DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 have been examined.
Statement Regarding IDS
The Information Disclosure Statement dated January 15, 2025 includes as non-patent literature item #2 an article by “IMURPHY”, which should be “Murphy”. Examiner has therefore not initialed the item, but has considered the article, and makes it of record on the attached Notice of References Cited, with the date expressed slightly differently. Also, the Information Disclosure Statement lists U.S. Patent 11,610,179 as to “CVS Pharmacy, Inc.”, rather than to “Gilman et al.” Examiner has initialed this patent, but makes it of record on the attached Notice of References Cited to assure that it is associated with the names of the inventors.
Claim Objections
Claims 14, 15, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities: In the fourth line of claim 14, “the at least on prescription” should be “the at least one prescription”. 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
First, it is determined that the claims are directed to a statutory category of invention. See MPEP 2106.03 (II). In the instant case, claims 1-10 and claim 20 are directed to methods, in the statutory category of process. Claims 11-19 are directed to a system comprising a processor and a memory of a server, in the statutory category of machine. Therefore, claims 1-20 are directed to statutory subject matter under Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo test. (Step 1: YES).
The claims are then analyzed to determine whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.04. The claims are analyzed to evaluate whether they recite a judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong One) as well as analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong Two). See MPEP 2106.04.
Proceeding to Step 2A, Prong One, claim 1 recites a method that includes receiving an order from a user containing at least one prescription, and dispensing the order to a party authorized to receive it, and claim 11 recites a parallel system; claims 1-19 (claims 1, 10, and their respective dependents) are thus directed to an abstract idea, specifically to commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing, or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) in the category of certain methods of organizing human activity. It is further noted: that claim 3, which depends from claim 1, recites “a retail fulfillment operation”; that claim 6, which depends from claim 1, recites “wherein dispensing the order to the party comprises the party picking up the order at the retail location”; that claim 9, which depends from claim 1, recites “processing payment for the order prior to receiving the provided encrypted electronic tracking token from the party”; that claim 13, which depends from claim 11, recites “a retail fulfillment operation”; that claim 16, which depends from claim 11, recites “dispensing the order to the party comprises the party picking up the order at the retail location”; and that claim 19, which depends from claim 11, recites “processing payment for the order prior to receiving the provided encrypted electronic tracking token from the party”. These are further grounds to deem the recited method and system as being directed to commercial interactions. Claim 20 recites a method that includes receiving an order from a user containing at least one prescription, and dispensing the order to a second user authorized to receive it (largely, although not entirely, parallel to claim 1). Claim 20 is thus also directed to an abstract idea, specifically to commercial or legal interactions. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES)
Proceeding to Step 2A, Prong Two, representative claim 1 recites:
A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, by a server, an order from a user containing at least one prescription;
generating, by a tracking token generator of the server, an encrypted electronic tracking token identifying the order and authorizing a party to receive the order;
determining fulfillment operations based on an attribute of the user and attributes of the at least one prescription;
receiving, by the server, a provided encrypted electronic tracking token from the party in response to an attempt to dispense the order;
decrypting, by the tracking token generator of the server, the provided encrypted electronic tracking token to validate the provided encrypted electronic tracking token;
generating, in response to validating the provided encrypted electronic tracking token, an electronic signal indicating that the encrypted electronic tracking token is validated; and
dispensing the order to the party in response to receiving the electronic signal indicating that the encrypted electronic tracking token is validated and the party as being authorized to receive the order.
The recited steps are not directed to improvements in the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, and they are not directed to any other specific limitation listed as indicative of integration into a practical application. Further, the recited method does not apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. This also applies to parallel system claim 11, to the claims depending from claims 1 and 11, and to claim 20, which is largely but not entirely parallel to claim 1. (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO)
Next, under Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, the claims are analyzed to determine whether there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05. This largely involves the same considerations as Sep 2A, Prong Two, but with the additional question of whether the claims add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. As per independent claim 1, the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: 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). Therefore, the receiving steps of claim 1 need involve only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional functions and technology. The “determining fulfillment operations” step of claim 1 need not in itself be technological, and neither need the decrypting step. Gaddam et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0269566) discloses (paragraph 4, emphasis added), “For example, the conventional token generation system requires that the communication device 110 have an online connection with the token generator 120, in order to request generation of a token.” This implies that generation of tokens was likewise well-understood, routine, and conventional prior to inventor’s earliest priority date, and therefore that the step of generating an encrypted electronic tracking token required only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional technology.
The “generating an electronic signal” step is implied as requiring only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional functions and technology based on judicial precedents, as set forth above; if receiving or transmitting data requires only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional functions and technology, it is implicit that generating a data signal to be transmitted does as well.
The step of dispensing the order to the party in response to receiving the electronic signal does not recite specific technology not already addressed, and is at most insignificant extra-solution activity. Also, Mellott et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0189284) discloses (paragraph 31, emphasis added), “The server 20 can be a conventional server known to those of ordinary skill in the art, typically including substantially similar computer system components as those described for the PCBA in the computer system 800 described in FIG. 3.” Hence, the use of a server requires only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional technology. The limitations of claim 1, whether considered separately or in combination with each other, do not raise the recited method to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 2, which depends from claim 1, recites two transmitting steps. Based on judicial precedents, as set forth above with respect to claim 1, these steps require only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional functions and technology. Hence, the limitations of claim 2, whether considered separately or in combination with each other and with the limitations of claim 1, do not raise the recited method to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 3, which depends from claim 1, recites that the fulfillment operations comprise at least two fulfillment operations selected from: a pharmacy fulfillment operation; a retail fulfillment operation; a delivery fulfillment operation; and a curbside fulfillment operation. None of these is necessarily technological. Hence, the limitations of claim 3, whether considered separately or in combination with each other and with the limitations of claim 1, do not raise the recited method to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 4, which depends from claim 1, recites transmitting instructions for a prescription item to a pharmacy fulfillment system. In accordance with judicial precedents, as set forth above with respect to claim 1, this step requires only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional functions and technology. Four further limitations follow in claim 4, but these are not technological. Claim 5, which depends from claim 4, recites a step of verifying authorization, which is not technological, and then the steps of “electronically communicating disclosures to the party; and receiving an electronic signature of the party.” In accordance with judicial precedents, as set forth above with respect to claim 1, these steps require only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional functions and technology. Hence, the limitations of claims 4 and 5, whether considered separately or in combination with each other and with the limitations of claim 1, do not raise the recited method to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 6, which depends from claim 4, recites a step of receiving, a step of transmitting, and another step of receiving. In accordance with judicial precedents, as set forth above with respect to claim 1, these steps require only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional functions and technology. Claim 6 then recites, “wherein dispensing the order to the party comprises the party picking up the order at the retail location”, which is not in itself technological. Hence, the limitations of claims 4 and 6, whether considered separately or in combination with each other and with the limitations of claim 1, do not raise the recited method to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 7, which depends from claim 1, recites multiple steps of transmitting and receiving information, which, in accordance with judicial precedents, as set forth above with respect to claim 1, require only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional functions and technology. Claim 7 further recites that the order comprises the delivery item, which is not in itself technological. Claim 7 further recites that the determined fulfillment operations comprise a delivery fulfillment operation, which is not in itself technological. Claim 7 further recites that dispensing the order to the party comprises delivering the order to the party at the delivery location, which is not in itself technological. Hence, the limitations of claims 7, whether considered separately or in combination with each other and with the limitations of claim 1, do not raise the recited method to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 8, which depends from claim 1, recites multiple steps of transmitting and receiving information, which, in accordance with judicial precedents, as set forth above with respect to claim 1, require only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional functions and technology. Claim 8 further recites that the order comprises the curbside item, which is not in itself technological. Claim 8 further recites that the determined fulfillment operations comprise a curbside fulfillment operation, which is not in itself technological. Claim 8 further recites that dispensing the order to the party comprises delivering the order to the party at the curbside location, which is not in itself technological. Hence, the limitations of claims 8, whether considered separately or in combination with each other and with the limitations of claim 1, do not raise the recited method to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 9, which depends from claim 1, recites “processing payment for the order prior to receiving the provided encrypted electronic tracking token from the party.” This is not in itself technological. Hence, the limitation of claim 9, whether considered separately or in combination with the limitations of claim 1, do not raise the recited method to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Claim 10, which depends from claim 1, recites steps of providing and sending information, in the form of the encrypted electronic tracking token; this essentially amounts to transmitting and receiving data, which, in accordance with judicial precedents, as set forth above with respect to claim 1, require only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional functions and technology. Claim 10 further recites that the provided encrypted electronic tracking token indicates that the second user is authorized to receive the order, and that that the second user is the party to receive the order. This is not in itself technological. Hence, the limitations of claims 10, whether considered separately or in combination with each other and with the limitations of claim 1, do not raise the recited method to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Independent claim 11 recites a system parallel to the method of claim 1, and the same judicial precedents applied above to claim 1, together with the disclosures of Gaddam and Mellott, cited with respect to claim 1 above, apply to claim 11. Claim 11 further recites that the system comprises “a processor and a memory of a server storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the system to perform operations comprising: [operations parallel to the steps of claim 1]”. Avidan et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0193592) discloses (paragraph 25, emphasis added), “Although not illustrated, it should be appreciated that the ecommerce server 110, the merchant computer 120, and the customer computer 130 each include conventional components such as a processor and a memory medium storing computer-readable instructions that are executable by the processor to perform various operations including those described herein.” Hence, the recited processor and a memory of a server storing instructions require only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional technology. The limitations of claim 10, like those of parallel claim 1, whether considered separately or in combination with each other, do not raise the recited method to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Similarly: claim 12, which depends from claim 11, is parallel to claim 2; claim 13, which depends from claim 11, is parallel to claim 3; claim 14, which depends from claim 11, is parallel to claim 4; claim 15, which depends from claim 14, is parallel to claim 5; claim 16, which depends from claim 14, is parallel to claim 6; claim 17, which depends from claim 11, is parallel to claim 7; claim 18, which depends from claim 11, is parallel to claim 8; and claim 19, which depends from claim 11, is parallel to claim 9. Hence, the limitations of claims 12 through 19, whether considered separately or in combination with each other (as applicable) and with the limitations of claim 11, do not raise the recited systems to significantly more than an abstract idea, on essentially the same grounds set forth above with respect to claims 2 through 9.
Independent claim 20 is largely parallel to independent claim 1. The first and principal difference is that claim 20 recites: “sending, to a second user and from the first user, the provided encrypted electronic tracking token, wherein the provided encrypted electronic tracking token indicates that the second user is authorized to receive the order” in place of, “determining fulfillment operations based on an attribute of the user and attributes of the at least one prescription”. Further differences are minor. Claim 20 recites: “receiving, by the server, the provided encrypted electronic tracking token from the second user in response to an attempt to dispense the order” in place of “receiving, by the server, a provided encrypted electronic tracking token from the party in response to an attempt to dispense the order”. Finally, claim 20 recites: “dispensing the order to the second user in response to receiving the electronic signal indicating that the encrypted electronic tracking token is validated and the second user as being authorized to receive the order” in place of “dispensing the order to the party in response to receiving the electronic signal indicating that the encrypted electronic tracking token is validated and the party as being authorized to receive the order”. The “sending” step of claim 20 need involve only the use of well-understood, routine, and conventional functions and technology, based on judicial precedents as cited above with regard to claim 1. The distinction, if any, between a second user and a party is not relevant to the analysis of eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101. The limitations of claim 20, whether considered separately or in combination, do not raise the recited method to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 11,610,179 in view of Ahmadi (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0214438). Claim 1 of the instant application corresponds essentially to claim 1 of the ‘179 patent, although claim 1 of the instant application is broader in that it omits “a retail component” from the contents of the order from a user (the “at least one prescription” of claim 1 of the instant application corresponds roughly to the “pharmacy component” of claim 1 of the ‘179 patent). Claim 1 of the instant application additionally recites “determining fulfillment operations based on an attribute of the user and attributes of the user and attributes of the at least one prescription”, the first part of which corresponds essentially to claim 6 of the ‘179 patent, as may be seen in Table 1 below. (In Table 1, language present in one claim but not in a parallel claim is bolded.) Regarding “attributes of the at least one prescription”, Ahmadi teaches determining fulfillment operations based on attributes of at least one prescription medication (paragraph 38, emphasis added), “The operator 61 then scans or manually enters the NDC [national drug code; see paragraph 34] on a bulk package for the prescribed medication 30 into the order fulfillment processor 60 [202]. The order fulfillment processor 60 then selects the package back pane 11 and the blister housing 17 according to the physical and visual properties of the prescribed medication 30, the medication order information determining fulfillment operations based further on attributes of the at least one prescription 33, and the physical and visual properties of the package back pane 11 [203].” Hence, determining fulfillment operations based on attributes of the at least one prescription would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventors’ earliest priority to determine fulfillment operations based on attributes of the at least one prescription, for the obvious advantage of causing fulfillment operations to be in accordance with what is feasible and useful for the at least one prescription.
Claim 2 of the instant application is essentially a broader equivalent of claim 2 the ‘179 patent, as may be seen in Table 1.
Table 1
Instant Application
U.S. Patent 11,610,179
1. A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving by a server, an order from a user containing at least one prescription;
generating, by a tracking token generator of the server, an encrypted electronic tracking token identifying the order and authorizing a party to receive the order; determining fulfillment operations based on an attribute of the user and attributes of the at least one prescription;
receiving, by the server, a provided encrypted electronic tracking token from the party in response to an attempt to dispense the order;
decrypting, by the tracking token generator of the server, the provided encrypted electronic tracking token to validate the provided encrypted electronic tracking token;
generating, in response to validating the provided encrypted electronic tracking token, an electronic signal indicating that the encrypted electronic tracking token is validated; and
dispensing the order to the party in response to receiving the electronic signal indicating that the encrypted electronic tracking token is validated and the party as being authorized to receive the order.
2. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
transmitting fulfillment instructions to at least one fulfillment system based on the determined fulfillment operations; and
transmitting, to each the fulfillment system of the at least one fulfillment system, the encrypted electronic tracking token.
1. A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, by a server, an order containing a retail component and a pharmacy component;
generating, by a tracking token generator of the server, an encrypted electronic tracking token identifying the order and authorizing a party to receive the order;
receiving, by the server, a provided encrypted electronic tracking token from a computing device of the party in response to an attempt to pick up the order;
decrypting, by the tracking token generator of the server, the provided encrypted electronic tracking token to validate the provided encrypted electronic tracking token, and generating an electronic signal indicating that the encrypted electronic tracking token is validated; and
dispensing the order to the party in response to receiving the electronic signal indicating that the encrypted electronic tracking token is validated and the party as being authorized to receive the order.
2. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein generating the encrypted electronic tracking token further comprises:
transmitting fulfillment instructions to a fulfillment system based on processed information for the pharmacy component and processed information for the retail component, the fulfillment system configured to fulfill the order including the retail component and the pharmacy component; and
transmitting the encrypted electronic tracking token to the computing device of the party.
6. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining a fulfillment option based on an attribute of the user who submitted the order for the pharmacy component and for the retail component.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11, 12, and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,610,179 in view of Ahmadi (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0214438). Claim 11 of the instant application corresponds essentially to claim 11 of the ‘179 patent, although claim 11 of the instant application is broader in that it omits “a retail component” from the contents of the order from a user (the “at least one prescription” of claim 1 of the instant application corresponds roughly to the “pharmacy component” of claim 1 of the ‘179 patent). Claim 11 of the instant application additionally recites “determining fulfillment operations based on an attribute of the user and attributes of the user and attributes of the at least one prescription”, the first part of which corresponds essentially to claim 16 of the ‘179 patent, as may be seen in Table 2 below. (In Table 2, language present in one claim but not in a parallel claim is bolded.) Regarding “attributes of the at least one prescription”, Ahmadi teaches determining fulfillment operations based on attributes of at least one prescription medication (paragraph 38, emphasis added), “The operator 61 then scans or manually enters the NDC [national drug code; see paragraph 34] on a bulk package for the prescribed medication 30 into the order fulfillment processor 60 [202]. The order fulfillment processor 60 then selects the package back pane 11 and the blister housing 17 according to the physical and visual properties of the prescribed medication 30, the medication order information determining fulfillment operations based further on attributes of the at least one prescription 33, and the physical and visual properties of the package back pane 11 [203].” Hence, determining fulfillment operations based on attributes of the at least one prescription would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventors’ earliest priority to determine fulfillment operations based on attributes of the at least one prescription, for the obvious advantage of causing fulfillment operations to be in accordance with what is feasible and useful for the at least one prescription.
Claim 12 of the instant application is essentially a broader equivalent of claim 12 the ‘179 patent, as may be seen in Table 2.
Table Two
Instant Application
U.S. Patent 11,610,179
1. A system comprising:
a processor and a memory of a server storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the system to perform operations comprising:
receiving, at the server, an order from a user containing at least one prescription; generating, by a tracking token generator of the server, an encrypted electronic tracking token identifying the order and authorizing a party to receive the order; determining fulfillment operations based on an attribute of the user and attributes of the at least one prescription;
receiving, at the server, a provided encrypted electronic tracking token from the party in response to an attempt to dispense the order;
decrypting, by the tracking token generator of the server, the provided encrypted electronic tracking token to validate the provided encrypted electronic tracking token;
generating, in response to validating the provided encrypted electronic tracking token, an electronic signal indicating that the encrypted electronic tracking token is validated; and
dispensing the order to the party in response to receiving the electronic signal indicating that the encrypted electronic tracking token is validated and the party as being authorized to receive the order.
12. The system of claim 11, wherein the operations further comprise:
transmitting fulfillment instructions to at least one fulfillment system based on the determined fulfillment operations; and
transmitting, to each fulfillment system of the at least one fulfillment system, the encrypted electronic tracking token.
1. A system comprising:
a processor and a memory of a server storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the system to perform operations including:
receiving, by a tracking token generator at the server an order containing a retail component and a pharmacy component;
generating at the server an encrypted electronic tracking token identifying the order and authorizing a party to receive the order;
receiving at the server a provided encrypted electronic tracking token from a computing device of the party in response to an attempt to pick up the order;
decrypting by the tracking token generator at the server the provided encrypted electronic tracking token to validate the provided encrypted electronic tracking token, generating an electronic signal indicating that the encrypted electronic tracking token is validated; and
dispensing the order to the party in response to receiving the electronic signal indicating that the encrypted electronic tracking token is validated and the party as being authorized to receive the order.
12. The system of claim 11, wherein the operations further comprise:
transmitting fulfillment instructions to a fulfillment system based on processed information for the pharmacy component and processed information for the retail component, the fulfillment system configured to fulfill the order including the retail component and the pharmacy component; and
transmitting the encrypted electronic tracking token to the computing device of the party.
16. The system of claim 11, wherein the operations further comprise:
determining a fulfillment option based on an attribute of the user who submitted the order for the pharmacy component and for the retail component.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,243,009 in view of Brantley (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0279269). Claim 1 of the instant application corresponds essentially to claim 1 of the ‘009 patent, as may be seen in Table 3 below, except that claim 1 of the instant application recites “an order from a user containing at least one prescription” in place of “an order from a user containing a plurality of components”, and then “attributes of the at least one prescription” in place of “attributes of the plurality of components”. Brantley discloses order fulfillment and prescription orders (paragraph 2, emphasis added), “In recent years, there has been an increase in the use of mobile technology to improve and/or advance the order fulfillment process.”, and then, “Some pharmacies process prescription order[s] in a similar manner (e.g., by automatically notifying the customer when the prescription is filled and ready for pick-up.”) Hence, receiving an order for a prescription would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventors’ earliest priority, for at least the obvious advantage of profiting from the sale of prescription medications. (In Table 3, language present in one claim but not in a parallel claim is bolded.)
Claim 2 of the instant application is then only trivially different from claim 2 of the ‘009 patent, and in fact broader than claim 2 of the ‘009 patent (“at least one fulfillment system” in place of “a plurality of fulfillment systems”). Claim 3 of the instant application is then directly parallel to claim 3 of the ‘009 patent. Claim 4 of the instant application is directly parallel to claim 4 of the ‘009 patent. Claim 5 of the instant application is directly parallel to claim 5 of the ‘009 patent. Claim 6 of the instant application differs from claim 6 of the ‘009 patent only by reciting “the pharmacy fulfillment system” in place of “a pharmacy fulfillment system”. Claim 7 of the instant application differs from claim 7 of the ‘009 patent only by reciting “the order further comprises the delivery item” in place of “the plurality of components comprises the delivery item”. Claim 8 of the instant application differs from claim 8 of the ‘009 patent only by reciting “the order further comprises the curbside item” in place of “the plurality of components comprises the curbside item”. Claim 9 of the instant application is directly parallel to claim 9 of the ‘009 patent. Claim 10 of the instant application is directly parallel to claim 10 of the ‘009 patent. The claims are shown in Table 3 below.
Table 3
Instant Application
U.S. Patent 12,243,009
1. A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving by a server, an order from a user containing at least one prescription;
generating, by a tracking token generator of the server, an encrypted electronic tracking token identifying the order and authorizing a party to receive the order; determining fulfillment operations based on an attribute of the user and attributes of the at least one prescription;
receiving, by the server, a provided encrypted electronic tracking token from the party in response to an attempt to dispense the order;
decrypting, by the tracking token generator of the server, the provided encrypted electronic tracking token to validate the provided encrypted electronic tracking token;
generating, in response to validating the provided encrypted electronic tracking token, an electronic signal indicating that the encrypted electronic tracking token is validated; and
dispensing the order to the party in response to receiving the electronic signal indicating that the encrypted electronic tracking token is validated and the party as being authorized to receive the order.
2. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
transmitting fulfillment instructions to at least one fulfillment system based on the determined fulfillment operations; and
transmitting, to each fulfillment system of the at least one fulfillment system, the encrypted electronic tracking token.
3. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the determined fulfillment operations comprise at least two fulfilment operations selected from:
a pharmacy fulfillment operation;
a retail fulfillment operation;
an eliminate-the-wait fulfillment operation; a delivery fulfillment operation; and
a curbside fulfillment operation.
4. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
transmitting instructions for a prescription item to a pharmacy fulfillment system, wherein:
the at least one prescription indicates the prescription item;
the prescription item has an associated patient identifier;
the determined fulfillment operations comprise a pharmacy fulfillment operation; and
the party is an authorized user for the associated patient identifier.
5. The computer-implemented method of claim 4, further comprising:
verifying authorization of the party for the associated patient identifier;
electronically communicating disclosures to the party; and
receiving an electronic signature of the party.
6. The computer-implemented method of claim 4, further comprising:
receiving, by the pharmacy fulfillment system, the provided encrypted electronic tracking token from the party at a retail location;
transmitting, to the server, the provided encrypted electronic tracking token for validation; and
receiving, by the pharmacy fulfillment system, the electronic signal indicating that the encrypted electronic tracking token is validated, wherein dispensing the order to the party comprises the party picking up the order at the retail location.
7. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
transmitting instructions for a delivery item to a delivery system, wherein:
the order further comprises the delivery item; and
the determined fulfillment operations comprise a delivery fulfillment operation;
receiving, by the delivery system, the encrypted electronic tracking token;
receiving, by the delivery system, the provided encrypted electronic tracking token from the party at a delivery location;
transmitting, to the server, the provided encrypted electronic tracking token for validation; and receiving, by the delivery system, the electronic signal indicating that the encrypted electronic tracking token is validated, wherein dispensing the order to the party comprises delivering the order to the party at the delivery location.
8. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
transmitting instructions for a curbside item to a curbside fulfillment system, wherein:
the order further comprises the curbside item; and
the determined fulfillment operations comprise a curbside fulfillment operation;
receiving, by the curbside fulfillment system, the encrypted electronic tracking token;
receiving, by the curbside fulfillment system, the provided encrypted electronic tracking token from the party at a curbside location;
transmitting, to the server, the provided encrypted electronic tracking token for validation; and
receiving, by the curbside fulfillment system, the electronic signal indicating that the encrypted electronic tracking token is validated, wherein dispensing the order to the party comprises delivering the order to the party at the curbside location.
9. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
processing payment for the order prior to receiving the provided encrypted electronic tracking token from the party.
10. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
providing, by the server, the provided encrypted electronic tracking token to a first user authorized to receive the order;
sending, to a second user and from the first user, the provided encrypted electronic tracking token, wherein:
the provided encrypted electronic tracking token indicates that the second user is authorized to receive the order; and
the second user is the party to receive the order.
1. A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving by a server, an order from a user containing a plurality of components;
generating, by a tracking token generator of the server, an encrypted electronic tracking token identifying the order and authorizing a party to receive the order; determining fulfillment operations based on an attribute of the user and attributes of the plurality of components;
receiving, by the server, a provided encrypted electronic tracking token from the party in response to an attempt to dispense the order;
decrypting, by the tracking token generator of the server, the provided encrypted electronic tracking token to validate the provided encrypted electronic tracking token;
generating, in response to validating the provided encrypted electronic tracking token, an electronic signal indicating that the encrypted electronic tracking token is validated; and
dispensing the order to the party in response to receiving the electronic signal indicating that the encrypted electronic tracking token is validated and the party as being authorized to receive the order.
2. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
transmitting fulfillment instructions to a plurality of fulfillment systems based on the determined fulfillment operations; and
transmitting, to each fulfillment system of the plurality of fulfillment system, the encrypted electronic tracking token.
3. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the determined fulfillment operations comprise at least two fulfilment operations selected from:
a pharmacy fulfillment operation;
a retail fulfillment operation;
an eliminate-the-wait fulfillment operation; a delivery fulfillment operation; and
a curbside fulfillment operation.
4. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
transmitting instructions for a prescription item to a pharmacy fulfillment system, wherein:
the at least one prescription indicates the prescription item;
the prescription item has an associated patient identifier;
the determined fulfillment operations comprise a pharmacy fulfillment operation; and
the party is an authorized user for the associated patient identifier.
5. The computer-implemented method of claim 4, further comprising:
verifying authorization of the party for the associated patient identifier;
electronically communicating disclosures to the party; and
receiving an electronic signature of the party.
6. The computer-implemented method of claim 4, further comprising:
receiving, by a pharmacy fulfillment system, the provided encrypted electronic tracking token from the party at a retail location;
transmitting, to the server, the provided encrypted electronic tracking token for validation; and
receiving, by the pharmacy fulfillment system, the electronic signal indicating that the encrypted electronic tracking token is validated, wherein dispensing the order to the party comprises the party picking up the order at the retail location.
7. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
transmitting instructions for a delivery item to a delivery system, wherein:
the order further comprises the delivery item; and
the determined fulfillment operations comprise a delivery fulfillment operation;
receiving, by the delivery system, the encrypted electronic tracking token;
receiving, by the delivery system, the provided encrypted electronic tracking token from the party at a delivery location; transmitting, to the server, the provided encrypted electronic tracking token for validation; and receiving, by the delivery system, the electronic signal indicating that the encrypted electronic tracking token is validated, wherein dispensing the order to the party comprises delivering the order to the party at the delivery location.
8. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
transmitting instructions for a curbside item to a curbside fulfillment system, wherein:
the plurality of components comprises the curbside item; and
the determined fulfillment operations comprise a curbside fulfillment operation;
receiving, by the curbside fulfillment system, the encrypted electronic tracking token;
receiving, by the curbside fulfillment system, the provided encrypted electronic tracking token from the party at a curbside location;
transmitting, to the server, the provided encrypted electronic tracking token for validation; and
receiving, by the curbside fulfillment system, the electronic signal indicating that the encrypted electronic tracking token is validated, wherein dispensing the order to the party comprises delivering the order to the party at the curbside location.
9. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
processing payment for the order prior to receiving the provided encrypted electronic tracking token from the party.
10. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
providing, by the server, the provided encrypted electronic tracking token to a first user authorized to receive the order;
sending, to a second user and from the first user, the provided encrypted electronic tracking token, wherein:
the provided encrypted electronic tracking token indicates that the second user is authorized to receive the order; and
the second user is the party to receive the order.
Claims 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19* of U.S. Patent No. 12,243,009 in view of Brantley (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0279269). Claim 11 of the instant application corresponds essentially to claim 11 of the ‘009 patent, as may be seen in Table 4 below, except that claim 11 of the instant application recites “an order from a user containing at least one prescription” in place of “an order from a user containing a plurality of components”, and then “attributes of the at least one prescription” in place of “attributes of the plurality of components”. Brantley discloses order fulfillment and prescription orders (paragraph 2, emphasis added), “In recent years, there has been an increase in the use of mobile technology to improve and/or advance the order fulfillment process.”, and then, “Some pharmacies process prescription order[s] in a similar manner (e.g., by automatically notifying the customer when the prescription is filled and ready for pick-up.”) Hence, receiving an order for a prescription would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventors’ earliest priority, for at least the obvious advantage of profiting from the sale of prescription medications. (In Table 4, language present in one claim but not in a parallel claim is bolded.)
Claim 12 of the instant application is then only trivially different from claim 2 of the ‘009 patent, and in fact broader than claim 12 of the ‘009 patent (“at least one fulfillment system” in place of “a plurality of fulfillment systems”). Claim 13 of the instant application is then directly parallel to claim 13 of the ‘009 patent. Claim 14 of the instant application is directly parallel to claim 14 of the ‘009 patent except for one type (“on” for “one”). Claim 15 of the instant application is directly parallel to claim 15 of the ‘009 patent. Claim 16 of the instant application differs from claim 16 of the ‘009 patent only by reciting “the pharmacy fulfillment system” in place of “a pharmacy fulfillment system”. Claim 17 of the instant application differs from claim 17 of the ‘009 patent only by reciting “the order further comprises the delivery item” in place of “the plurality of components comprises the delivery item”. Claim 18 of the instant application differs from claim 18 of the ‘009 patent only by reciting “the order further comprises the curbside item” in place of “the plurality of components comprises the curbside item”. Claim 19 of the instant application is directly parallel to claim 15 of the ‘009 patent.
Table 4
Instant Application
U.S. Patent 12,243,009
11. A system comprising:
a processor and a memory of a server storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the system to perform operations comprising:
receiving, at the server, an order from a user containing at least one prescription;
generating, by a tracking token generator of the server, an encrypted electronic tracking token identifying the order and authorizing a party to receive the order; determining fulfillment operations based on an attribute of the user and attributes of the at least one prescription;
receiving, by the server, a provided encrypted electronic tracking token from the party in response to an attempt to dispense the order;
decrypting, by the tracking token generator of the server, the provided encrypted electronic tracking token to validate the provided encrypted electronic tracking token;
generating, in response to validating the provided encrypted electronic tracking token, an electronic signal indicating that the encrypted electronic tracking token is validated; and
dispensing the order to the party in response to receiving the electronic signal indicating that the encrypted electronic tracking token is validated and the party as being authorized to receive the order.
12. The system of claim 11, wherein the operations further comprise:
transmitting fulfillment instructions to at least one fulfillment system based on the determined fulfillment operations; and
transmitting, to each fulfillment system of the at least one fulfillment system, the encrypted electronic tracking token.
13. The system of claim 11, wherein the determined fulfillment operations further comprise at least two fulfillment operations selected from:
a pharmacy fulfillment operation;
a retail fulfillment operation;
an eliminate-the-wait fulfillment operation; a delivery fulfillment operation; and
a curbside fulfillment operation.
14. The system of claim 11, wherein the operations further comprise:
transmitting instructions for a prescription item to a pharmacy fulfillment system, wherein:
the at least on[e] prescription indicates the prescription item;
the prescription item has an associated patient identifier;
the determined fulfillment operations comprise a pharmacy fulfillment operation; and
the party is an authorized user for the associated patient identifier.
15. The system of claim 11, wherein the operations further comprise:
verifying authorization of the party for the associated patient identifier;
electronically communicating disclosures to the party; and
receiving an electronic signature of the party.
16. The system of claim 11, wherein the operations further comprise:
transmitting, to the pharmacy fulfillment system, the encrypted electronic tracking token from the party at a retail location;
receiving, from the pharmacy fulfillment system, the provided encrypted electronic tracking token for validation; wherein:
the pharmacy fulfillment system is configured to:
receive the provided encrypted electronic tracking token from the party at a retail location; and
receive, from the server, the electronic signal indicating that the encrypted electronic tracking token is validated; and dispensing the order to the party comprises the party picking up the order at the retail location.
17. The system of claim 11, wherein the operations further comprise:
transmitting instructions for a delivery item to a delivery system, wherein:
the order further comprises the delivery item; and
the determined fulfillment operations comprise a delivery fulfillment operation;
transmitting, to the delivery system, the encrypted electronic tracking token;
receiving, from the delivery system, the provided encrypted electronic tracking token for validation, wherein:
the delivery system is configured to: receive the provided encrypted electronic tracking token from the party at a delivery location; and
receive, from the server, the electronic signal indicating that the encrypted electronic tracking token is validated; and
dispensing the order to the party comprises delivering the order to the party at the delivery location.
18. The system of claim 11, wherein the operations further comprise:
transmitting instructions for a curbside item to a curbside fulfillment system, wherein:
the order further comprises the curbside item; and
the determined fulfillment operations comprise a curbside fulfillment operation;
transmitting, to the curbside fulfillment system, the encrypted electronic tracking token;
receiving, from the curbside fulfillment system, the provided encrypted electronic tracking token for validation, wherein:
the curbside fulfillment system is configured to:
receive the provided encrypted electronic tracking token from the party at a curbside location; and
receive, from the server, the electronic signal indicating that the encrypted electronic tracking token is validated; and
dispensing the order to the party comprises delivering the order to the party at the curbside location.
19. The system of claim 11, wherein the operations further comprise:
processing payment for the order prior to receiving the provided encrypted electronic tracking token from the party.
11. A system comprising:
a processor and a memory of a server storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the system to perform operations comprising:
receiving, at the server, an order from a user containing a plurality of components;
generating, by a tracking token generator of the server, an encrypted electronic tracking token identifying the order and authorizing a party to receive the order; determining fulfillment operations based on an attribute of the user and attributes of the plurality of components;
receiving, by the server, a provided encrypted electronic tracking token from the party in response to an attempt to dispense the order;
decrypting, by the tracking token generator of the server, the provided encrypted electronic tracking token to validate the provided encrypted electronic tracking token;
generating, in response to validating the provided encrypted electronic tracking token, an electronic signal indicating that the encrypted electronic tracking token is validated; and
dispensing the order to the party in response to receiving the electronic signal indicating that the encrypted electronic tracking token is validated and the party as being authorized to receive the order.
12. The system of claim 11, wherein the operations further comprise:
transmitting fulfillment instructions to a plurality of fulfillment systems based on the determined fulfillment operations; and
transmitting, to each fulfillment system of the plurality of fulfillment systems, the encrypted electronic tracking token.
13. The system of claim 11, wherein the determined fulfillment operations further comprise at least two fulfillment operations selected from:
a pharmacy fulfillment operation;
a retail fulfillment operation;
an eliminate-the-wait fulfillment operation; a delivery fulfillment operation; and
a curbside fulfillment operation.
14. The system of claim 11, wherein the operations further comprise:
transmitting instructions for a prescription item to a pharmacy fulfillment system, wherein:
the at least one prescription indicates the prescription item;
the prescription item has an associated patient identifier;
the determined fulfillment operations comprise a pharmacy fulfillment operation; and
the party is an authorized user for the associated patient identifier.
15. The system of claim 14, wherein the operations further comprise:
verifying authorization of the party for the associated patient identifier;
electronically communicating disclosures to the party; and
receiving an electronic signature of the party
16. The system of claim 11, wherein the operations further comprise:
transmitting, to a pharmacy fulfillment system, the encrypted electronic tracking token from the party at a retail location;
receiving, from the pharmacy fulfillment system, the provided encrypted electronic tracking token for validation; wherein:
the pharmacy fulfillment system is configured to:
receive the provided encrypted electronic tracking token from the party at a retail location; and
receive, from the server, the electronic signal indicating that the encrypted electronic tracking token is validated; and dispensing the order to the party comprises the party picking up the order at the retail location.
17. The system of claim 11, wherein the operations further comprise:
transmitting instructions for a delivery item to a delivery system, wherein:
the plurality of components comprises the delivery item; and
the determined fulfillment operations comprise a delivery fulfillment operation;
transmitting, to the delivery system, the encrypted electronic tracking token;
receiving, from the delivery system, the provided encrypted electronic tracking token for validation, wherein:
the delivery system is configured to: receive the provided encrypted electronic tracking token from the party at a delivery location; and
receive, from the server, the electronic signal indicating that the encrypted electronic tracking token is validated; and
dispensing the order to the party comprises delivering the order to the party at the delivery location.
18. The system of claim 11, wherein the operations further comprise:
transmitting instructions for a curbside item to a curbside fulfillment system, wherein:
the plurality of components comprises the curbside item; and
the determined fulfillment operations comprise a curbside fulfillment operation; transmitting, to the curbside fulfillment system, the encrypted electronic tracking token;
receiving, from the curbside fulfillment system, the provided encrypted electronic tracking token for validation, wherein:
the curbside fulfillment system is configured to:
receive the provided encrypted electronic tracking token from the party at a curbside location; and
receive, from the server, the electronic signal indicating that the encrypted electronic tracking token is validated;
and dispensing the order to the party comprises delivering the order to the party at the curbside location.
19. The system of claim 11, wherein the operations further comprise:
processing payment for the order prior to receiving the provided encrypted electronic tracking token from the party.
Claim 20 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,243,009 in view of Brantley (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0279269). Claim 20 of the instant application corresponds essentially to claim 11 of the ‘009 patent, as may be seen in Table 5 below, except that claim 20 of the instant application recites “an order from a user containing at least one prescription” in place of “an order from a user containing a plurality of components”. Brantley discloses order fulfillment and prescription orders (paragraph 2, emphasis added), “In recent years, there has been an increase in the use of mobile technology to improve and/or advance the order fulfillment process.”, and then, “Some pharmacies process prescription order[s] in a similar manner (e.g., by automatically notifying the customer when the prescription is filled and ready for pick-up.”) Hence, receiving an order for a prescription would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of electronic commerce on the date of inventors’ earliest priority, for at least the obvious advantage of profiting from the sale of prescription medications. (In Table 5, language present in one claim but not in the parallel claim is bolded.)
Table 5
Instant Application
U.S. Patent 12,243,009
20. A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, by a server, an order from a first user containing at least one prescription;
generating, by a tracking token generator of the server, an encrypted electronic tracking token identifying the order and authorizing a party to receive the order;
providing, by the server, the encrypted electronic tracking token to the first user;
sending, to a second user and from the first user, the provided encrypted electronic tracking token, wherein the provided encrypted electronic tracking token indicates that the second user is authorized to receive the order;
receiving, by the server, the provided encrypted electronic tracking token from the second user in response to an attempt to dispense the order;
decrypting, by the tracking token generator of the server, the provided encrypted electronic tracking token to validate the provided encrypted electronic tracking token;
generating, in response to validating the provided encrypted electronic tracking token, an electronic signal indicating that the encrypted electronic tracking token is validated; and
dispensing the order to the second user in response to receiving the electronic signal indicating that the encrypted electronic tracking token is validated and the second user as being authorized to receive the order.
20. A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, by a server, an order from a first user containing a plurality of components;
generating, by a tracking token generator of the server, an encrypted electronic tracking token identifying the order and authorizing a party to receive the order;
providing, by the server, the encrypted electronic tracking token to the first user;
sending, to a second user and from the first user, the provided encrypted electronic tracking token, wherein the provided encrypted electronic tracking token indicates that the second user is authorized to receive the order;
receiving, by the server, the provided encrypted electronic tracking token from the second user in response to an attempt to dispense the order;
decrypting, by the tracking token generator of the server, the provided encrypted electronic tracking token to validate the provided encrypted electronic tracking token;
generating, in response to validating the provided encrypted electronic tracking token, an electronic signal indicating that the encrypted electronic tracking token is validated; and
dispensing the order to the second user in response to receiving the electronic signal indicating that the encrypted electronic tracking token is validated and the second user as being authorized to receive the order.
Non-Obvious Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, and rejected for Double Patenting, but recite non-obvious subject matter.
Claims 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, and rejected for Double Patenting, but recite non-obvious subject matter (claims 14-16 are also objected to for an informality).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of non-obvious subject matter: The closest prior art of record, Natarajan (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0132393), discloses a computer-implemented method comprising: receiving an order from a user containing a plurality of components, in particular a pharmacy item and a retail item (e.g., Abstract): “A method and system for home delivery of prescribed medication comprise processing a prescription for a medication at a first location, purchasing at least one item of interest at a second location, and combining the prescribed medication and the at least one item of interest under a same delivery to a third location determined by a user of the prescribed medication and the at least one item of interest.” Natarajan does not disclose receiving the order by a server, although servers are well-known, and taught by Natarajan (e.g., paragraph 74, emphasis added), “The temperature controller may generate temperature information on a regular basis to an electronic device in possession by a user, for example, output temperature information regarding the interior of a storage compartment every 5 minutes to a prescription processing system 30 and/or computer servers 42, 44, and 46.” Natarajan does not disclose generating an encrypted electronic tracking token identifying the order and authorizing a party to receive the order, but Bhatia et al. (U.S. Patent 9,699,606) teaches generating a tracking token (confirmation token) identifying an order and authorizing a party to receive one or more orders (column 8, lines 27-45, emphasis added), “The delivery confirmation application 246 can at this point can at this point also generate a confirmation token 241 to the client computing device 206 of the recipient 236 for use of the recipient 236 in confirming delivery of the shipment. In other instances, the delivery confirmation application 246 can wait until the shipment has been assigned to a last-mile carrier and is in the possession of a delivery agent 221 tasked with delivering the shipment to the recipient 236. Once the delivery confirmation application 246 has been notified that the delivery agent 221 is in possession of the shipment (e.g., from a client application 253 installed on the client computing device 206 of the delivery agent 221 or from a larger shipment tracking system), the delivery confirmation application 246 can send the confirmation token 241 to the client computing device 206 for later use in confirming delivery of the shipment.” Bhatia also teaches (column 11, lines 9-12, emphasis added), “The client application 253 on the client computing device 206 of the delivery agent 221 could then decode the QR code to extract the confirmation token 241 and store the confirmation token 241.” Bhatia has further relevant passages in the specification, and relevant drawings (Figures 2, 4, 7, and 9), but Bhatia does not teach generating an encrypted electronic token, or decrypting the provided electronic token. Skaaksrud et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0246077) teaches an encrypted tracking token associated with at least one physical package designated for delivery to a destination (Abstract, emphasis added), “There is disclosed a method. The method includes identifying, using a mobile device, an encrypted electronic token associated with at least one physical package designated for delivery to a destination. The electronic token having been encrypted by a first key associated with a particular party. The method also includes electronically signing, using the mobile device, for the at least one physical package. This includes initiating a decryption of the encrypted electronic token with a second key associated with a particular party.” See also paragraphs 24 and 25; Figure 3.
Skaaksrud does not disclose receiving a provided encrypted tracking token from a computing device of the party to receive the order, and decrypting the provided encrypted tracking token; Skaaksrud does teach decryption (Abstract, quoted above), but by the device of the recipient, rather than a generator of the server (e.g., paragraph 25, emphasis added), “The NFC bump may, in some embodiments, transfer the encrypted electronic token to the receiving mobile device. The receiving mobile device may receive the encrypted electronic token from a host, or may not receive the encrypted electronic token at all in some embodiments. The receiving mobile device may initiate decryption of the encrypted electronic token.” Brantley et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0279269) teaches receiving an encoded identifier that can qualify as an electronic token from a customer’s device, and if the encoded identifier is good, dispensing a prescription/pharmacy component to the customer (paragraph 32, emphasis added), “When the customer arrives at the pharmacy, the customer can display the encoded identifier on the mobile device and can present the encoded identifier to the employee of the pharmacy. The employee can scan the encoded identifier. The scanned encoded identifier is received by the engine 100 and the engine 100 can be programmed and/or configured to control or activate an indicator, such as a light source (e.g., a light emitting diode) associated with (e.g., affixed to) the prescription so that the employee can quickly and easily identify and retrieve the customer’s prescription.” See also paragraphs 53 and 54.
In examiner’s judgement, the various prior art references of record, including Bhatia, Skaaksrud, and Brantley, do not sufficiently teach or suggest modifying the disclosure of Natarajan to arrive at the recited invention. No element is entirely novel or without precedent, but the combination of elements in the computer-implemented method and parallel system achieves a result which is not reasonably suggested by the combination of prior art references.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, and rejected for Double Patenting, but recites non-obvious subject matter.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for the indication of non-obvious subject matter: The closest prior art of record, Natarajan (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0132393), discloses a computer-implemented method comprising: receiving an order from a user containing a plurality of components, in particular a pharmacy item and a retail item (e.g., Abstract): “A method and system for home delivery of prescribed medication comprise processing a prescription for a medication at a first location, purchasing at least one item of interest at a second location, and combining the prescribed medication and the at least one item of interest under a same delivery to a third location determined by a user of the prescribed medication and the at least one item of interest.” Natarajan does not disclose receiving the order by a server, although servers are well-known, and taught by Natarajan (e.g., paragraph 74, emphasis added), “The temperature controller may generate temperature information on a regular basis to an electronic device in possession by a user, for example, output temperature information regarding the interior of a storage compartment every 5 minutes to a prescription processing system 30 and/or computer servers 42, 44, and 46.” Natarajan does not disclose generating an encrypted electronic tracking token identifying the order and authorizing a party to receive the order, but Bhatia et al. (U.S. Patent 9,699,606) teaches generating a tracking token (confirmation token) identifying an order and authorizing a party to receive one or more orders (column 8, lines 27-45, emphasis added), “The delivery confirmation application 246 can at this point can at this point also generate a confirmation token 241 to the client computing device 206 of the recipient 236 for use of the recipient 236 in confirming delivery of the shipment. In other instances, the delivery confirmation application 246 can wait until the shipment has been assigned to a last-mile carrier and is in the possession of a delivery agent 221 tasked with delivering the shipment to the recipient 236. Once the delivery confirmation application 246 has been notified that the delivery agent 221 is in possession of the shipment (e.g., from a client application 253 installed on the client computing device 206 of the delivery agent 221 or from a larger shipment tracking system), the delivery confirmation application 246 can send the confirmation token 241 to the client computing device 206 for later use in confirming delivery of the shipment.” Bhatia also teaches (column 11, lines 9-12, emphasis added), “The client application 253 on the client computing device 206 of the delivery agent 221 could then decode the QR code to extract the confirmation token 241 and store the confirmation token 241.” Bhatia has further relevant passages in the specification, and relevant drawings (Figures 2, 4, 7, and 9), but Bhatia does not teach generating an encrypted electronic token, or decrypting the provided electronic token. Skaaksrud et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0246077) teaches an encrypted tracking token associated with at least one physical package designated for delivery to a destination (Abstract, emphasis added), “There is disclosed a method. The method includes identifying, using a mobile device, an encrypted electronic token associated with at least one physical package designated for delivery to a destination. The electronic token having been encrypted by a first key associated with a particular party. The method also includes electronically signing, using the mobile device, for the at least one physical package. This includes initiating a decryption of the encrypted electronic token with a second key associated with a particular party.” See also paragraphs 24 and 25; Figure 3.
Skaaksrud does not disclose receiving a provided encrypted tracking token from a computing device of the party to receive the order, and decrypting the provided encrypted tracking token; Skaaksrud does teach decryption (Abstract, quoted above), but by the device of the recipient, rather than a generator of the server (e.g., paragraph 25, emphasis added), “The NFC bump may, in some embodiments, transfer the encrypted electronic token to the receiving mobile device. The receiving mobile device may receive the encrypted electronic token from a host, or may not receive the encrypted electronic token at all in some embodiments. The receiving mobile device may initiate decryption of the encrypted electronic token.” Brantley et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0279269) teaches receiving an encoded identifier that can qualify as an electronic token from a customer’s device, and if the encoded identifier is good, dispensing a prescription/pharmacy component to the customer (paragraph 32, emphasis added), “When the customer arrives at the pharmacy, the customer can display the encoded identifier on the mobile device and can present the encoded identifier to the employee of the pharmacy. The employee can scan the encoded identifier. The scanned encoded identifier is received by the engine 100 and the engine 100 can be programmed and/or configured to control or activate an indicator, such as a light source (e.g., a light emitting diode) associated with (e.g., affixed to) the prescription so that the employee can quickly and easily identify and retrieve the customer’s prescription.” See also paragraphs 53 and 54.
In examiner’s judgement, the various prior art references of record, including Bhatia, Skaaksrud, and Brantley, do not sufficiently teach or suggest modifying the disclosure of Natarajan to arrive at the recited invention. No element is entirely novel or without precedent, but the combination of elements in the computer-implemented method achieves a result which is not reasonably suggested by the combination of prior art references.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ahmadi (U.S. Patent 9,345,636) is the U.S. Patent issued on the application published as U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0214438, and used as a secondary reference for Double Patenting rejections.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS D ROSEN, whose telephone number is (571)272-6762. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM-5:30 PM, M-F. Non-official/draft communications be faxed to the examiner at 571-273-6762, or emailed to Nicholas.Rosen@uspto.gov (in the body of an email, please, not as an attachment).
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, Marissa Thein, can be reached at 571-272-6764. 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.
/NICHOLAS D ROSEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689 August 7, 2026
Prosecution Insights