of the shipper
computer system the day prior to the estimated delivery date to obtain updated
status information with each query;

[e] responsive to updated status information obtained with a periodic query
indicating that the shipment is out for delivery to the customer,

[e1] halting, by the broker computer system, the periodic queries and

[e2] calculating an estimated delivery time for the shipment based at least in
part on the status information; and

[f] sending, by the broker computer system, an electronic message including
the estimated delivery time to the customer.

\--snip--

The USPTO file history is available at
<http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair>. You have to submit the patent
number (7,996,328) to the search engine and go through a CAPTCHA; a direct
link to individual documents in the file history doesn't seem to work.

On 12/24/2008, the patent examiner initially rejected the claims as directed
to non-statutory subject matter (a "section-101 rejection"), as well as to
being directed to subject matter that would have been obvious in view of the
prior art (a "section-103 rejection").

Google's attorneys argued that the examiner should drop the section-101
rejection, and amended the claims to overcome the section-103 obviousness
rejection in a filing on 4/24/2009.

On 7/22/2009, the examiner agreed to drop the section-101 rejection, but cited
new grounds for the section-103 obviousness rejection.

NOTE: The examiner's withdrawal of the section-101 rejection was almost a year
before the Supreme Court's decision in the _Bilski_ case concerning business
methods, <http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-964.pdf>; at this
point there's no way to know whether the examiner would have considered the
claims to be unpatentable under _Bilski_ for being directed to an abstract
idea.

After more amendments and a telephone conference between Google's attorneys
and the examiner on 10/22/2010, the claims were finally allowed on 3/31/2011.

