DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
This action is a non-final, first office action in response to the Applicant's Request for Continued Prosecution filed 24 March 2026.
Claim 2 has been amended.
Claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 9-14, 17, and 19-21 are currently pending and have been examined.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 24 March 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8 October 2025 with regards to the 112, 1st paragraph, rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the claims, the Applicant has argued on page 6 of their response, “Claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 9-14, 17, and 19-21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Office Action, p. 11. Applicant has amended claim 2 and believes in good faith that the amendment overcomes the rejection. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of this rejection.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s interpretation of their amendments and the breadth of the claims. The Examiner notes that the Applicant has amended claim 2 to state, “when, based at least in part, on the received real time locations of the selected delivery agent and the merchant, the first user is determined to be within a predefined distance of a location of the merchant, place, via the at least one processor, the purchase order with the merchant.” (Emphasis added). While this amendment did fix a portion of the previously rejected issues, it did not correct them all. Particularly, the previous claim amendment which was rejected under 35 USC 112, first paragraph, for reciting, “when, based at least in part, on the received real time locations of the selected delivery agent and the merchant, the selected delivery agent is determined to be within a predefined distance of a location of the merchant, place, via the at least one processor, the purchase order with the merchant.” (Emphasis added). As shown and emphasized here, the Applicant corrected the portion of the claim that states, when the first user is determined to be within a predefined distance of a location of the merchant, placing the purchase order with the merchant; however they have not corrected that this is “based at least in part, on the received real time locations of the selected delivery agent and the merchant.” This basis for the determination being reliant on the real time received locations of the selected delivery agent and the merchant is not supported by the original written description. Notably, were the Applicant to change this basis to “the first user and the merchant,” as was previously stated in the claims filed 16 May 2025, this rejection would be overcome. As the Applicant has failed to fully correct the previously identified issues, the Examiner maintains that this rejection is proper.
Applicant's arguments filed 8 October 2025 with regards to the 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the claims, the Applicant argues on page 7 of their response, “The claimed tracking harnesses the technical capability of mobile devices- specifically, the ability of one device to optically scan a code displayed on another device- to determine physical proximity between parties as evidence of transfer of custody. The scanning party must be in sufficient proximity to the displaying party to optically scan the code, ensuring that the parties are actually co-located at the time of transfer. The claim recites using the camera and display of mobile devices in a specific, claimed way to achieve a technical result (proximity detection via code scanning) rather than merely instructing a generic computer to perform a business step. Verifying chain of custody in a distributed delivery network without relying on manual data entry, passwords, or GPS alone (which can be imprecise or spoofed). Optical code scanning improves the functioning of the computer by providing a more reliable, device-to-device verification that two parties were physically together at the moment of transfer. Applicant respectfully submits that under Step 2A, Prong 2, the independent claim 2 and its dependent claims are directed to a practical application, and Applicant requests that the §101 rejections be withdrawn.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s interpretation of the requirements under 35 USC 101, the bounds of the claimed invention, and the grounds of the previous and current rejection. First, the Examiner notes that while the Applicant has argued that the claims are directed to a practical application, they have failed to identify any reasoning in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(a)-(c) and (e) that would explain why the claims recite additional elements, that when taken individually or in combination with the abstract idea, integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As such, the Applicant’s argument is merely conclusory, and is not persuasive. Second, with respect to the Applicant’s argument that, “The claim recites using the camera and display of mobile devices in a specific, claimed way to achieve a technical result (proximity detection via code scanning) rather than merely instructing a generic computer to perform a business step,” the Examiner is not persuaded. Notably, the claims do not recite any camera or display of mobile devices, nor does the claim refer to any proximity detection; as such, the Applicant’s argument is deemed beyond the scope of the claimed invention. Additionally, with respect to the Applicant’s argument that the claimed elements provide a technical result rather than merely instructing a generic computer to perform a business step, the Examiner is not persuaded. MPEP 2106.05(f) states, “Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015).” As shown and emphasized here, merely invoking the use of generic computer and machine elements to perform their ordinary tasks, is deemed insufficient for integrating an abstract idea into a practical application. As such, the Applicant’s argument that the claims recite the use of a camera and display of a mobile device to display and scan images, is deemed insufficient for integrating an abstract idea into a practical application. Third, with respect to the Applicant’s argument that, “Optical code scanning improves the functioning of the computer by providing a more reliable, device-to-device verification that two parties were physically together at the moment of transfer,” the Examiner is not persuaded. In this case, MPEP 2106.05(a) states, “If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art.” (Emphasis added). In this case, the Applicant has merely made a conclusory argument that the optical scanning improves the functioning of a computer, however they have provided no evidence of such an improvement, nor have they described the technical details that would signal an improvement. As such, the Applicant’s conclusory argument of improvement to a computer is deemed not persuasive. Further, with respect to the Applicant’s argument that the system provides a more reliable verification that two parties were physically together, this is deemed an improvement to the business process of delivery and confirming delivery. MPEP 2106.05(a)(II) states, “Notably, the court did not distinguish between the types of technology when determining the invention improved technology. However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology.” (Emphasis added). In this case, providing a scanned code as evidence of a delivery, compared to a verbal or signature confirmation, merely improves the business process, and not some technology. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that this rejection is proper.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 9-14, 17, and 19-21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
With respect to claim 2, the Applicant has amended the claim to state, “receive, in real time, over the communication network, real time locations of the merchant and the selected delivery agent; when, based at least in part, on the received real time locations of the selected delivery agent and the merchant, the first user is determined to be within a predefined distance of a location of the merchant, place, via the at least one processor, the purchase order with the merchant.” The Applicant has failed to provide support in their original written description that would convey to one skilled in the art that they were in possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. In this case, the Applicant has amended the claim to recite that the purchase order made by the customer, is placed, “when, based at least in part, on the received real time locations of the selected delivery agent and the merchant, the first user is determined to be within a predefined distance of a location of the merchant, place, via the at least one processor, the purchase order with the merchant.” The Applicant’s original disclosure does not support this amendment, as the Applicant’s original specification merely discloses placing the order when the customer and the merchant are within a predefined distance of each other, which is not based on the real time locations of delivery agent and the merchant. Notably paragraph 81 states, “It should be recognized that while examples are given in terms of difference between customer and merchant locations, that such examples are non-limiting. For example, any locations may be used in various embodiments in any combination. As one example, an order may be transmitted in response to a customer being a distance from home, reaching their work, and so on. Any location and/or distance of a customer from a location may be used as a triggering mechanism for order placement. Similarly any location and/or distance from a location of a merchant may be used as a trigger for order placement. For example, an order may be triggered when a merchant is 2 miles from a customer that is one mile away from their home. Any combination of merchant location, customer location and/or relationships between such locations and any other locations may be used in any combination in various embodiments.” (Emphasis added). As shown and emphasized here, the Applicant’s specification discloses triggering the order placement based on the customer and/or merchant location, however this does not include the delivery agent’s location. As such, the Applicant’s original disclosure lacks written description support for the current claim amendments, and therefore appropriate correction is required. Claims 4, 5, 7, 9-14, 17, and 19-21 depend upon claim 2, and therefore are rejected via dependency.
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, 4, 5, 7, 9-14, 17, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a processor, memory coupled to the at least one processor, wherein the at least one processor is configured to: receive, from a mobile computing device of a first user, the purchase order to be placed with the merchant receive in real time, over a communication network, from the mobile computing device of the first user, an indication that the purchase order is for delivery, and a real time location of the first user, in which the real time location is generated from a GPS device or a wireless network signal device of the mobile computing device; and initiate a bidding process to select which one of a plurality of bidding delivery agents will deliver the purchase order from the merchant to the first user, wherein selecting comprising checking to determine whether a bidding delivery agent has a conflicting job and, if so, disqualifying that delivery agent; tracking, in real time, a chain of custody of the purchase order by transmitting a scannable code for presentation on one of a receiving party and a delivering party, and detecting transfer when the other scans the scannable code; receive, in real time, over the communication network, real time locations of the merchant and the selected delivery agent; when, based at least in part, on the received real time locations of the selected delivery agent and the merchant, the first user is determined to be within a predefined distance of a location of the merchant, place, via the at least one processor, the purchase order with the merchant.
The limitations of receiving a purchase order to be placed with the merchant, receiving an indication that the purchase order is for delivery and a real time location of the first user, initiating a bidding process to select which delivery agent will deliver the purchase order from the merchant to the first user, checking to determine whether a bidding delivery agent has a conflicting job and disqualifying that delivery agent if they do, tracking a chain of custody of the purchase order by detecting a scan of a confirmation code; receiving real time locations of the merchant and the selected delivery agent, and when it is determine that the first user is within a predefined distance of a merchant location then placing the order with the merchant; as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses the management of commercial activities (including managing business relations and sales activities), and elements that can be performed in the human mind. That is, other than reciting the use of generic computer elements (memory, processor, mobile computing device, GPS, communication network), the claims recite an abstract idea. In particular, receiving a purchase order from a customer, including that it is for delivery, and the location of the user; encompasses a customer providing their order for goods/services, identifying their location, and identifying their choice of delivery; which is managing the sales activities and business relations of merchants. In addition, initiating a bidding process to select which delivery agent will deliver the purchase order from the merchant to the first user, checking to determine whether a bidding delivery agent has a conflicting job and disqualifying that delivery agent if they do; encompasses receiving job quotes from delivery agents, and electing only qualified agents that won’t have conflicts, which is the management of commercial activity (business relations and sales activities), and managing human behavior. In addition, by tracking the chain of custody by confirming delivery when an agent scans a confirmation code of a recipient; encompasses a delivery agent providing evidence to a manager that a delivery has been completed and providing evidence of the delivery; which is the management of commercial activity (business relations and sales activities), and managing human behavior. In addition, placing an order for a customer when the first user is within a predetermined distance of the merchant, encompasses the setting up of a service area for merchants, and placing orders in said area, which is managing the sales activities and business relations of merchants. As such, the claims recite elements that fall into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” grouping of abstract ideas. In addition, initiating a bidding process to select which delivery agent will deliver the purchase order from the merchant to the first user, checking to determine whether a bidding delivery agent has a conflicting job and disqualifying that delivery agent if they do; encompasses elements that can be performed in the human mind (observation, evaluation, opinion, judgement). Thus, the claims further recite elements that fall into the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not recite additional elements that improve the functioning of a computer, another technology, or technical field. The claims do not recite the use of, or apply the abstract idea with, a particular machine, the claims do not recite the transformation of an article from one state or thing into another. Finally, the claims do not recite additional elements that 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. Instead, the claims recite the use of generic computer elements (memory, processor, mobile computing device, GPS, communication network) as tools to carry out the abstract idea. Additionally, the collection of data in real time merely narrows the field of use by defining the time period in which data is reported. In addition, transmitting scannable codes to a customer or agent, and receiving a scan of the code is deemed extrasolution activity. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using generic computer elements and machines to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. In addition, the claims recite transmitting scannable codes to a customer or agent, and receiving a scan of the code is deemed extrasolution activity, and well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (See at least MPEP 2106.05(d), “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network);” and “Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (optical character recognition);” which are concepts the Courts have identified as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity.). The claims are directed to patent ineligible subject matter.
The dependent claims 4, 5, 7, 9-14, 17, and 19-21, taken individually and in combination, do not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or add significantly more to the abstract idea itself. In particular, the claims further recite performing when a user registers for an alert service of the merchant, which encompasses managing advertising and business relations, and thus further recites elements that fall into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” grouping of abstract ideas (claim 4). In addition, the claims further recite a customer’s location changing between placing an order and delivery, which merely narrows the field of use by further narrowing defining the type of customer location, and thus does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or add significantly more to the abstract idea itself (claim 5). In addition, the claims further recite providing order details to delivery agents, initiating bidding by delivery agents, and facilitating delivery to the winning bidders; which encompasses allowing deliverers to apply for delivery jobs, and providing them with job details, which encompasses managing business relations and human activity, and thus further recites elements that fall into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” grouping of abstract ideas (claim 7). In addition, the claims further recite receiving evidence of changes in custody during a delivery process; which encompasses tracking deliveries, and thus encompasses managing business relations and human activity, and thus further recites elements that fall into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” grouping of abstract ideas (claims 9-11). In addition, the claims recite the identification that a delivery is incorrect, which encompasses managing business relations and human activity, and thus further recites elements that fall into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” grouping of abstract ideas (claim 11). In addition, the claims recite the use of a generic computer element (mobile device) to receive, process, and transmit information, which is deemed merely using a generic computer element as a tool to carry out the abstract idea, and therefore does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or add significantly more to the abstract idea itself (claim 9-11). In addition, the claims further recite transmitting advertisements to customer devices in a region when a threshold number of customers is reached, which is deemed merely advertisement, and thus, further recites elements that fall into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” grouping of abstract ideas (claims 12-14). In addition, the claims further recite transmitting customer locations to the merchant, which is deemed providing a delivery address/location to the merchant, and thus managing sales activities and business relations, and thus further recites elements that fall into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” grouping of abstract ideas (claim 17). In addition, the claims further recite using generic computer elements (display, second computing device) as tools to carry out the abstract idea, and thus does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or add significantly more to the abstract idea itself (claim 17). In addition, the claims further recite that the merchant is mobile, and tracking the merchant’s location, which is merely further reciting managing business relations and sales activities by describing tracking mobile merchants and customers, and thus further recites elements that fall into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” grouping of abstract ideas (claim 19). In addition, the claims further recite using generic computer elements (GPS) to carry out the abstract idea, and further recites the content of information provided to a merchant, which merely narrows the field of use; and thus does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or add significantly more to the abstract idea itself (claim 19). In addition, the claims further recite transmitting advertisements to customer devices in a region when a threshold number of customers is reached, which is deemed merely advertisement, and thus, further recites elements that fall into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” grouping of abstract ideas (claims 20 and 21).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 9-14, 17, and 19-21 are allowed over the prior art of record. In this case, the claim 2 recites, “receive in real time, over a communication network, from the mobile computing device of the first user, an indication that the purchase order is for delivery, and a real time location of the first user, in which the real time location is generated from a GPS device or a wireless network signal device of the mobile computing device; and initiate a bidding process to select which one of a plurality of bidding delivery agents will deliver the purchase order from the merchant to the first user, wherein selecting comprising checking to determine whether a bidding delivery agent has a conflicting job and, if so, disqualifying that delivery agent; tracking, in real time, a chain of custody of the purchase order by transmitting a scannable code for presentation on one of a receiving party and a delivering party, and detecting transfer when the other scans the scannable code; receive, in real time, over the communication network real time locations of the merchant and the selected delivery agent; and when, based at least in part, on the received real time locations of the selected delivery agent and the merchant, the first user is determined to be within a predefined distance of a location of the merchant, place, via the at least one processor, the purchase order with the merchant.” As shown and emphasized here, the automatic placing of the purchase order when, based at least in part, on the received real time locations of the selected delivery agent and the merchant, the first user is determined to be within a predefined distance of a location of the merchant, and tracking the real time locations of the customer, merchant, and selected delivery agent, is novel and non-obvious, however remains rejected under other statutes, including 35 USC 112a, and 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Obasanjo et al. (US 2011/0288958 A1) – Which describe a customer placing a delivery for items, wherein the customer is a mobile customer and provides their destination information with the order. Further, the system generates an item order code and a customer identification code, and provides these the deliverer and recipient in advance, wherein the agent scans the customer identification code from the recipient’s device when making the delivery and provides both codes to the system to verify the delivery was completed and made to the correct recipient.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL P HARRINGTON whose telephone number is (571)270-1365. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5.
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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at (571)-270-1833. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Michael Harrington
Primary Patent Examiner
30 April 2026
Art Unit 3628
/MICHAEL P HARRINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights