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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claim(s) 21-22, 24-26, 28-29, 31-33, 35, 37-39 have been examined.
The remaining claims have been canceled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 21-22, 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, the specification does not teach “the system determines, based on successive geographic location updates, whether an associate remains en route to an assigned allied merchant and transmits updated assignment or status information when a change in route progress is detected” found in claim 21. Correction is required.
Claims 28, 29, 31-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, the specification does not teach “determining, based on successive geographic location updates, whether an associate remains en route to an assigned allied merchant and transmitting updated assignment or status information when a change in route progress is detected, thereby managing delivery efficiency and avoiding unnecessary data transmissions” found in claim 28. Correction is required.
Claims 35, 37-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, the specification does not teach “determine whether an associate remains en route to an assigned allied merchant based on successive geographic location updates and transmit updated assignment or status information when a change is detected, thereby managing delivery efficiency and avoiding unnecessary data transmissions” found in claim 35. Correction is required.
Claims 21-22, 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, the specification does not teach “wherein the system dynamically adjusts the batch of products for pickup according to updates to…traffic conditions obtained from an external traffic data source” found in claim 21. Correction is required.
Claims 35, 37-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, the specification does not teach “compute an expected travel path for each associate to an allied merchant” found in claim 35. 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 21-22, 24-26, 28-29, 31-33, 35, 37-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims recite a judicial exception which is not integrated into a practical application and the claims lack an inventive concept.
Step 1 is the first inquiry into eligibility analysis and asks whether the claims are directed to a statutory category. In this instance, the answer must be in the affirmative because they are directed to a method, a system, and a computer readable medium.
Step 2A prong 1 is the next step in the eligibility analyses and asks whether the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception. In this instance, the claims recite the following limitations which comprise the abstract idea:
a system associated with one or more goods and/or services providers;
receiving orders from a plurality of customers, wherein the received orders include products from multiple allied merchants within a predetermined geographic region;
a subscription services distinguishes the one or more allied merchants over one or more non-allied merchants;
analyzing historical order data, associate availability data, and location-related information to improve order fulfillment and delivery routing, wherein improving order fulfillment comprises selecting associates and coordinating pickups based on geographic proximity and availability;
associating a plurality of mobile computing devices with a plurality of associates of the merchant network;
receiving geographic location updates from each mobile computing device of the plurality of mobile computing devices wherein, each geographic location update indicative of a geographic location for a mobile computing device that originated the respective that originated the respective geographic location update;
determining, based on successive geographic location updates, whether an associate remains en route to an assigned allied merchant and transmitting updated assignment or status information when a change in route progress is detected, thereby managing delivery efficiency and avoiding unnecessary data transmissions;
tracking a geographic location for each associate of the plurality of associates via geographic location updates received from a respective mobile computing device associated with each associate;
selecting with the pickup system a batch of products from multiple received orders such that the batch of products comprises products to pickup from a single allied merchant within the predetermined geographic region, wherein the system dynamically adjusts the batch of products for pickup according to updates to associate availability and traffic conditions obtained from an external traffic data source;
assigning an associate with the pickup system, according to their tracked geographic locations determining, based on the tracked geographic locations for the plurality of associates, that an associate is in route to an allied merchant; assigning, to the associate determined to be in route to the allied merchant, one or more products from the received orders for purchase from the allied merchant; and informing the associate, via the mobile computing device associated with the associate, of the one or more products assigned to the associate for purchase from the allied merchant;
adding the batch of products to a pick list for the selected associate such that the pick list identifies products to purchase from the single allied merchant and return to a pickup location;
requesting, an associate via the mobile computing device associated with the associate, to purchase and return an alternative product to the pickup location in lieu of an unavailable product of an order of the received orders; adjusting an amount to be collected based on the alternative product purchased in lieu of the unavailable product of the order;
sending a pickup notification to a customer of the plurality of customers after products ordered by the customer are ready for pickup from the pickup location.
This is an abstract idea because it is a certain method of organizing human activity because it involves commercial or legal interactions such as marketing and sales activities and behaviors. In addition, many of the limitations are mental processes which can be performed in one’s mind or using pen and paper.
Step 2A prong 2 is the next step in the eligibility analyses and looks at whether the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. This requires an additional element or combination of additional elements in the claims to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
In this instance, the claims recite the additional elements such as:
communicating with each of a plurality of mobile computing devices using a wireless communication protocol to facilitate updates to associate assignments and product pick lists;
a computing device
a subscription server
mobile computing devices
the system comprises a wireless network, a cellular network and/or an Internet that provide one or more communication paths between a plurality of mobile computing devices, a merchant network, and a pickup system
the system is configured do things, including to transmit the geographic updates to the mobile computing device when deviations from an unexpected travel path are detected, thereby managing delivery efficiency and avoiding unnecessary data transmissions;
wherein said receiving comprises receiving the order via a storefront provided by an e-commerce system (at least claim 22)
However, these elements do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field, apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, or 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, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
In addition, the recitations of the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and also do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field, apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, or 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, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The dependent claims also fail to recite elements which amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field, apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, or 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, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. For example, claims 23-27 are directed to the abstract idea itself and do not constitute additional elements. In addition, even of these claims did constitute additional elements, they do not amount to an integration according to any one of the considerations above.
Step 2B is the next step in the eligibility analyses and evaluates whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (i.e., “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception. According to Office procedure, revised Step 2A overlaps with Step 2B, and thus, many of the considerations need not be re-evaluated in Step 2B because the answer will be the same.
In Step 2A, several additional elements were identified as additional limitations:
communicating with each of a plurality of mobile computing devices using a wireless communication protocol to facilitate updates to associate assignments and product pick lists;
a computing device
a subscription server
mobile computing devices
the system comprises a wireless network, a cellular network and/or an Internet that provide one or more communication paths between a plurality of mobile computing devices, a merchant network, and a pickup system
the system is configured do things, including to transmit the geographic updates to the mobile computing device when deviations from an unexpected travel path are detected, thereby managing delivery efficiency and avoiding unnecessary data transmissions;
wherein said receiving comprises receiving the order via a storefront provided by an e-commerce system (at least claim 22)
These additional limitations, including the limitations in the dependent claims, do not amount to an inventive concept because they were already analyzed under Step 2A and did not amount to a practical application of the abstract idea.
In addition, the recitations of the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and also do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field, apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, or 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, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Therefore, the claims lack one or more limitations which amount to an inventive concept in the claims.
For these reasons, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Response to Arguments
In response to the applicant’s arguments regarding 112, the applicant has not overcome the rejection with the amendments. While some of the 112 rejections have been overcome, some remain. In addition, the amendment introduces necessitates new rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112.
In regards to the applicant’s arguments regarding 101, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The applicant first argues that the claims do not recite an abstract idea, but the applicant does not explain why the limitations identified by the examiner as directed to the abstract idea should not be directed to the abstract idea. For these reasons, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
The applicant further argues that additional imitations amount to a specific technological improvement in “distributed pickup coordination systems that use mobile devices, wireless networks, and real-time location updates to dynamically manage associate assignments and reduce inefficiencies in order fulfillment.” However, “distributed pickup coordination systems that use mobile devices, wireless networks, and real-time location updates to dynamically manage associate assignments and reduce inefficiencies in order fulfillment” is not a technology for purposes of 35 U.S.C. 101 nor does it amount to an improvement. For these reasons, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
The applicant also argues on pages 13 of the response that the claimed combination is not conventional or generic but instead provides a practical application that improves the functioning of the pickup coordination system itself. In response, the examiner respectfully remarks that the Office has not made an argument that the additional limitations are conventional or generic. For these reasons, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
The claims are not in condition for allowance because they are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 112.
The closest prior art of record is CHOU (2011/0119159) and Reference U (see PTO-892).
Additional prior art cited but not relied upon for the rejection includes:
Kelly (US 2002/0046173) - delivery agents delivering products to secure areas
Anson (US 7,715,542) - teaches using location data to trigger services and affect service delivery
Sims (US 2014/0025524) - teaches a delivery service based on an auction
Sloane, Paul. A guide to open innovation and crowdsourcing: Advice from leading experts in the field. Kogan Page Publishers, p15-21, 2011 – which teaches crowdsourced purchasing
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW E ZIMMERMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5278. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4pm M-T, 8-12pm W.
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, Jeff Smith can be reached at (571)272-6763. 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.
/MATTHEW E ZIMMERMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights