Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claim 21 directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: the claims to the different species recite the mutually exclusive characteristics of such species.
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-20, drawn to referrer of the request is determined based on cookies, classified in G06Q20/10.
II. Claims 21, drawn to locked charge to be released classified in G06Q40/02.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 21 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Inventions I and II are related as subcombinations disclosed as usable together in a single combination. The subcombinations are distinct if they do not overlap in scope and are not obvious variants, and if it is shown that at least one subcombination is separately usable. In the instant case, subcombination II has separate utility such as locked charge to be released. See MPEP § 806.05(d).
The examiner has required restriction between subcombinations usable together. Where applicant elects a subcombination and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP § 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Inventions I and II are unrelated. Inventions are unrelated if it can be shown that they are not disclosed as capable of use together and they have different designs, modes of operation, and effects (MPEP § 802.01 and § 806.06). In the instant case, the different inventions the inventions are unrelated: Invention I: referrer of the request is determined based on cookies and Invention II: locked charge to be released.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply: the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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 1-14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under Step 1, claims are directed to at least one statutory category, a method.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea of receiving a request for a delivery of at least one product; receiving an indication of a value of the at least one product; transmitting a request for a bonding of a delivery agent, a bonding value of the delivery agent based, at least in part, on the value of the at least one product; receiving an indication that a sum of money at least as great as the value of the request for the bonding is available to bond the delivery agent, wherein the indication includes receiving an indication that the sum of money is reserved by a trusted entity or receiving an indication that the sum of money has been received; transmitting, to the delivery agent, a request to deliver the at least one product; upon successful delivery of the at least one product, returning at least some of the bonding value; and determining an allocation of a payment to each of the delivery agent, a merchant associated with the product, and a referrer of the request to deliver, wherein the referrer of the request is determined based on associated with the request for the delivery. This concept of revenue sharing and delivery fall under the abstract idea category of certain methods of organizing human activity, specifically commercial or legal interactions as it is directed to sales activities or behaviors.
Under Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements recited in claim 1 include: cookies. These additional limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In particular, the claimed computer components, receiving and transmitting data amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer system, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application; see MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional element of system and display amount to no more than merely linking the general technology to the judicial exception without significantly more and, in the alternative, mere insignificant extra-solution activity to gather data used in the claimed system. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Under Step 2B, the claimed invention is considered as a whole whether the additional elements individually or as an ordered combination amount to an inventive concept. Upon further determination, the claims do not integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of the applicant does not explicitly recite additional element is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer system and recites the steps of data manipulation. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer system and/or adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception is not indicative of an inventive concept. The sending and receiving data over a network have been determined by the courts to be well-known, conventional and routine functions, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). Therefore, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
As for dependent claims 2-14 and 16-20, these claims recite limitation that further define the same abstract idea noted in claim 1. Therefore, they are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-14 and 16-20 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sesek (US 2003/0050850 A1), in view of Ourega (US 2008/0162304 A1), further in view of Roetter et al. (US Publication Number: 2005/0055269 A1).
As per claim 1, Sesek discloses: a method comprising (abstract: a method): receiving a request for a delivery of at least one product (see at least ¶ 0023); receiving an indication of a value of the at least one product (see at least ¶ 0017); a bonding value of the request for the bonding of a delivery agent, a bonding value of the delivery agent based, at least in part, on the value of the at least one product (see at least ¶ 0017, 0023 and 0027; claim 11); receiving an indication that a sum of money at least as great as the value of the request for the bonding is available to bond the delivery agent, wherein the indication includes receiving an indication that the sum of money is reserved by a trusted entity or receiving an indication that the sum of money has been received (see at least ¶ 0017, 0023 and 0027; claim 11); transmitting, to the delivery agent, a request to deliver the at least one product (see at least ¶ 0027); and upon successful delivery of the at least one product, returning at least some of the bonding value (see at least abstract; ¶ 0002-0005, 0012, 0017 and 0023-0028).
Sesek does not disclose the following, however Ourega discloses transmitting a request for a bonding of a delivery agent (see at least ¶ 0018).
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 method of Sesek with transmitting a request for a bonding of a delivery agent feature of Ourega to help to facilitate transactions (abstract of Ourega) or facilitate transaction (¶ 0026 of Ourega).
Sesek does not disclose the following, however Roetter et al. discloses determining an allocation of a payment to each of the delivery agent, a merchant associated with the product, and a referrer of the request to deliver, wherein the referrer of the request is determined based on cookies associated with the request for the delivery (see at least ¶ 0004-0007, 0025, 0035-0036, 0044-0045 and 0069-0076).
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 method of Sesek with determining an allocation of a payment to each of the delivery agent, a merchant associated with the product, and a referrer of the request to deliver, wherein the referrer of the request is determined based on cookies associated with the request for the delivery feature of Roetter et al. to help to facilitate setting the value (¶ 0044 of Roetter et al.) or charge (¶ 0005 and 0035 of Roetter et al.).
As per claim 2, Sesek, Ourega and Roetter et al. teach the method of claim 1 described above. Sesek teaches wherein transmitting the request for the bonding includes transmitting a request to lock a charge on at least one credit card (¶ 0003 and 0012-0018).
As per claim 3, Sesek, Ourega and Roetter et al. teach the method of claim 2 described above. Sesek teaches wherein receiving the indication that the sum of money at least as great as the bonding value is available includes receiving an indication that the charge has been successfully locked on the at least one credit card (¶ 0003 and 0012-0018).
As per claim 4, Sesek, Ourega and Roetter et al. teach the method of claim 1 described above. Sesek teaches wherein the request to deliver the at least one product includes a request to act as a principal when delivering the at least one product (¶ 0003 and 0012-0018).
As per claim 5, Sesek, Ourega and Roetter et al. teach the method of claim 4 described above. Sesek teaches wherein the request to act as a principal includes a request to: pay at least one merchant for the at least one product in order to take ownership of the at least one product during the delivery of the at least one product (¶ 0003-0005 and 0011-0018); and transfer ownership of the at least one product to at least one customer upon delivery of the at least one product (¶ 0003-0005 and 0011-0018).
As per claim 6, Sesek, Ourega and Roetter et al. teach the method of claim 1 described above. Sesek teaches wherein the request to deliver the at least one product includes a request to act as an agent when delivering the at least one product (¶ 0003-0005 and 0011-0018).
As per claim 7, Sesek, Ourega and Roetter et al. teach the method of claim 6 described above. Sesek teaches wherein the request to act as an agent includes a request to: take possession of the at least one product from at least one merchant without paying the at least one merchant to take ownership of the at least one product during the delivery of the at least one product (¶ 0003-0005 and 0011-0018); and transfer possession of the at least one product to at least one customer upon delivery of the at least one product (¶ 0003-0005 and 0011-0018).
As per claim 8, Sesek, Ourega and Roetter et al. teach the method of claim 1 described above. Sesek teaches wherein the bonding value includes at least a percentage of the value of the at least one product (¶ 0003-0005 and 0011-0018).
As per claim 9, Sesek, Ourega and Roetter et al. teach the method of claim 1 described above. Sesek teaches further comprising: selecting the delivery agent based on a plurality of reviews, in which each of the plurality of reviews includes a respective review of at least one of the delivery agent and at least one other respective delivery agent (¶ 0003-0005 and 0011-0018).
As per claim 10, Sesek, Ourega and Roetter et al. teach the method of claim 9 described above. Sesek teaches in which selecting the delivery agent includes selecting the delivery agent based on a comparison of at least one review of the delivery agent and at least one review of at least one other delivery agent (¶ 0003-0005 and 0011-0018).
As per claim 11, Sesek, Ourega and Roetter et al. teach the method of claim 9 described above. Sesek teaches wherein selecting delivery agent includes selecting a most positively reviewed delivery agent of a plurality of delivery agents (¶ 0003-0005 and 0011-0018).
As per claim 12, Sesek, Ourega and Roetter et al. teach the method of claim 9 described above. Sesek teaches further comprising determining the plurality of reviews based on a social network of a merchant associated with the product, in which each review of the plurality of reviews is from a member of the social network (¶ 0003-0005 and 0011-0018).
As per claim 13, Sesek, Ourega and Roetter et al. teach the method of claim 9 described above. Sesek teaches further comprising determining the plurality of reviews based on a social network of a customer who purchased the product, in which each review of the plurality of reviews is from a member of the social network (¶ 0003-0005 and 0011-0018).
As per claim 14, Sesek, Ourega and Roetter et al. teach the method of claim 1 described above. Sesek teaches further comprising: selecting the delivery agent from a plurality of delivery agents based on an availability of the delivery agent in a desired timeframe compared to an availability of at least one other delivery agent in the desired timeframe. (¶ 0003-0005 and 0011-0018)
As per claim 16, Sesek, Ourega and Roetter et al. teach the method of claim 1 described above. Sesek teaches in which the bonding value includes an amount of money based on a distance of the delivery (¶ 0003-0005 and 0011-0018).
As per claim 17, Sesek, Ourega and Roetter et al. teach the method of claim 1 described above. Sesek teaches in which the bonding value includes an amount of money based on a fragility of the at least one product (¶ 0003-0005 and 0011-0018).
As per claim 18, Sesek, Ourega and Roetter et al. teach the method of claim 1 described above. Sesek teaches n which the bonding value includes an amount of money based on a risk adversity of a destination of the delivery (¶ 0003-0005 and 0011-0018).
As per claim 19, Sesek, Ourega and Roetter et al. teach the method of claim 1 described above. Sesek teaches in which receiving the indication that the sum of money is available to bond the delivery agent includes receiving an indication that, on behalf of the delivery agent, the sum of money is available to be forfeit in response to a failed delivery of the at least one product (¶ 0003-0005 and 0011-0018).
As per claim 20, Sesek, Ourega and Roetter et al. teach the method of claim 1 described above. Sesek teaches wherein receiving the indication of the value occurs substantially simultaneously with receiving the request for delivery, including receiving the indication of the value in a same electronic message as the request for delivery (¶ 0003-0005 and 0011-0018).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant amended the claims. The examiner has updated the 35 U.S.C. §101 based on applicant’s amendment.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filed 6/24/2026, with respect to double patenting rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of applicant’s claims amendment. The double patenting rejections of claims 1-3 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In response to applicant’s argument to 101 rejections that step 2A, prong 2 – integration to a practical application, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are not eligible under the two-pronged analysis set forth in Alice Corp as shown in the office action rejections described above. Under Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements recited in claim 1 include: cookies. These additional limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In particular, the claimed computer components, receiving and transmitting data amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer system, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application; see MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional element of system and display amount to no more than merely linking the general technology to the judicial exception without significantly more and, in the alternative, mere insignificant extra-solution activity to gather data used in the claimed system. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument regarding Bascom, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In Bascom, they use the unconventional step of filtering Internet content using ISP. The filtering was performing remote server rather than local server. In Bascom, they provided technical basis and provided non-conventional and non-routine way of changing the filtering of Internet content using ISP. Unlike Bascom, the current case is all of the elements in the current case are doing merely communicating or sending data back and forth and courts have recognized the computer function: receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data to be routine and conventional, therefore the current case is conventional. The current claims do not recite anything non-conventional and non-routine. The claim is merely gathered information. Therefore, applicant’s argument with respect Bascom is not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument in regard to McRO, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Unlike McRO, applicant’s specification and claims do not describe technological improvements, or a specific improvement to the way computers store and retrieve data. Rather, applicant’s specification and claims described [0041] general purpose computers. The claims do not to improve the performance of computers or any underlying technology; instead, the focus is to use generic device(s), computer and/or machine. Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument to 101 rejections in regard to step 2B, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are not eligible under the two-pronged analysis set forth in Alice Corp as shown in the office action rejections described above. Under Step 2B, the claimed invention is considered as a whole whether the additional elements individually or as an ordered combination amount to an inventive concept. Upon further determination, the claims do not integration the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of the applicant does not explicitly recite additional element is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer system and recites the steps of data manipulation. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer system and/or adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception is not indicative of an inventive concept. The sending and receiving data over a network have been determined by the courts to be well-known, conventional and routine functions, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). Therefore, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Conclusion
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 I JUNG LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-1370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Christine Behncke can be reached at (571)272-8103. 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.
I JUNG LIU
Examiner
Art Unit 3695
/I JUNG LIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3695
