DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in reply to the communications filed on September 26, 2025. The Applicant’s Amendment and Request for Reconsideration has been received and entered.
Claims 1-20 have been examined in this application. Claims 1, 4-6, 8, 9, 12-14, 16, 17, and 20 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments necessitated the new grounds of rejection.
Regarding the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 USC 101, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the reasons set forth infra.
The previous rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 USC 103 has been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1. When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Step 2A – Prong One. If the claims fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon.
Step 2A – Prong Two. If the claims recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon, it must then be determined whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, then the claims are directed to a judicial exception.
Step 2B. If the claims are directed to a judicial exception, it must be evaluated whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (i.e. “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception.
In the instant case, claims 1-8 are directed to a process; claims 9-16 are directed to a machine; and claims 17-20 are directed to a manufacture.
A claim “recites” an abstract idea if there are identifiable limitations that fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in MPEP 2106. In the instant case, claim 1, and similarly claims 9 and 17, recites the steps of: receiving a first communication including information for an order for fulfillment at a physical location, the information for the order including indications of one or more items and identifying information for a first user; receiving information including identifying information for an alternate pickup person to be associated with the order, the identifying information for the alternate pickup person having been provided by the first user; associating an identifier for the alternate pickup person with an record for the order; transmitting a communication to the alternate pickup person, the communication including information indicating that the first user has authorized the alternate pickup person to pick up the order and to modify one or more order preferences, including a fulfillment type of the order, wherein authorizing the alternate pickup person comprises: receiving, by the the first user, a communication that grants the alternate pickup person permission to pick up a plurality of orders placed by the first user until the first user rescinds permission; updating a permission set associated with the first order to grant the alternative pickup person permission to pick up the plurality of orders placed by the first user until the first user rescinds the permission; receiving, by the alternate pickup person, pickup information modifying the fulfillment type of the order, wherein the fulfillment type includes drive-up fulfillment, in-store pick up, or delivery, wherein the second computing device is configured to determine a location of the alternate pickup person and transmit arrival information at the physical location; receiving, location information, the location information having been determined; providing, by an employee of the physical location, estimated time until arrival information for the alternate pickup person derived from the location information, wherein displays an estimated time until arrival for the alternate pickup person responsive to receiving the estimated time until arrival information for the alternate pickup person; receiving information for verifying the alternate pickup person based on the pickup information, the information for verifying the alternate pickup person having been provided to the employee by an code displayed associated with the alternate pickup person; retrieving order information for the order in response to receiving the information for verifying the alternate pickup person; and transmitting the retrieved order information, wherein presents the retrieved order information -- these claim limitations set forth certain methods of organizing human activity, particularly commercial interactions including advertising, marketing, and sales activities/behaviors.
Additionally, these steps set forth mental processes, particularly concepts performed in the human mind, including, inter alia, the observation and evaluation of information.
Further, the limitations of the claims are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Taking the claim elements separately, the additional elements of performing the steps via a computing system, with an electronic record, in a database, via a first, second, third computing device operated and of scanning an optically readable code displayed by the second computing device -- merely implement the abstract idea on a computer environment. Considered in combination, the steps of Applicant’s method add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately.
The remaining claim limitations recited in dependent claims merely narrow the abstract idea and do not recite further additional elements. Thus, claims 1-20 are directed to an abstract idea.
Regarding the independent claims, the technical elements of performing the steps via a computing system, with an electronic record, in a database, via a first, second, third computing device operated and of scanning an optically readable code displayed by the second computing device -- merely implement the abstract idea on a computer environment.
While the claims recite scanning an optically readable code displayed by the computing device, this limitation is recited at a high level of generality and thus does not amount to significantly more. Additionally, the dependent claims do not recite further technical elements.
When considering the elements and combinations of elements, the claim(s) as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This is because the claims do not amount to an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself; the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment; the claims merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer; or the claims amounts to nothing more than requiring a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry.
The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are rejected as ineligible for patenting under 35 USC 101 based upon the same rationale.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, but would be allowable if this rejection were overcome. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Upon review of the evidence at hand, it is hereby concluded that the evidence obtained and made of record, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, nor renders obvious the features of applicant's invention as the features amount to more than a predictable use of elements in the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Embree (US PGP 2019/0164167) – second authorized user with QR code
Wilkinson (US PGP 2018/0082356) -- start an order assembly clock (or timer) when the customer's vehicle arrives at the shopping facility.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JENNIFER V LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-4778. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9AM - 5PM 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 A. SMITH can be reached at (571)272-6763. 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.
/JENNIFER V LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 3688
/Jeffrey A. Smith/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3688