DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 2, 3, 7, 8, 17-19, and 21-32 were previously pending and subject to a non-final rejection dated December 23, 2025. In Response, submitted February 20, 2026, no amendments were made. Therefore, claims 2, 3, 7, 8, 17-19, and 21-32 are currently pending and subject to the following final rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks on Pages 1-11 of the Response, regarding the previous rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101, have been fully considered and are not found persuasive.
On Pages 1-5 of the Response, Applicant argues “Based on certain Examiner comments to arguments made during interviews and written prosecution, it is believed the Examiner really does not see this as a clear ineligibility situation. It is understood that an initial rejection under such circumstances would be made, but it should be admitted that this has been, at best, a ‘close call’ and, without absolute certainty under the established examination guidelines, the rejection must be withdrawn. Although the burden is not with the Applicant, it is submitted that the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence is in the Applicant’s favor as mentioned in the interview and detailed further below. … the Applicant would submit that the claimed invention is clearly patent eligible and the rejection under §101 should be withdrawn. Again, the burden of proof is with the Examiner to show ineligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. The statements and guidance set forth above by Director Squires are seen to clearly indicate eligibility of this invention. Undoubtably, the claimed real-time purchase verification procedure, by itself, directly relates to the flow of information, i.e., how information flows, as well as the structure associated therewith. That flow is between multiple computers, whether in the form of smart phones, tablets or other types of computers, and the information is undoubtably used for a specific, practical purpose.”
Examiner notes, while numerous interviews have been held with regards to this conversation, the Examiner is aware of no instances where either himself or SPE Campbell referred to the specific invention, as claimed, as a “gray area” in terms of the eligibility of instant application. During the most recent interview, significant portions of the conversation revolved around the data structure architecture of instant case. It was discussed how in some cases, dependent on specification support and claim language, that the architecture can be a pathway to eligibility when the architecture provides a clear and specific technical improvement. It was also discussed that each round of prosecution receives its own specific 101 analysis, where each limitation receives fresh detailed review, each argument is specifically considered providing additional lenses through which to view the claims, and the specification receives fresh review to determine what changes to the analysis there may be, and how they affect the eligibility of the claims. These discussions are not an admission of “gray areas” in the claims eligibility, but rather a reflection of the fact that patent examining is not a surface level review of a patent application, but detailed analysis of the entire record with each change to said record. With this view of examining in mind, the detailed analysis of the instant application holds these claims to ineligible over 101, based on the preponderance of evidence provided the detailed analysis below and the specific citations to the Applicant’s specification which provide additional evidence to support these findings.
Examiner additionally notes, as discussed above, architecture can be a pathway to eligibility when the architecture provides a clear and specific technical improvement, however the instant case does not provide any technical improvement in this regard. The additional elements summarized as “multiple computers” (claimed more specifically as a mobile agent system (may be a cell phone or tablet), and a remote server) merely serve to communicate data back and forth between the agent and the customer, there is no detail or description provided of any changes or improvements as to how these specific elements perform the technical elements of processing, storing, or otherwise performing these data communications let alone any improvement to these technologies. Simply providing an architecture through which the data flows is not in and of itself a technical improvement, or more broadly an integration of the abstract idea into a practical application or “significantly more”.
On pages 5-6 of the Response, Applicant argues “The Examiner is well aware this application is the sixth in a series of applications, with each of the prior applications containing a corresponding limitation directed to the real-time information transfer for product acquisition/purchase verification purposes. The Examiner is also aware each of these referenced applications (but not the original parent application) received an initial §101 rejection by different examiners, with all of these rejections being dropped after the various examiners came to the individual realization that the inventions met the requirements for patent eligibility. The current claims are actually more specific and limiting. It is respectfully submitted that the position of the Patent Office, through different Examiners and Supervisors, is significant evidence in favor of the Applicant in this case. The Board also was involved in at least one of these prior applications, could have introduced a §101 rejection and did not, thereby also evidencing the impropriety of such a rejection.”
Examiner notes, as has been discussed in previous rejections and interviews, the analyses of other Examiners, Supervisors, and the Board of separate cases within the patent family have no bearing on the analysis of the instant claims. Despite certain similarities, the instant claims represent a unique invention separate from those previously analyzed, as evidenced by the lack of double patenting rejection on these claims. Therefore, as these claims are a unique, separate invention they require their own unique, separate analysis.
On Pages 6-7 of the Response, Applicant argues “Judge Leonard P. Stark of the District of Delaware Court … analyze the two step process of Alice in connection with broader claims in associated U.S. Patent Nos. 8,244,594, 9,202,191, 10,115,067 and 10,628,835 … taking into account and holding the issuance of the patents by the USPTO over §101 supports the Court’s decision that the patents are directed to more than just an abstract idea, thereby denying the motion to invalidate the patents under §101. … the Judge went on to decide he could not hold that the claimed combination of the structural and functional elements captured in the claims was conventional, routine and well understood at the time of the invention. … the Court held that the claims include structural components like ‘a remote server and the Mobile Delivery Agent System itself that work in combination to convert a request received over the internet into a communication that can be processed by the MDAS’ which was ‘unconventional at the time of the invention.’ As the Judge noted, even ‘off-the-shelf generic components, when employed in an unconventional way, survive step two challenges.’ Again, this is evidence that weighs in the favor of the Applicant and would need to be overcome by the Examiner in attempting to establish a preponderance of the evidence.”
Examiner notes, as discussed above, and at length in previous rounds of prosecution, each set of claims must receive its own unique analysis in terms of 101, and analysis provided to other claim sets have not bearing. Further, as has been discussed previously at length, Judge Stark’s analysis was not intended to be a full analysis of the claims through the Alice Framework, and even still was applied to a fully separate claim set.
Examiner also notes, “well-understood, routine, and conventional” is not a test employed in the analysis below, however it is noted that there appears to be no support in the specification that this architecture is a particular technical improvement. Specifically, information flow through the architecture is generically described as the “server 14 in communication with a wide area network (WAN), such as the internet 18. A user accesses a user interface 22, such as a website or cable television network screen through WAN or internet 18 via a customer computer 30. It should be understood that customer computer 30 can be any type of device for communication with user interface 22 … Preferably, system 10 makes use of emerging ‘blended services’ technologies including integrated voice, image and data features which are always ‘on’, giving users the ability to move from one function to another during a communication session. … Server 14 is in contact with a plurality of mobile delivery agent systems, such as indicated at 42” (specification, para. 13-14). That is, the server and the customer generically interact via the internet, and the server and the mobile delivery agent systems interact with even less technical detail given. This level of generality does not support a finding that these architectures were “unconventional at the time of invention”, or else these claims would require a 112(a) for the lack of technical detail provided for how this data flow is actually carried out. Further, there is no discussion in the specification that there are any technical barriers to this type of architecture or technical barriers in communication specifically overcome by this invention using this particular architecture, or any indication that architecture is anything other than expected. As currently recited and supported in the specification of the instant case, these elements are used merely as generic tools to perform the abstract idea of sending/receiving data, i.e., “apply it”.
On Page 7 of the Response, Applicant argues “there are multiple computers involved which are interacting with each other in specific ways. In particular, performing real-time item purchase verification utilizing processor and application components of at least the mobile agent system by sending real-time image or video to the customer using, in part, bar or QR codes is not conventional and no one computer could possibly act in a ‘purely conventional’ way to achieve the various claimed limitations of this integrated and practical application. This is submitted to be exactly the type of situation which prompted the precedential reversal in Desjardins.”
Examiner notes, as discussed above, “well-understood, routine, and conventional” is only one of the possible tests for determining eligibility of claims, and is not applied in the rejection of the instant claims. Therefore, this argument is moot. However, in an effort to promote compact prosecution, “performing … item purchase verification … by sending … image or video to the customer” is the recited abstract idea. The additional elements of “processor and application components of at least the mobile agent system” are disclosed generically as simply a “processor” (specification, para. 8) and a “user interface” (specification, para. 13), and act merely as tools for the abstract performing item purchase verification (i.e., “apply it”). Additionally, the bar or QR codes generically as way of providing “product bar or QR code data” (specification, para. 14) and are used to perform the abstract idea of obtaining an image of the product, this level of generality only serves to generally link the abstract idea of obtaining an image of the product to the technical field of 2D image data. Finally, the real-time aspects of the item purchase verification and the sending of the image/video data provided only at face value with no further technical detail or explanation (See at least, specification Paras. 5 and 23) to provide any support for simply using the internet network as a tool for carrying out the abstract ideas. This runs contrary to the findings of Desjardins, which provided specific improvements to resolve a known technical issue of machine learning algorithms known as “catastrophic forgetting”.
On Page 7 of the Response, Applicant argues “In addition to having the need to overcome the hurdle on the burden of proof, any proper rejection must certainly be set forth in a clear manner. Currently, the Examiner’s rejection references only one computer to perform the various functions in the steps of the process. This is not correct. Again, there are multiple computers which interact through a remote server. It is respectfully submitted that these limitations are not properly addressed in the outstanding Office Action.”
Examiner notes, this argument is false. As discussed further in the detailed rejection below all positively recited computers are properly analyzed, these include a mobile agent system (and each various component positively recited), a remote server, and signals from a global positioning system. While the customer is recited numerous times throughout the claim language, the customer’s device is never positively recited. Thus, the detailed rejection below, properly captures and analyses all aspects of the claimed invention.
On Pages 8-9 of the Response, Applicant argues “the structure associated with that flow and the interconnection between that structure in connection with the required communication also establishes an integrated and practical application which represents another avenue. The present claims also recite these features, utilizing a customer contacted server system connected with a communication system of an agent, with the agent using that system to direct specific image or video information to the customer with the use of bar or QR codes when the agent cannot locate the particular item requested by the customer and receiving further customer instructions through that system in order to assure the purchasing of a product which will be acceptable to the customer. This overall integrated system is employed in a practical application and certainly provides a specific technical improvement.”
Examiner notes, as discussed further in the detailed rejection below, insofar as they are claimed “a customer … connected with … an agent, with that agent … direct[ing] specific image or video information to the customer … when the agent cannot locate the particular item requested by the customer and receiving further customer instructions … in order to assure the purchasing of a product which will be acceptable to the customer” is an abstract idea. The additional elements (i.e., server system, communication system, bar/QR codes) are recited at extremely high levels of generality and are used solely for the purposes of providing, sending, and receiving information. Neither these additional elements nor their associated technologies are improved in any way as supported by the instant application, rather the abstract idea of communicating between an agent and a customer is allegedly improved. Thus, while the invention uses additional elements in the performance of the abstract idea, they are determined (whether analyzed individually or as a whole/ordered combination) to amount to merely “apply it” or generally linking to a field of use, but fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
On Pages 8-9 of the Response, Applicant argues “On a fundamental level, it is submitted that the MPEP sets forth additional evidence that this invention is patent eligible. More specifically, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) sets forth the various abstract idea groupings. … It is submitted that the invention does not clearly fall under any of the concepts set forth for this grouping (particularly based on the examples of these concepts provided in the MPEP), thus should require the Office to follow the 2026.04(a)(3) protocol. … In the present case, it is submitted that a practical application is clearly present … Even if somehow not considered a practical application, the invention clearly sets forth an inventive concept based on allowability over the prior art … It is submitted that, at least in this case, the ‘abstract ideas’ category has been expanded beyond what was intended. The invention in no way looks to cover basic tools of scientific or technological work and it is submitted that the statements and positions of Director Squires evidences this position.”
Examiner notes, as discussed further in the detailed rejection below, the claims clearly recite an abstract idea. This abstract idea clearly belongs in the abstract idea grouping of “certain methods of organizing human activity”, more specifically elements of the abstract idea recite commercial interactions and personal behavior/managing interactions between people. This analysis is supported by the specific text of the claims as discussed in the “Step 2A, Prong One” analysis section of the detailed rejection below. Such specific claim text include “receiving a first acquisition request from a customer for the at least one item” (claim 2, limitation 1. Emphasis added to highlight commercial interaction aspects), “directing the at least one agent to pursue purchasing the at least one item for the customer” (claim 2, limitation 2. Emphasis added to highlight managing of personal behavior and commercial interaction aspects), “transmitting information on the product, including an image of the product obtained, to the customer for the customer to approve based on the image” (claim 2, limitation 5. Emphasis added to highlight managing of interactions between and commercial interaction aspects), and “acquiring the product, via the agent purchasing the product” (claim 2, limitation 6. Emphasis added to highlight commercial interaction aspects). Therefore, the instant case is not an example of a “tentative abstract idea”, but rather clearly falls within the innumerate groupings set forth in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
Examiner further notes that the presence of practical elements (i.e. additional elements) does not inherently mean that the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Additionally, the analysis of the claims over 102 and 103 has no bearing on the claim analysis over 101. “‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter.” Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 188–89, 209 USPQ at 9). See MPEP 2106.05. Therefore, following current guidelines applying all applicable current laws, the claims stand properly analyzed and have been found ineligible over 101.
On Pages 10-11 of Response, Applicant argues “(a) explain how the invention differs from the “flow of information” referred to as eligible by Director Squires, (b) detail how the invention is not seen to integrate the claimed limitations into a practical application, (c) clarify the rejection by taking into account the fact that the information flow is between multiple computers in accordance with the invention where the rejection relies on one computer, (d) provide evidence for the holding of many claim limitations invoke just generic computer components as a tool to perform or mere instructions to apply the abstract idea, particularly taking into account the priority date in this application, and (e) provide actual evidence necessary to support the rejection based on a preponderance of the evidence standard rather than unsubstantiated conclusions, specifically evidence which outweighs the evidence presented herein. … Based on the above remarks, the Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration of the 101 rejection and, more specifically, withdrawal of the rejection, allowance of all claims and passage of the application to issue.”
With regards to item (a), as discussed above, the instant application does not provide any grounds for technical improvement to the communication architecture. There are no “artifacts of re-engineering that revolutionary technologies provide”. Rather, the specification generically discloses the architecture as “at least one server 14 in communication with a wide area network (WAN), such as the internet 18. A user accesses a user interface 22, such as a website or cable television network screen through WAN or internet 18 via a customer computer 30 … [and the s]erver 14 is in contact with a plurality of mobile delivery agent systems” (specification, paras. 13-14). That is, a server acting as an ordinary server, communicating to a computer (whether that be the customers or the cell phone/tablet configuration of the mobile delivery agent systems) acting as a computer to share data via the internet/WAN. Any technical detail of improvements to these components, or technical advantages of this specific configuration is wholly absent. Further, there appears to be no evidence within the specification that the claimed invention even “changes the architecture itself”. Finally, every iteration of analysis performed on this application has taken into consideration “how information flows” within the system. Specifically, when the claims are analyzed as a whole/ordered combination, these architectures are evaluated, and have failed to bring the claims to eligibility.
With regards to item (b), as discussed above and further in the detailed rejection below, the presence of additional elements does not inherently integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The recited additional elements serve merely to as conduits or tools used to generate, send, or receive data. This data is then used, not by the system to make any decisions, but merely convey to human counterparts to make the decisions and carry out tasks. Therefore, the claimed invention does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
With regards to item (c), as discussed above and further in the detailed rejection below, all iterations of analysis of the claims have properly accounted for the multiple computers positively recited in accordance with the claimed invention. Neither the current rejection, nor the non-final rejection mailed December 23, 2025, relied on rejection analyzing only one computer. At least two computers are recited in all 4 independent claims: (i) a mobile agent system (claims 2, 3, 7, 17), and (ii) a remote server (claims 2, 3, 7, 17). As discussed above, while the claimed invention makes numerous references to the customer, no device or computer is positively recited on the customer’s side of the interaction. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims (See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993)), therefore because the customer computer is absent from the claim language it is also absent from the specific analysis below. Further the rejection does not even look at just one of these analyzed computers solely on its own, but rather analyzes the entirety of the claimed elements as a whole/ordered combination. This analysis has determined that the claims are ineligible.
With regards to items (d) and (e), as discussed above and further in the detailed rejection below, the analysis cites to the specific disclosure each additional element in the Applicant’s specification as evidence for the findings of the analysis. These specific disclosures include:
[0014] discussing the mobile agent system, the image capture device, the communication device, the cell phone, the tablet generically as “a mobile system… such as a cell phone or other similar device” which is used as a tool to perform the abstract ideas such as “receiving a first acquisition request … directing the at least one agent to pursue purchasing the at least one item for the customer; performing item purchase verification including: scanning, with the at least one agent, of a product for the at least one item; and transmitting information on the product” (claim 2); the remote server generically as a server storing “a plurality of databases” and “preferably associated with” “a digital image capture processor” which is used as a tool to perform the abstract ideas such as “receiving a first acquisition request from a customer for the at least one item” (claim 2), “receiv[ing] the disapproval of purchase from the customer … [and] receiving approval from the customer” (claim 17), and providing “the image of the another product .. [and] link[ing] codes with images” (claim 19); and the scanning barcodes and QR codes as means for providing “product bar or QR code data” where they serve to generally link the abstract ideas such as obtaining “an image of the product” (claim 2), and obtaining an “image of the another product” (claim 19).
[0023] discussing electronically transmitting information, and the signals from a global positioning system which simply states that “the delivery agent will utilize digital image capture device 46 to transmit real-time data to customer computer 30. This data can be collected and relayed in various forms” and that “GPS 47 is utilized with digital mapping technology to dynamically update the customer as to the location of the delivery agent”. The element of electronically transmitting information simply uses the internet as a tool to perform the abstract ideas such as “transmitting information on the product, including an image of the obtained product, to the customer for the customer to approve based on the image” (claim 2), sending “approval by the customer of the product” (claim 17), sending “a customer rejection of the product… transmitting, in real-time, an image of another product to the customer”. The additional element of signals from a global positioning system simply generally links abstract ideas such as “sending to the customer information on the at least one agent, including agent location information” (claim 2) to the field of GPS technology.
[0008] discussing the processor of the at least one mobile agent system merely as “one or more processors for optimizing efficiencies of the system” with no technical detail included. This high level of generality supports the finding that this element is used merely as a tool to perform abstract ideas such as “scanning… of a product for the at least one item; transmitting information on the product”.
[0013] discussing the application components of the at least one mobile agent system as a “user interface 22 [that] may be installed as an application on the user's mobile device”. This high level of generality supports the finding that this element is used merely as a tool to perform abstract ideas such as “scanning… of a product for the at least one item; transmitting information on the product”.
[0005] discussing the real-time item purchase verification as “real-time feedback on the goods to be purchased” with no further technical explanation. Various elements of the real-time item purchase verification are further explored in [0023], however the technical details regarding the real-time aspects of the element are still missing, and are simply disclosed as “provid[ing] the customer with a real-time view of the selected location … the customer [having] the option of inspecting the product in real-time … and utilize[ing] digital image capture device 46 to transmit real-time data to customer computer”. That is, this additional element servers merely to generally link abstract ideas such as “scanning, with the at least one agent, of a product for the at least one item; and transmitting information on the product” to the technical field of internet communication/ real-time data communication.
These citations provide specific evidentiary support, taking into account the priority date in this application, which constitutes a preponderance of evidence for the findings of the detailed analysis below.
Therefore, after full and proper analysis of the claims over 101, as found in the detailed analysis below, the claims are found to be ineligible.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 3, 7, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities: claims 2, 3, 7, and 17 recite “the at least the mobile agent system” in limitation 3 of claims 2 and 3, limitation 4 of claim 7, and limitation 2 of claim 17. These limitations should recite “ the mobile agent system”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 17 recites “in communicating with” in limitation 1. This limitation should recite “in communication with”. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 3, 7, 8, 17-19, and 21-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 2, 3, 7, 8, 17-19, and 21-32 are directed to a method (i.e., a process). Therefore, claims 2, 3, 7, 8, 17-19, and 21-32 all fall within the one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One
Independent claim 2 substantially recites receiving a first acquisition request from a customer for the at least one item;
directing the at least one agent to pursue purchasing the at least one item for the customer;
performing item purchase verification including:
scanning, with the at least one agent, of a product for the at least one item; and
transmitting information on the product, including an image of the product obtained, to the customer for the customer to approve based on the image;
acquiring the product, via the agent purchasing the product;
initiating delivery of the product to the customer; and
sending to the customer information on the at least one agent, including agent location information.
Independent claim 3 substantially recites receiving a first acquisition request from a customer for the at least one item;
directing the at least one agent to pursue purchasing the at least one item for the customer;
performing item purchase verification including:
scanning, with the at least one agent using, of a product for the at least one item;
transmitting information on the product, including an image of the product obtained, to the customer for the customer to approve based on the image;
acquiring the product, via the agent directly purchasing the product only after receiving approval by the customer of the product based on the image;
initiating delivery of the product to the customer; and
using data from a global positioning system, alerting the customer when the product is close to a delivery location.
Independent claim 7 substantially recites receiving a first acquisition request from a customer for the at least one item;
directing the at least one agent to pursue purchasing the at least one item for the customer;
when the at least one agent cannot locate the at least one item, said at least one agent proceeding by:
performing item purchase verification including:
scanning, with the at least one agent, of a product for the at least one item; and
transmitting information on the product, including an image of the product obtained, to the customer for the customer to approve based on the image; and
upon receiving approval by the customer of the product based on the image, acquiring the product, via the agent directly purchasing the product;
upon the at least one agent receiving a customer rejection of the product, performing another real-time item purchase verification including:
transmitting, in real-time, an image of another product to the customer by the at least one agent; and
upon the at least one agent receiving approval from the customer, purchasing the another product for the customer and initiating delivery of the another product to the customer.
Independent claim 17 substantially recites establishing a communication pathway between the customer and an agent of a service provider, with the agent in communicating with the customer;
performing item purchase verification including transmitting at least one image of a product to the customer, with the at least one image being obtained from the product;
receiving, through the communication path, either a purchase approval or disapproval from the customer for the product;
purchasing the product by the agent for delivery if the customer approves of the purchase and, when the agent receives the disapproval of purchase from the customer, performing another real-time item purchase verification including transmitting, in real-time, an image of another product to the customer by the agent; and
upon the agent receiving approval from the customer, acquiring the another product for the customer.
The limitations stated above are processes/functions that under broadest reasonable interpretation covers “certain methods of organizing human activity” (commercial or legal interactions, sales activity, and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people) of acquiring items for delivery. Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 2, 3, 7, and 17 as a whole amount to: (i) merely invoking generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (or an equivalent), and (ii) generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The claim recites the additional elements of: (i) a mobile agent system (claims 2, 3, 7, 17), (ii) a remote server (claims 2, 3, 7, 17), (iii) a digital image capture device (claims 2, 3, 7, 17), (iv) a communication device (claim 17), (v) scanning/obtaining data from a barcode or QR code (claims 2, 3, 7, 17), (vi) electronically transmitting information (claims 2, 3, 7, 17), (vii) a processor of the at least one mobile agent system (claims 2, 3, 7, 17), (viii) application components of the at least one mobile agent system (claims 2, 3, 7, 17), (ix) a cell phone (claims 2, 3), (x) a tablet (claims 2, 3), (xi) signals from a global positioning system (claim 2), and (xii) real-time item purchase verification (claims 2, 3, 7, 17).
The additional elements of (i) a mobile agent system, (ii) a remote server, (iii) a digital image capture device, (iv) a communication device, (vi) electronically transmitting information, (vii) a processor of the at least one mobile agent system, (viii) application components of the at least one mobile agent system, (ix) a cell phone, and (x) a tablet are recited at a high level of generality (see [0014] of the Applicants PG Publication discussing the mobile agent system, the remote server, the image capture device, the communication device, the cell phone, and the tablet, [0023] discussing electronically transmitting information, [0008] discussing the processor of the at least one mobile agent system, [0013] discussing the application components of the at least one mobile agent system) such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional element of (v) scanning barcodes or QR codes, (xi) signals from a global positioning system, (xii) real-time item purchase verification are recited at a high level of generality (See [0014] of the Applicant’s PG Publication discussing the scanning barcodes and QR codes, [0023] discussing the signals from a global positioning system, and [0005] discussing the real-time item purchase verification) such that when viewed as whole/ordered combination, do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., 2D image data, GPS data, real-time data communication technology) (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination [See Figures 1 showing all the additional elements of (i) a mobile agent system, (ii) a remote server, (iii) a digital image capture device, (iv) a communication device, (v) scanning/obtaining data from a barcode or QR code, (vi) electronically transmitting information, (vii) a processor of the at least one mobile agent system, (viii) application components of the at least one mobile agent system, (ix) a cell phone, (x) a tablet, (xi) signals from a global positioning system, (xii) real-time item purchase verification in combination], do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements amount to no more than: (i) “apply it” (or an equivalent), and (ii) generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and are not a practical application of the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., (i) merely invoking the generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)); and (ii) generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in the claims adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, the claims 2, 3, 7, and 17 are ineligible.
Dependent Claims 8, 18, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28, 29, 31, and 32 merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations. For reasons described above with respect to claims 2, 3, 7 and 17 these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, claims 8, 18, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28, 29, 31, and 32 are also ineligible.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Dependent Claim 19 further narrows the previously recited abstract idea limitations. Claim 19 also recites the additional element of a database, which is recited at a high-level of generality (See [0014] of the Applicants PG Publication disclosing the database) such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, the additional elements, when viewed individually and as a whole/ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 19 is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element amounts to no more than: (i) “apply it” (or an equivalent), and is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., (i) merely invoking the generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional element of a database does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, claim 19 is ineligible.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Dependent Claims 21, 24, 27, and 30 further narrows the previously recited abstract idea limitations. Claims 21, 24, 27, and 30 also recites the additional element of an image processor, which is recited at a high-level of generality (See [0014] of the Applicants PG Publication disclosing the image processor) such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, the additional elements, when viewed individually and as a whole/ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 19 is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element amounts to no more than: (i) “apply it” (or an equivalent), and is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., (i) merely invoking the generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional element of an image processor does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, claim 21, 24, 27, and 30 is ineligible.
Novel and Non-Obvious Over the Prior Art
Claims 2, 3, 7, 8, 17-19, and 21-32 are novel and non-obvious over the prior art; however, these claims are subject to the above rejections.
The closest prior art The closest prior art is U.S. Patent Application No. 2004/0068443 to Hopson et al (hereafter Hopson). Hopson discloses the limitations disclosed above regarding claim 1.
The next closest prior art is U.S. Patent Application No. 2005/0251473 to Viviani et al. (Hereafter Viviani). Viviani discloses the limitations disclosed above regarding claim 1.
The next closest prior art is U.S. Patent Application No. 2003/0195808 to Brown et al. (Hereafter Brown). Brown discloses integration of tracking personnel shopping for and delivering goods to customers using GPS.
The next closest prior art is U.S. Patent Application No. 2005/0149414 to Schrodt et al. (Hereafter Schrodt). Schrodt discloses product information for another product from a bar code or QR code, and transmitting information on another product in real-time.
While the closest prior art above teaches the various aspects of the claimed invention individually, the combination of these references are not obvious in such a way that they would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention. Further the closest prior art above fails to teach alerting the customer with GPS information of the delivery. Therefore, the claims are rendered novel and non-obvious over the prior art.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID G GODBOLD whose telephone number is (571)272-5036. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Shannon S Campbell can be reached at 571-272-5587. 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.
/DAVID G. GODBOLD/Examiner, Art Unit 3628 /RUPANGINI SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628