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. DETAILED ACTION This action is in response to papers filed on 11/26 /2025 . Claims 1, 7, 12, 13, 15-18, 28, 31 , and 34 have been amended. Claims 2, 4, 5, 10, 11, 14, 20, 26, and 27 have been cancelled. No claims have been added. Claims 1 , 3, 6 -9, 12 , 13, 15- 19, 21-25, and 28-34 are pending. Claim Objections Claim 34 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 34 recites “the storage unit, and wherein non-transitory computer readable medium stores” which appears to be a typographical error. For example, --the storage unit ; and a non-transitory computer readable medium stores -- or another manner of clarifying what components Applicant is intending to present. 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 1, 3, 6-9, 12, 13, 15-19, 21-25, and 28-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1: The claims are directed to a system (control circuitry and processor as recited in Claim 1), process (method as introduced in Claim 17) ,and/or computer readable medium executing instructions (Claim 34), thus Claims 1-3, 5-9, 12-19, 21-25, and 28-34 fall within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03. Step 2A, Prong 1: The claimed invention recites an abstract idea according to MPEP §2106.04. The independent claims which recite the following claim limitations as an abstract idea, are underlined below. Claims 1, 17, and 34 recite: control the communication circuitry to receive a return request associated with a user account for returning a product, and data from the sensor indicating whether the product has been in a designated zone of the garage for a predefined period of time since being delivered to the garage ; authorize the return request in response to a determination of the product having been ordered using the user account and a determination that the product has been in the designated zone for the predefined period of time ; control the communication circuitry to receive a request for a return agent to retrieve the product from the designated zone of the garage; and control the communication circuitry to assign the return agent an access code to control a garage door operator of the garage to access the garage and retrieve the product, wherein the return agent causes the garage door operator to shift a garage door to an open state using the access code when the return agent is within communication range of the garage door operator . The underlined claim limitations as emphasized above, as drafted, recite a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). Other than reciting a computer implementation, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from encompassing the performance of commercial or legal interactions which represents the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity. But for the recitation of generic implementation of computer system components, the claimed invention merely recites a process for scheduling pickups for returning items and providing access to a location for that pickup (see specification at [0002]; [0045]). For example, a user could communicate a request for return and verify a purchase with a merchant (for example by telephone), schedule a pickup and provide a one-time use code for opening a garage door to be used with a keypad that operates the door (see specification at [0019]; [0023]). Step 2A, Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite additional elements such as: communication circuitry configured to communicate with a sensor; a processor operatively connected to the communication circuitry; control the communication circuitry to receive data; control the communication circuitry to transmit data (such as access codes); receive…data from the sensor; using a garage door operator to shift the garage door; In particular, the additional elements cited above beyond the abstract idea are recited at a high-level of generality and simply equivalent to a generic recitation and basic functionality that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer technology components. Accordingly, since the specification describes the additional elements in general terms, without describing the particulars, the additional elements may be broadly but reasonably construed as generic computing components being used to perform the judicial exception (see specification at [0019]; [0021]; [0023]; [0045]). These claimed additional elements merely recite the words “apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, the providing of access to a lockable storage unit in Claim 34 merely adds a second level of providing an entity (such as a delivery person) with control to open a lock and barrier. This merely repeats the steps of providing access (such as code examples provided in the disclosure) to open locks and barriers and would be performed in the same manner as the access to the first barrier (garage door). The particular number or types of barriers do not add anything significant to the steps being performed, as they are performed in the same manner for each barrier. Thus, the additional claim elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application, because the claims do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claims are directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements, individually or in combination, 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 element amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. Dependent Claims: Claims 3, 6 -9, 12 , 13, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21-25, and 28-33 recite further elements related to the request and access providing steps of the parent claims. These activities fail to differentiate the claims from the related activities in the parent claims and fail to provide any material to render the claimed invention to be significantly more than the identified abstract ideas, as outlined below. Claims 6-8, 24, 25 merely recite types of criteria that can be used with the steps for selecting of a return agent as performed in the parent claims, which further specifies additional types of data to be used for agent selections , but does not make the claims any less abstract. Specifying that the determinations and selections are made by the processor does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Claims 3, 19, 23 recite “a memory configured to store data regarding a product ordered using the user account; wherein the data from the sensor includes data representative of an image of the product captured by the sensor; and wherein the processor is configured to determine whether the product was ordered using the user account based at least in part upon the data from the sensor representative of the image of the product corresponding to the data stored in the memory regarding the product ordered using the user account”. Matching the stored data to captured image data is part of the abstract idea and merely using image capturing sensors and memory for storing data to perform these steps does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept . The image capturing sensors and memory are recited at a high level of generality and perform their expected functions. Claims 12, 18, and 28 recite “ wherein the sensor comprises a camera of a portable electronic device and the data from the sensor comprises image data; and wherein the processor is configured to determine whether the product is in the designated zone of the garage based at least in part upon the image data” (or variations within the same scope). Merely using camera, image capture sensors, and/or mobile devices to make the determinations does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept . The camera, image capture sensors, and/or mobile devices are recited at a high level of generality and perform their expected functions. Claim 9 recites “ wherein the access code associated with the return agent access code is automatically communicated to the garage door operator when the return agent is within a defined distance of the garage door operator”. Merely specifying that a communication is sent automatically when a user is in range does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept . The specification describes this in general terms (for example, see specification at [0042], using a geofence) and does not provide any detail describing how this would be performed in a manner that would provide anything significantly mor than the recited abstract ideas. Claim 13 recite s “ wherein the processor is configured to control the communication circuitry to receive the return request by receiving a request from the storage unit, the storage unit automatically transmitting the return request to the control circuit upon the product being positioned in the storage unit” , Claim 29 recite s “ wherein the processor is configured to control the communication circuitry to receive the return request by receiving a request from a storage unit in the garage, the storage unit automatically transmitting the return request to the control circuit upon the product being positioned in the storage unit” , and Claim 30 recite s “wherein the communication circuitry is configured to communicate with a storage unit in the garage; and wherein the processor is configured to control the communication circuitry to enable the return agent to control a lock of the storage unit to access the product in the storage unit”. These claims perform the same activities as the parent claims (sensors to determine position of an object, sending requests, providing access to locked space, etc.) and merely add an additional receptacle. Adding this additional receptacle (on which similar activities are performed) does not significantly affect how the processes of the claims are performed and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Claims 15 and 31 rec ite “ wherein the processor is configured to determine whether the product is in an acceptable condition for return based at least in part upon the data from the sensor ; and wherein the processor is configured to authorize the product return in response to: the determination of the product having been ordered using the user account; the determination that the product is in the designated zone; and the product being in the acceptable condition for return ”. These claims recite additional criteria for returns (the underlined portion, the other criteria appear in the parent claims and are covered by the above analysis), but does not make the claims any less abstract. Claims 16 and 32 recite “ wherein the communication circuitry is configured to communicate with the garage door operator, the garage door operator including the sensor; and wherein the processor is configured to control the communication circuitry to receive, from the garage door operator, the data from the sensor indicating whether the product is in the designated zone” (or variations within the same scope). These claims recite the garage door operator including the sensor. However, this does not provide significant material to indicate any specialized technology. There is no indication that the operator and senor are integrated in any meaningful way and could merely be a sensor mounted to the operator this would still perform all of the functions of the operator and sensor (see specification at [0031] and Fig. 1, “The indicator 19 may be integral with or independent from the movable barrier operator 12 . ). The garage door operator including the sensor does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Claim 21 recites “ wherein enabling the return agent to control the garage door operator comprises communicating an open command to the garage door operator” which repeats material that appears in the parent claims and is therefore subject to the same analysis as the parent claims provided above. Claim 22 recites “ wherein enabling the return agent to control the garage door operator comprises communicating a code to a mobile device of the return agent”, which merely recites that a mobile device is used by the agent for receiving data. The specification describes the mobile device in general terms, without describing the particulars, the additional elements may be broadly but reasonably construed as generic computing components being used to perform the judicial exception (see specification at [0019], “portable transmitters (such as designated handheld control devices, smartphones, or the like)” ). Claim 33 recites “ herein receiving the return request and receiving the data from the sensor comprises receiving a first communication comprising the return request from a first device and receiving a second communication comprising the data from the sensor from a different, second device”. Merely specifying the data received from separate devices does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. The devices are recited at a high level of generality and no specifics are described for the individual devices or their use (apart or together) that would provide anything significantly mor than the recited abstract ideas. The claims do not provide any new additional limitations or meaningful limits beyond abstract idea that are not addressed above in the independent claims therefore, they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor do they provide significantly more to the abstract idea. Thus, after considering all claim elements, both individually and as a whole, it has been determined that the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Therefore, Claims 3, 6 -9, 12 , 13, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21-25, and 28-33 are ineligible. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 13 recites the limitation " the storage unit " in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness . Claim( s) 1 , 3, 6 , 7 , 12, 15-19, 21-2 3 , 28, and 31-3 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Payne et al. (Pub. No. US 2018/0174142 A1) in view of Priest (Pub. No. US 2020/0286390 A1) in further view of Morris et al. (Pub. No. US 2019/0043290 A1) in further view of Stevens et al. (Pub. No. US 2015/0193731 A1). In regards to Claims 1 and 17 , Payne discloses: A control circuit for facilitating a return of a product from a garage, the control circuit comprising (Figs. 1 -4 and Abstract ) : communication circuitry configured to communicate with a sensor; and a processor operatively connected to the communication circuitry, the processor configured to: ( at least [0019] ; [0028]; [0029]) control the communication circuitry to receive a return request associated with a user account for returning a product, and data from the sensor indicating whether the product [is] in a designated return zone [of] the garage ; (Abstract , “… receives , from a user device, a request for returning a product , compares device identifier data associated with the user device with registered data associated with one or more customer accounts to identify a first customer account associated with the user device, analyzes transaction data associated with the first customer account to determine whether the product is associated with the first customer account …” , “… determines whether the product is positioned in the predetermined area to facilitate a return of the product …” ; [0004], “… receiving , from one or more sensor devices , scan data associated with an article positioned in the predetermined area …” ; [0017], “… determining whether a product is positioned in a predetermined area …” ) authorize the return request in response to a determination of the product having been ordered using the user account and a determination that the product [is] in the designated zone; ([ 0017]; [ 0024] ; [0026] , determines whether or not to authorize the return , includes analyzing an account to determine that it is a ssociated with the article and if the article is in a return zone , authorizes the return if the article and possessor are both associated with an account ; [0062], determines if the item was purchased using the user account ) Although P ayne broadly encompasses any designated area ( see [0014], although the reference makes one example of a retail business environment, this iso only one potential example and the reference clearly states that the claimed invention is “… not limited to a retail business environment.” ) , P ayne does not explicitly d isclose : the type of designated are a that uses sensors to analy ze the product is in a garage area , however, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the processes performed in the designated area and by the sensors would perform in the same manner regardless of its/ their type of area/ location (including in a gara ge) which is encompassed by P ayne . P ayne discloses the above method/system for requesting returns including a designated return zone in a garage at a residence (address). Payne does not explicitly disclose receiving a request for a return agent to retrieve the product, however, Priest teaches: control the communication circuitry to receive a request for a return agent to retrieve the product from [a] designated [location]; (Abstract; [0222] ; [0223] ; Claim 1, prior to retrieving the return item, it is determined whether requested/scheduled deliveries are at the same location as a requested pickup (same coordinates or addresses), once this correspondence between requested return/pickup and requested (future) delivery is determined a delivery agent (of plurality a of delivery agents ) is directed to perform the delivery and pickup at the location (“a request for a return agent to retrieve the product”) ; [0219], further designates pick-ups as “returns” ) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the system of Payne so as to have included control the communication circuitry to receive a request for a return agent to retrieve the product from [a] designated [location], as taught by Priest in order to provide a more efficient return system by scheduling return agents based on scheduled stops at a location and not requiring additional trips to the same location (Priest, [0219]; [0223]; [0229], route optimization ). Although the agents in Priest are drones, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the actual process for scheduling the agents could be applied to the agents of Payne in a similar manner (such as route optimization) and the necessary level of skill to do so is demonstrated by prior art references. Payne/ Priest discloses the above system/method for facilitating returns and scheduling pickups. Payne/Priest does not explicitly disclose enabling the return agent to control a garage door operator of the garage to access the garage (or other area of a home) , however, Morris teaches: an d control the communication circuitry to assign the return agent an access code to control a garage door operator of the garage to access the garage and retrieve the p roduct , wherein the return agent causes the garage door operator to shift a garage door to an open state using the access code when the return agent is within communication range of the garage door operator, ([0018]; [0025]; [0026]; [0046]; etc., delivery drivers are provided access to a garage by being provided codes to control a garage door opener, it is noted that while the examples discuss “delivery” of packages, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the performance of the access granting system/method would be the same regardless of the reason for access, including when combined with the system/method of Payne/Priest , in which it can be used to allow access to a specified location for the scheduled package pickup (see also [0047], access is not limited to deliveries and can include other types of service providers, these could include “pick-up” agents), it is also noted that the distance of the garage door opening is variable and not strictly limited to short distances for deliveries (or other entry reasons, see [0018]; [0047] ) ; [0025], it is also noted that identified drop-off locations are provided (such as arrows directing a user to the spot within the garage/home), this process could be used i n the same manner to direct a user to the package to be picked up when combined with the system/method of Payne/Priest , temporary or limited use codes are provided (assigned to a user) ; Fig. 1; [0033], “…a user may send open or close commands to the movable barrier operator…”, this would include the users described in the rejections of the parent claims, see above ) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the eff ective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the system of Payne/ Priest so as to have included control ling the communication circuitry to enable the return agent to control a garage door operator of the garage to access the garage and retrieve the product , as taught by Morris in order to provide security by only allowing authorized users to enter the secure location (Morris, Abstract; [0002]; [0024]; [0046]). As explained in the above citations for Morris, the providing of access to open the garage door and providing a designated zone for performing a delivery of an item and the providing of access to open the garage door and providing a designated zone for performing a pick-up of an item are not significantly different in scope. The process used for opening a garage door and providing a designated zone would be performed in the same manner regardless of the reason (pick-up or delivery or both). Whether an item is being picked-up or delivered would not affect the functioning and/or outcomes of the claimed invention regarding the process for receiving access and would not be patentably distinct. Additionally, it is noted that, if Applicant intends the delivery zone and pick-up zone to be separate zones, this also would not significantly affect the functioning or outcomes of the claimed invention in regards the process for receiving access . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that the providing of access to an area and the providing of a designated zone in Morris (including in combination with the method/system of Payne/Priest ) could be used for both deliveries and pick-ups without any significant affect to the processing and/or functioning of the system. Payne/ Priest/Morris discloses the above system/method for using sensors to determine whether or not an item is in a zone and characteristics of the item for use in deliveries and return requests. Additionally, Payne discloses a locker system that can identify an item ([0066]). Payne/ Priest/Morris does not explicitly disclose the use of a predetermined time period since delivery; however, Stevens teaches: [initiating a return when] the product has been in a designated zone for a predefined period of time since being delivered ([00 38 ], when a parcel has been in a locker (monitored zone/area) for a period of time, it can be considered unclaimed and “… returned to the warehouse and a refund provided to the customer…”, the “ U nclaimed i tems system s ” is a system that initiates activities in response to the status of the item in the zone ) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified the system of Payne/ Priest/Morris so as to have included [initiating a return when] the product has been in a designated zone for a predefined period of time since being delivered , as taught by Stevens . Payne/ Priest/Morris discloses a “base” method/system in which zones/areas are monitored to detect items and item characteristics for purposes of deliveries, returns , and pickups, as shown above. Stevens teaches a comparable method/system in which zones/areas (lockers) are monitored to detect items for purposes of deliveries to recipients , as shown above. Stevens also teaches an embodiment in which a return is initiated when a product has been in a designated zone for a predefined period of time since being delivered , as shown above. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the adaptation of [initiating a return when] the product has been in a designated zone for a predefined period of time since being delivered to Payne/ Priest/Morris could be performed with the technical expertise demonstrated in the applied references . (See KSR [127 S Ct. at 1739] "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more th an yield predictable results.") . O ne of ordinary skill in the art would recognize how to apply the time period presence detection method of Stevens to the sensors of Payne/ Priest/Morris that can detect, monitor, and respond to presence of items in a specific area; and the applied references demonstrate the necessary skill required to do so. In regards to Claims 3 and 1 9 , Payne discloses: further comprising a memory configured to store data regarding a product ordered using the user account; ([0017]; [0024]; [0026]; [0062], as described above ) wherein the data from the sensor includes data representative of an image of the product captured by the sensor; ([0036], sensors used to scan the predetermined area to detect articles (including products) can include a camera ) wherein the processor is configured to determine whether the product was ordered using the user account based at least in part upon the data from the sensor representative of the image of the product corresponding to the data stored in the memory regarding the product ordered using the user account ([0070], processes transactions associated with an account demonstrating a transaction/order history ; [0062], uses transaction data to determine if the item was purchased using the account, this data includes product identifier data ; [0042], image data can be used to detect product identifier data , which, as described previously, can be compared to transaction data ) In regards to Claim 6 , Payne discloses the above system/method for facilitating returns and scheduling pickups. Payne does not explicitly disclose, but Priest teaches: wherein the processor is configured to select the return agent via communication with an agent network and the selection is based on obtained information selected from the group consisting of available return agents, locations of available return agents, tasks assigned to return agents, pre-planned delivery or retrieval routes assigned or created by return agents, details of past performance, reviews from purchasers or sellers relating to previous transactions, and experience with similar tasks (Abstract; [0222]; [0223]; Claim 1, a delivery agent can be scheduled to pick up an item at the same location that it delivers another item (representing at least “tasks assigned to return agents“)) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the system of Payne so as to have included wherein the processor is configured to select the return agent via communication with an agent network and the selection is based on obtained information selected from the group consisting of available return agents, locations of available return agents, tasks assigned to return agents, pre-planned delivery or retrieval routes assigned or created by return agents, details of past performance, reviews from purchasers or sellers relating to previous transactions, and experience with similar tasks , as taught by Priest in order to provide a more efficient return system by scheduling return agents based on scheduled stops at a location and not requiring additional trips to the same location ( Priest, [0219]; [0223]; [0 229], route optimization ). Although the agents in Priest are drones, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the actual process for scheduling the agents could be applied to the agents of Payne in a similar manner (such as route optimization) and the necessary level of skill to do so is demonstrated by prior art references. In regards to Claim 7 , Payne discloses the above method/system for requesting return s (pickups) . Payne does not explicitly disclose wherein the processor is configured to determine whether the return is urgent, and wherein the processor is configured to select a return agent to correspond to a future delivery when the return is not urgent. However, Priest teaches: wherein the processor is configured to determine whether the [pickup] is urgent, and wherein selecting the return agent to correspond to the future delivery to the designated delivery zone occurs when the [pickup] is not urgent ([00243]-[0246], when an item pickup and delivery is urgent, a plan is made to get the delivery agent there as quickly as possible (including providing priority routes), this would indicate that the pickup would not be based on a delivery being scheduled at the same address (in order to provide the quickest pickup and delivery for the emergency/urgent item) ; [0247], urgent deliveries include picking up a package from a location ) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the system of Payne so as to have included wherein the processor is configured to determine whether the [pickup] is urgent, and wherein selecting the return agent to correspond to the future delivery to the designated delivery zone occurs when the [pickup] is not urgent , as taught by Priest in order to ensure that urgent items are picked up and delivered in a timely fashion ( Priest, [0243]-[0247]], route optimization ). The process for picking up and delivering urgent items used in Payne/Priest would be performed in the same manner when picking up an urgent return to be delivered back to the merchant (or similar entity). In regards to Claims 12 and 28 , Payne discloses : wherein the sensor comprises a camera of a portable electronic device and the data from the sensor comprises image data; and wherein the processor is configured to determine whether the product is in the designated zone based at least in part upon the image data. ([ 0027], scan module 130 is p art of the product return environment 120 and scanning the predetermined area ; [0042], “The location component 206 determines whether a product 102 being returned is in a predetermined location area.”, Fig. 1; Fig. 2; [0022], the scan component is part of the “product return environment” ( 120; 200 ) which is part of the “computing device” ( 100 ) ; [0019], the computing device (as described in [0027], [0042], and [0022]) can be a mobile or portable device ; [0036], sensor devices can include cameras for determining an item is in a predetermined area ) Payne does not explicitly disclose that the designated are a that uses sensors to analyses the product is in a garage, however, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the processes performed in the designated area and by the sensors would perform in the same manner regardless of its/their location (including in a garage). Additionally, Payne does not indicate that the designated sensors are performed in any particular location nor does it provide any material precluding it from being performed in a garage ( see [0014], although the reference makes one example of a retail business environment, this iso only one potential example and the reference clearly states that the claimed invention is“… not limited to a retail business environment.” ) . It is also noted that, in the rejections of the parent claims (above), the combination demonstrates that comparable devices can be used in specified areas (such as garages) in the same manner. In regards to Claims 15 and 31 , Payne discloses: wherein the processor is configured to determine whether the product is in an acceptable condition for return based at least in part upon the data from the sensor; ([0044], “…the request 212 may be approved if the product 102 being returned is in the predetermined location area and the product 102 is in a physical condition that satisfies one or more physical parameters associated with the product…” ) wherein the processor is configured to authorize the product return in response to: the determination of the product having been ordered using the user account ( Abstract; [0017]; [0024]; [0026]; [0062]; [0070]; etc., as described above ) ; the determination that the product is in the designated zone; ([0044]; etc., as described above ) ; the product being in the acceptable condition for return ([0044]; etc., as described above ) In regards to Claims 16 and 32 , Payne/ Priest discloses the above system/method for facilitating returns and scheduling pickups, including scanning to an area/zone to determine if a product is present. Payne/ Priest does not explicitly disclose wherein the communication circuitry is configured to communicate with the garage door operator, the garage door operator including the sensor; and wherein the processor is configured to control the communication circuitry to receive, from the garage door operator, the data from the sensor indicating whether the product is in the designated zone . However, Morris teaches that the garage door operator includes sensors ([0028], including sensors that can detect or identify locations ) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary still in the art , before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include in the system /method of Payne/ Priest , the ability to combine the zone scanning sensors of Payne with (or attach the sensors to) the garage door operator (which already demonstrates the ability to include similar sensors), as taught by Morris, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element 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. Merely combing the sensors with the operator would not affect the functioning or performance of either the sensors or the operator and the prior art demonstrates the necessary level of skill to do so. In regards to Claim 18 , Payne discloses: wherein the data from the sensor indicating whether the product is in the designated zone includes data representative of an image captured by the sensor; and determining, via the processor of the control circuit, whether the product is in the designated zone based at least in part upon the data representative of the image captured by the sensor ([0036], sensors used to scan the predetermined area to detect articles (including products) can include a camera ) In regards to Claim 21 , Payne/ Priest discloses the above system/method for facilitating returns and scheduling pickups. Payne/ Priest does not explicitly disclose enabling the return agent to control a garage door operator by issuing an open command), however, Morris teaches: wherein enabling the return agent to control the garage door operator comprises communicating an open command to the garage door operator ([0033], “…a user may send open or close commands to the movable barrier operator…”, this would include the users described in the rejections of the parent claims, see above ) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the system of Payne/ Priest so as to have included wherein enabling the return agent to control the garage door operator comprises communicating an open command to the garage door operator , as taught by Morris in order to provide security by only allowing authorized users to enter the secure location (Morris, Abstract; [0002]; [0024]; [0046]). In regards to Claim 22 , Payne/ Priest discloses the above system/method for facilitating returns and scheduling pickups. Payne/Priest does not explicitly disclose, but Morris teaches: wherein enabling the return agent to control the garage door operator comprises communicating a code to a mobile device of the return agent ([0033]) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the system of Payne/ Priest so as to have included wherein enabling the return agent to control the garage door operator comprises communicating a code to a mobile device of the return agent , as taught by Morris in order to provide security by only allowing authorized users to enter the secure location (Morris, Abstract; [0002]; [0024]; [0046]). In regards to Claim 23 , Payne discloses: a memory to store a product order history of the user account, the processor operatively connected to the memory and configured to determine whether the product was ordered using the user account based upon the product order history ([0070], processes transactions associated with an account demonstrating a transaction/order history ; [0062], uses transaction data to determine if the item was purchased using the account) In regards to Claim 33 , Payne discloses : wherein the processor is configured to determine whether the product is in an acceptable condition for return based at least in part upon the data from the sensor; ([ 0032]; [0034], user device 150 is used to enter into return requests and can communicate with the scan environment ; Fig. 1; [0073], further demonstrates that the request device and scanner device are separate and communicate to the system separately ” ) . Claim(s ) 8, 24, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Payne in view of Priest in further view of Morris in further view of Stevens in further view of Kieboom et al (Pub. No. US 2022/0147927 A1) . In regards to Claim 8 , Payne/Priest/Morris /Stevens discloses the initiation of product returns including the use of customer accounts , as described above. Payne/Priest/Morris does not explicitly disclose, but Kieboom teaches: wherein the processor is further configured to select the return agent to match a preference associated with the user account ([0025], the pickup information used for scheduling includes a time window specified by the customer, the time window (or other data) specified by a customer represents preference associated with that customer/account (“…the pickup time window selected by the customer, delivery instructions provided by the customer…) ) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the system of Payne/Priest/Morris /Stevens so as to have included wherein the processor is further configured to select the return agent to match a preference associated with the user account , as taught by Kieboom in order to provide a more efficient return system by scheduling return agents based attributes of the agent in relation to the pickup data (such as user preferences, time windows, etc.) (Kieboom, [0021]; [0026]; [0031]). In regards to Claim 24 , Payne/Priest/Morris /Stevens discloses the initiation of product returns from a designated zone/area, as described above. Payne/Priest/Morris /Stevens does not explicitly disclose, but Kieboom teaches: wherein the processor is configured to select the return agent from a plurality of return agents based at least in part upon a current location or a predicted future location of the return agent ([0026], “…determine how drivers are assigned based on a number of factors, including the distance the driver is from the pickup location …” ) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the system of Payne/Priest/Morris /Stevens so as to have included wherein the processor is configured to select the return agent from a plurality of return agents based at least in part upon a current location or a predicted future location of the return agent , as taught by Kieboom in order to provide a more efficient return system by scheduling return agents based attributes of the agent in relation to the pickup data (such as workload, distance, vehicle size/shape, etc.) (Kieboom, [0021]; [0026]; [0031] ; Priest, [0219]; [0223]; [0 229], route optimization ). In regards to Claim 25 , Payne/Priest/Morris /Stevens discloses the initiation of product returns from a designated zone/area, as described above. Payne does not explicitly disclose, but Kieboom teaches: wherein the processor is further configured to select the return agent from the plurality of return agents based upon a delivery schedule of the return agent ([0026], “…will determine how drivers are assigned based on a number of factors, including the distance the driver is from the pickup location… how many packages the driver currently has …”, distance from the pickup and number of packages the driver has would be indicators of their schedule, such as how many deliveries or pickups they may have (based on number of packages to be delivered and/or room in the vehicle for pickups) and their locations ) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the system of Payne/Priest/Morris /Stevens so as to have included wherein the processor is further configured to select the return agent from the plurality of return agents based upon a delivery schedule of the return agent , as taught by Kieboom in order to provide a more efficient return system by scheduling return agents based attributes of the agent in relation to the pickup data (such as workload, distance, vehicle size/shape, etc.) (Kieboom, [0021]; [0026]; [0031] ; Priest, [0219]; [0223]; [0 229], route optimization ). Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Payne in view of Priest in further view of Morris in further view of Stevens in further view of Alamin et al. (Pub. No. US 2019/0244448 A1) . In regards to Claim 9 , Payne/Priest/Morris /Stevens discloses the initiation of product returns from a designated zone/area, as described above. Payne/ Priest /Morris does not explicitly disclose, but Alamin teaches: wherein the access code associated with the return agent access code is automatically communicated to the garage door operator when the return agent is within a defined distance of the garage door operator ([0087], the opening process for the garage door includes determining threshold proximity of the operator device to the garage door opener ) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the system of Payne/Priest/Morris /Stevens so as to have included wherein the access code associated with the return agent access code is automatically communicated to the garage door operator when the return agent is within a defined distance of the garage door operator , as taught by Alamin in order to provide security by ensuring that the learning of new transmitters (Alamin, [0087]; [0088]). Claim(s) 13 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Payne in view of Priest in further view of Morris in further view of Stevens in further view of Mattingly et al. (Pub. No. US 2018/0068368 A1). In regards to Claims 13 and 2 9 , Payne/Priest/Morris/Stevens discloses the above system/method for facilitating returns and scheduling pickups , including f ro m garages or other home areas . Additionally, Payne discloses a locker system that can identify an item ([0066]). Payne/Priest/Morris/Stevens does not explicitly disclose that the return is initiated when an item is placed in the storage unit, however, Mattingly teaches: wherein the processor is configured to control the communication circuitry to receive the return request by receiving a request from the storage unit, the stora ge unit automatically transmitting the return request to the control circuit upon the product being positioned in the storage unit ([0029]; Claim 3, “…the system receives a return request. In some embodiments, the return request may comprise a customer placing one or more items in a return receptacle. A sensor at the return receptacle may detect the presence of the item and trigger a return request at the system…” ) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified the system of Payne/Priest/Morris /Stevens so as to have included wherein the processor is configured to control the communication circuitry to receive the return request by receiving a request from a storage unit in the garage, the storage unit automatically trans