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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on April 21, 2026 was filed before the mailing date of this non-final rejection. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-9 recite a method (i.e., a process), claims 10-18 recite a non-transitory computer readable storage medium (i.e., a machine), and claims 19-20 recite a system, comprising: one or more processors (i.e., a machine). Therefore, the claims all fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One
Claims 1, 10 and 19 recite: receiving from a user, an order of items; determining that the order includes at least one item that requires verification of delivery; sending to a delivery agent, an indication that the order includes the at least one item requiring verification of delivery; determining that the delivery agent is within a geofence around a delivery location of the order; responsive to determining that the delivery agent is within the geofence, transmitting, to the delivery agent, a first instruction causing initiating of delivery verification; receiving an interaction for delivery verification; responsive to receiving the interaction, transmitting, the user, a second instruction to receive a signature from the user; determining that the user is unable to provide a signature; in response to determining that the user is unable to provide the signature, transmitting, to the delivery agent, a third instruction causing a fallback verification comprising at least one of: (i) a receiving a user identification document, (ii) capturing an image of the user, or (iii) manually entering user identification information; receiving, from the delivery agent, fallback verification data via the fallback verification; storing the fallback verification data as verification information for the order.
The claim as a whole recites a certain method of organizing human activity. The limitations recited above, under broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a certain method of organizing human activity, e.g., commercial or legal interactions. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 as a whole amounts to: “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Claim 1 recites the additional elements of: (i) a computer system comprising a processor and memory (claim 1); a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having instructions encoded thereon that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform steps (claims 10 and 19); and a system comprising one or more processors (claim 19); (ii) a user client device (associated with a user) (claims 1, 10, and 19); (iii) a delivery client device (associated with a delivery agent) (claims 1, 10, and 19); (iv) causing a first application installed on the delivery client device to display a user interface including a first interactive element (claims 1, 10, and 19); (v) causing a second application installed on the user client device to display a second user interface including a signature element (claims 1, 10, and 19); (vi) causing the first application to display a fallback verification interface comprising at least one of: (1) a scanning element for scanning (a user identification) document, (2) a capture element (for capturing an image of the user), or (3) one or more interactive text boxes (for manually entering user identification information) (claims 1, 10, and 19); and (vii) a (verification) database (claims 1, 10, and 19).
The above additional elements of: (i) –(v), and (vii) are recited at a high-level of generality such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The above additional elements of: (vi) a fallback verification interface is recited at a high-level of generality such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The above additional elements of: (vi)(1) a scanning element for scanning (a user identification) document is recited at a high-level of generality such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., scanning) (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The above additional elements of: (vi)(2) a capture element (for capturing an image of the user), is recited at a high-level of generality such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., imaging) (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The above additional elements of: (vi)(3) one or more interactive text boxes (for manually entering user identification information) is recited at a high-level of generality such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements amount to no more than reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; or generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer; or generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., scanning or imaging) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional elements discussed above do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are ineligible.
Dependent claims 2, 4, 6-7, 11, 13, 15-16 and 20 further recite details which merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitiaitions. For these reasons, as described above with respect to claims 1, 10, and 19 these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, claims 2, 4, 6-7, 11, 13, 15-16 and 20 are also ineligible.
Claims 3 and 12 recite including instructing the delivery agent to verify an identify of the user – which merely narrows the previously recited abstract idea.
The claim adds the additional element of a checklist interface. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional element merely serves as generic computer components on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim does not include limitations sufficient, either alone or in combination, to amount to significantly more than the claimed abstract idea because the aforementioned additional elements merely serve as generic computer components on which the abstract idea is implemented.
Dependent claims 5 and 14 recite the additional element of the scanning element overlays a visual guide on a camera feed to assist in alignment of the (user’s identification) document. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., visual guides, cameras). See MPEP 2106.05(h). The claims do not include limitations sufficient, either alone or in combination, to amount to significantly more than the claimed abstract idea because the aforementioned additional elements merely serve as generic computer components on which the abstract idea is implemented.
Dependent claims 8 and 17 recite instructing the user to provide the signature within a set amount of time – which further narrows the abstract idea. The claims recite the additional element of the second user interface including a timer associated with the signature element. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., timers). See MPEP 2106.05(h). The claims do not include limitations sufficient, either alone or in combination, to amount to significantly more than the claimed abstract idea because the aforementioned additional elements merely serve as generic computer components on which the abstract idea is implemented.
Dependent claims 9 and 18 recite receiving a handwritten signature input from the user – which further narrows the abstract idea. The claims recite the additional element of the second user interface including a timer associated with the signature element. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., touchscreen). See MPEP 2106.05(h). The claims do not include limitations sufficient, either alone or in combination, to amount to significantly more than the claimed abstract idea because the aforementioned additional elements merely serve as generic computer components on which the abstract idea is implemented.
Prior Art
Claims 1-20 are allowable over the prior art because the prior art fails to teach the combination of limitations in claims 1, 10, and 19. The closest prior art for the independent claims s includes:
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0377246 to Woodard et al. (hereinafter “Woodard”). Woodard discloses where the exchange, service, delivery, etc. was inadequate, the consumer may not acknowledge receipt (e.g., by not performing another action, by performing another action indicating the inadequate, incomplete, or unsatisfactory exchange, etc.), and the exchange status may be reported to the authentication service 122 as failed (at block B428). Where the exchange status is reported as adequate, completed, satisfactory, etc., at block B422, the consumer device(s) 104 may transmit the code received from the provider device(s) 102 to the authentication service 122 to verify that the exchange was acknowledged
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0201100 to Rellas (hereinafter “Rellas”). Rellas discloses user of a mobile device who is delivering an ordered product from a store to a customer at a location can confirm that the customer is a proper person to receive the ordered product. The driver will be taken to a signature screen by pressing the “sig” button 4108. The driver may ask a user to sign the screen (e.g., in signature field 4202) confirming and agreeing to the text 4204 and order summary 4206. In some cases, the signature screen creates a digital receipt with a user's real signature authorizing the host and the store to charge the user's account.
U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0019698 to Malhotra et al. (hereinafter “Malhotra”). Malhotra discloses an identity backend that receives a name and a biometric for the user from the communication device, and to then confirm with a third-party biometric repository that the biometric is specific to at least the user's name. In another example, the identity backend may be configured to receive a name, an image of a document and a biometric (e.g., a selfie image, etc.) for the user from the communication device, and then may be configured to confirm the biometric and the name against the image of the document.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0081587 to Gillen et al. (hereinafter “Gillen ’587”). Gillen ’587 discloses systems and methods for allowing a customer to manage their shipments.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0316322 to Gillen et al. (hereinafter “Gillen ’322”). Gillen ’322 discloses location-based events and notifications.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0180308 to Sheth (hereinafter “Sheth”). Sheth discloses teaching for confirming receipt of a package by receiving a signature on a customer's own device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rupangini Singh whose telephone number is (571)270-0192. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shannon Campbell can be reached on (571) 272-5587. 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.
/RUPANGINI SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights