DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s response/application filed on 04/27/2026.
The Examiner notes that citations to United States Patent Application Publication paragraphs are formatted as [####], #### representing the paragraph number.
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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Phillips (CA 3041250), in view of Cohen (US 11610276), further in view of Mani (US 20190312737).
Regarding claim(s) 1 and 11, Phillips discloses:
at least one processor of at least one device associated with a physical location, the at least one processor being in communication with at least one non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions stored thereon ([0002]-[0003] of Phillips), wherein, upon execution of the instructions by the at least one processor, the system performs steps to:
transmit, upon successful authentication of the entity, a second token to the app executing on the mobile device, the second token including locker identifying information of a locker at the physical location associated with the pre-staged transaction, and credential information to access the locker; and causing, by the at least one processor and in response to receiving at least a part of the second token by the locker, the locker to unlock. (By disclosing, “Fig. 1A depicts an example situation where a requestor may use a requestor user device to order a product. The requestor may request to pick up the product at a product delivery device (e.g., a locker, a lock box, an automated teller machine (ATM), a kiosk, a safe, and/or the like).” ([0017] of Phillips); “As further shown by reference number 106 in Fig. 1A, the facilitation platform may send verification information to the requestor user device and to the product delivery device. In some implementations, the verification information may include a password, a personal identification number ("PIN"), a quick response ("QR") code [(second token)], a bar code, an identification string, a security identification feature, an item of authentication information concerning the requestor, an authentication credential for release of the product, an item of information concerning the requestor user device, information identifying a location of the requestor, information identifying a location of the product delivery device, an item of information concerning a route from a location of the requestor to the product delivery device, a time of availability concerning the product, a time of operation concerning the product delivery device, and/or the like. As further shown in Fig. 1A, and by reference number 108, the requestor may go to the product delivery device and may pair the requestor user device with the product delivery device for verification. …In some implementations, to facilitate pairing, the requestor user device and product delivery device may share one or more transaction tokens (e.g., a quick response (QR) code or bar code), and/or the like….In some implementations, the product delivery device may unlock a door, drawer, box, and/or the like and allow the requestor to obtain the product.” ([0033]-[0037], Fig. 1A of Phillips)).
Phillips does not disclose, but Cohen teaches:
transmit, by at least one processor of at least one device associated with a physical location, a reminder for a pre-staged transaction to a mobile device of an entity, the reminder comprising an entity interface operable by the entity to modify information associated with a pick-up; wherein the reminder is generated based on geo-location information of the mobile device of the entity within a pre-configured time window prior to an expiration time; (By disclosing, “FIGS. 19A-19C depict an approach, based on an algorithm, for adjusting meal preparation times if a customer selects a pickup time but then is late or early to pick up the meal. While the kiosk may be provided with spaces to hold meals ready to serve but not yet picked up (such spaces can be refrigerated or kept warm, for example), whenever possible it is preferred to delay the start of preparation if it is determined that pickup will likely be delayed. It is also desirable to advance the start (and end) of preparation if early pickup appears likely. Determining the likely pickup time can be the result of communication with the customer, determining the customer's location using GPS (e.g., geofencing or use of other sensors if the customer is near the kiosk) and taking into account average speed, traffic
conditions, etc., sensing that the customer has arrived (e.g., at a gas station, by commencement of paying for gas at the pump), or at baggage claim, taking into account a customer's flight arrival time, distance to baggage claim from his gate, seat on the plane, etc. Confirming with the customer that he wishes to modify the pickup time may be desirable, of course.” (Col 28 lines 24-44 of Cohen)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to modify the invention of Phillips in view of Cohen to include techniques of transmitting, by at least one processor of at least one device associated with a physical location, a reminder for a pre-staged transaction to a mobile device of an entity, the reminder comprising an entity interface operable by the entity to modify information associated with a pick-up; wherein the reminder is generated based on geo-location information of the mobile device of the entity within a pre-configured time window prior to an expiration time. Doing so would result in an improved invention because this would improve the overall user convenience of the claimed invention.
Phillips in vie of Cohen does not disclose, but Mani teaches:
a first token stored on the mobile device; and receive the first token from the app executing on the mobile device when the mobile device is within a vicinity of the physical location; authenticating, by the at least one processor, the entity based on the received first token; (By disclosing, “Described herein is a system and universal access control device that may enable a user device to gain access to a secure area or resource during a particular time duration. In some embodiments, a user device may relay a received access token to the universal access device via a wireless transmission at a particular time. The universal access device may verify the authenticity of the access token by relaying the access token information to the remote server, which may authenticate the user device and verify that the user device is permitted access at the particular time.” (Abstract of Mani); and “For example, the system may use geo-fencing to detect when the user enters a proximity of an access control reader.” ([0066] of Mani)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to modify the invention of Phillips and Cohen, in view of Mani to include a first token stored on the mobile device; and receive the first token from the app executing on the mobile device when the mobile device is within a vicinity of the physical location; authenticating, by the at least one processor, the entity based on the received first token. Doing so would result in an improved invention because this would allow the user to use the stored first token to access the resource whenever needed.
Regarding claim(s) 2 and 12, Phillips does not disclose, but Mani teaches:
wherein the information associated with the first token comprises at least one of a pick-up time window, the physical location, a fulfilling user, or a fulfillment device for the pre-staged transaction. (By disclosing, “The access token may be associated with an expiration date that may be a numeric value (e.g. a 4-digit numeric value). In some embodiments, the token expiry date can be expressed as a time duration as measured from the time of issuance.” ([0074] of Mani)).
Regarding claim(s) 4 and 14, Phillips does not disclose, but Cohen teaches:
wherein the geo-location information is determined based on at least one of a calendar event associated with the entity, a weather condition in an area associated with the entity, or a traffic condition associated with the entity. (By disclosing, “FIGS. 19A-19C depict an approach, based on an algorithm, for adjusting meal preparation times if a customer selects a pickup time but then is late or early to pick up the meal. While the kiosk may be provided with spaces to hold meals ready to serve but not yet picked up (such spaces can be refrigerated or kept warm, for example), whenever possible it is preferred to delay the start of preparation if it is determined that pickup will likely be delayed. It is also desirable to advance the start (and end) of preparation if early pickup appears likely. Determining the likely pickup time can be the result of communication with the customer, determining the customer's location using GPS (e.g., geofencing or use of other sensors if the customer is near the kiosk) and taking into account average speed, traffic conditions, etc., sensing that the customer has arrived (e.g., at a gas station, by commencement of paying for gas at the pump), or at baggage claim, taking into account a customer's flight arrival time, distance to baggage claim from his gate, seat on the plane, etc. Confirming with the customer that he wishes to modify the pickup time may be desirable, of course.” (Col 28 lines 24-44 of Cohen)).
Regarding claim(s) 5 and 15, Phillips does not disclose, but Cohen teaches:
wherein the reminder comprises an automatic recommendation for modifying the pre-staged transaction based on the geo-location information and an environmental context associated with the entity. (By disclosing, “FIGS. 19A-19C depict an approach, based on an algorithm, for adjusting meal preparation times if a customer selects a pickup time but then is late or early to pick up the meal. While the kiosk may be provided with spaces to hold meals ready to serve but not yet picked up (such spaces can be refrigerated or kept warm, for example), whenever possible it is preferred to delay the start of preparation if it is determined that pickup will likely be delayed. It is also desirable to advance the start (and end) of preparation if early pickup appears likely. Determining the likely pickup time can be the result of communication with the customer, determining the customer's location using GPS (e.g., geofencing or use of other sensors if the customer is near the kiosk) and taking into account average speed, traffic conditions, etc., sensing that the customer has arrived (e.g., at a gas station, by commencement of paying for gas at the pump), or at baggage claim, taking into account a customer's flight arrival time, distance to baggage claim from his gate, seat on the plane, etc. Confirming with the customer that he wishes to modify the pickup time may be desirable, of course.” (Col 28 lines 24-44 of Cohen)).
Regarding claim(s) 6 and 16, Phillips does not disclose, but Mani teaches:
wherein receiving the first token from the app comprises detecting a wireless signal transmitted from the mobile device indicating that the mobile device is at the physical location. (By disclosing, For example, the system may use geo-fencing to detect when the user enters a proximity of an access control reader.” ([0066] of Mani)).
Regarding claim(s) 8 and 18, Phillips discloses:
wherein the credential information comprises at least one of a PIN, a passcode, a QR code, or a bar code. (By disclosing, “Fig. 1A depicts an example situation where a requestor may use a requestor user device to order a product. The requestor may request to pick up the product at a product delivery device (e.g., a locker, a lock box, an automated teller machine (ATM), a kiosk, a safe, and/or the like).” ([0017] of Phillips); “As further shown by reference number 106 in Fig. 1A, the facilitation platform may send verification information to the requestor user device and to the product delivery device. In some implementations, the verification information may include a password, a personal identification number ("PIN"), a quick response ("QR") code [(second token)], a bar code, an identification string, a security identification feature, an item of authentication information concerning the requestor, an authentication credential for release of the product, an item of information concerning the requestor user device, information identifying a location of the requestor, information identifying a location of the product delivery device, an item of information concerning a route from a location of the requestor to the product delivery device, a time of availability concerning the product, a time of operation concerning the product delivery device, and/or the like. As further shown in Fig. 1A, and by reference number 108, the requestor may go to the product delivery device and may pair the requestor user device with the product delivery device for verification. …In some implementations, to facilitate pairing, the requestor user device and product delivery device may share one or more transaction tokens (e.g., a quick response (QR) code or bar code), and/or the like….In some implementations, the product delivery device may unlock a door, drawer, box, and/or the like and allow the requestor to obtain the product.” ([0033]-[0037], Fig. 1A of Phillips)).
Regarding claim(s) 9 and 19, Phillips discloses:
wherein the second token further comprises a second authentication factor. (By disclosing, “Fig. 1A depicts an example situation where a requestor may use a requestor user device to order a product. The requestor may request to pick up the product at a product delivery device (e.g., a locker, a lock box, an automated teller machine (ATM), a kiosk, a safe, and/or the like).” ([0017] of Phillips); “As further shown by reference number 106 in Fig. 1A, the facilitation platform may send verification information to the requestor user device and to the product delivery device. In some implementations, the verification information may include a password, a personal identification number ("PIN"), a quick response ("QR") code [(second token)], a bar code, an identification string, a security identification feature, an item of authentication information concerning the requestor, an authentication credential for release of the product, an item of information concerning the requestor user device, information identifying a location of the requestor, information identifying a location of the product delivery device, an item of information concerning a route from a location of the requestor to the product delivery device, a time of availability concerning the product, a time of operation concerning the product delivery device, and/or the like. As further shown in Fig. 1A, and by reference number 108, the requestor may go to the product delivery device and may pair the requestor user device with the product delivery device for verification. …In some implementations, to facilitate pairing, the requestor user device and product delivery device may share one or more transaction tokens (e.g., a quick response (QR) code or bar code), and/or the like….In some implementations, the product delivery device may unlock a door, drawer, box, and/or the like and allow the requestor to obtain the product.” ([0033]-[0037], Fig. 1A of Phillips)).
Claim(s) 3 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Phillips (CA 3041250), in view of Cohen (US 11610276), further in view of Mani (US 20190312737), and Fujisawa (US 20210287167).
Regarding claim(s) 3 and 13, Phillips does not disclose, but Fujisawa teaches:
wherein the entity interface comprises a button configured to push the pre-configured time window further out by a fixed amount of time. (By disclosing, “Meanwhile, if the pick-up time should be reset, pressing the re-designation button 1170 can cause a transition to a re-designation screen (not shown in the drawing) where the pick-up time can be re-designated.” ([0107], Fig. 10 of Fujisawa)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to modify the invention of Phillips, Cohen, and Mani, in view of Fujisawa to include “wherein the entity interface comprises a button configured to push the pre-configured time window further out by a fixed amount of time”. Doing so would result in an improved invention because this would improve the overall user convenience of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 7 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Phillips (CA 3041250), in view of Cohen (US 11610276), further in view of Mani (US 20190312737), and Estill (US 20190236873).
Regarding claim(s) 7 and 17, Phillips does not disclose, but Estill teaches:
wherein authenticating the entity further comprises authenticating the entity based on at least one of an ID card, a transaction card, or a one-time passcode sent to the mobile device. (By disclosing, “The control circuitry of the depository is operative to receive user identifying data as represented at step 246, and is also operative to enable the keypad of the depository to receive the one-time code as represented at step 248. The control circuitry is then operative as represented at step 250 to send the data corresponding to the user identification data, the one-time code and depository identifying data to the central circuitry. The central circuitry operates to receive the data from the depository as represented at step 252 and to verify that the user identifying data corresponds to the authorized user who is to receive the deposit item, and that the one-time code is appropriate for accessing the depository.” ([0083], [0084] of Estill)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to modify the invention of Phillips, Cohen, and Mani, in view of Estill to include “wherein authenticating the entity further comprises authenticating the entity based on at least one of an ID card, a transaction card, or a one-time passcode sent to the mobile device”. Doing so would result in an improved invention because this would improve the security of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 10 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Phillips (CA 3041250), in view of Cohen (US 11610276), further in view of Mani (US 20190312737), and Ravi (US 20210217081).
Regarding claim(s) 10 and 20, Phillips does not disclose, but Ravi teaches:
wherein the second authentication factor comprises a transaction card of the entity. (By disclosing, “For example, an access token may include an identifier for accessing an account that is a substitute for an account identifier, such as a primary account number (PAN).” ([0047] of Ravi); “The access token can be used by the user to gain access to resources provided by a resource providing entity.” ([0048] of Ravi)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the present application to modify the invention of Phillips, Cohen, and Mani, in view of Ravi to include “wherein the second authentication factor comprises a transaction card of the entity”. Doing so would result in an improved invention because this would improve the security of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20210117875 to Zhang for disclosing:
A system includes storage compartments, each of the storage compartments being configured to store shipments and having a locking mechanism and a computing system that controls operations of the storage compartments. The computing system performs: receiving a request from a providing entity to reserve a portion of the storage compartments, obtaining identification information of a requesting entity requesting a shipment from the providing entity, generating a scannable code; transmitting the scannable code and the identification code of the requesting entity to the providing entity, determining a compartment of the storage compartments to be reserved to temporarily store the shipment, detecting a scan of the scannable code or an input of the identification code on a computing device at a terminal of a location of or adjacent to the reserved determined compartment, and in response to detecting the scan or the input of the identification code, opening the reserved determined compartment.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUAN ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-4642. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 10 AM-5 PM.
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, Neha Patel can be reached at 571-270-1492. 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.
/DUAN ZHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699
Prosecution Insights