DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is a FINAL office action in response to the Applicant’s response filed 6 July 2026.
Claims 1, 14, and 20 have been amended.
The 112 (a) rejection for claims 1-20 has been overcome by amendments.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6 July 2026 with regards to the 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the claims, the Applicant argues on page 14 of their response, “Under Step 2A, Prong One, Applicant respectfully submits that the claims, considered as a whole, are not directed merely to the Examiner's characterized ‘certain methods of organizing human activity.’ The claims do not simply recite advertising, marketing, or a business method and then instruct that it be performed on a computer. Instead, the claims require particular operations involving GPS-derived vehicle-location data, a sensor-derived customer-device location, a digital map that visually indicates the customer-device location relative to vehicle locations, forecast-based generation of a proposed trip and routing, and a resource-management signal that controls the quantity of computer processor resources or computer memory resources used in processing the relevant data and generating the resulting outputs. The added resource-management limitation is not itself a commercial interaction between people; it is a computing operation that regulates how computing resources are used when the system processes location/input data and generates the forecast or routing output.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s interpretation of the requirements under 35 USC 101, the bounds of the claimed invention, and the grounds of the previous and current rejection. First, with respect to the Applicant’s argument that, “Under Step 2A, Prong One, Applicant respectfully submits that the claims, considered as a whole, are not directed merely to the Examiner's characterized ‘certain methods of organizing human activity,’ the Examiner is not persuaded of error. In particular, the Examiner notes that Step 2A, prong one of the Alice/Mayo test is not to determine if the claims are directed to an abstract idea, but to determine whether the claims recite an abstract idea. Specifically, MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1) states, “Prong One asks does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? In Prong One examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e. whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. While the terms "set forth" and "described" are thus both equated with "recite", their different language is intended to indicate that there are two ways in which an exception can be recited in a claim. For instance, the claims in Diehr, 450 U.S. at 178 n. 2, 179 n.5, 191-92, 209 USPQ at 4-5 (1981), clearly stated a mathematical equation in the repetitively calculating step, and the claims in Mayo, 566 U.S. 66, 75-77, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1967-68 (2012), clearly stated laws of nature in the wherein clause, such that the claims "set forth" an identifiable judicial exception. Alternatively, the claims in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 218, 110 USPQ2d at 1982, described the concept of intermediated settlement without ever explicitly using the words "intermediated" or "settlement."” (Emphasis added). Notably, the evaluation of whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea is determined in step 2A, prong two, as noted in MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), which states, “Prong Two asks does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? In Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application of that exception. If the additional elements in the claim integrate the recited exception into a practical application of the exception, then the claim is not directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A: NO) and thus is eligible at Pathway B. This concludes the eligibility analysis. If, however, the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception (Step 2A: YES), and requires further analysis under Step 2B (where it may still be eligible if it amounts to an ‘‘inventive concept’’).” (Emphasis added). As such, the Applicant’s argument regarding whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea under step 2A, prong one, are deemed not persuasive as this argument is not relevant to the argued test for subject matter eligibility, and instead should be directed to step 2A, prong two. Second, with regards to the Applicant’s argument regarding, “The added resource-management limitation is not itself a commercial interaction between people; it is a computing operation that regulates how computing resources are used when the system processes location/input data and generates the forecast or routing output,” the Examiner notes that this new limitation was added in the current amendment, and thus would not be reflected in the previous rejection. Additionally, it is noted that the argued amended element of claim 1, which states, “transmit, from a selected device of the system to a computing device receiving or processing location data or input data used to generate the prediction or forecast or the routing, a signal indicating a specific quantity of computer processor resources or computer memory resources to be utilized for processing the location data or input data, generating outputs based on the location data or input data, generating the prediction or forecast, or generating the routing,” is deemed extrasolution activity. As such, this element is analyzed under step 2A prong two, and is deemed an additional element beyond the recited abstract idea. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that the claims recite an abstract idea under step 2A prong one, and that the added element of transmitting a signal indicating a quantity of computer processor or computer memory resources to be utilized, does not prevent the claim from reciting an abstract idea. Thus, the Examiner is not persuaded of error.
The Applicant continues on pages 14 and 15 of their response, “Even if the Office were to determine that some aspects of the claims relate to organizing commercial activity, the claims integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two. The specification explains that the operative features of the system may improve efficiency of computing devices used to facilitate the disclosed functionality and may reduce the amount of computer operations performed by the processors and memories of the system. See, e.g., paragraph [0041]. The claims now recite the corresponding concrete implementation: transmitting a signal from a selected device of the system to a computing device receiving or processing location data or input data, where the signal indicates a specific quantity of computer processor resources or computer memory resources to be used for processing the data, generating outputs, generating the prediction or forecast, or generating the routing. This is not merely post-solution activity or generic data display. It is a resource- management operation applied within the claimed location-processing and routing workflow, and it meaningfully limits how the computer system performs the claimed forecast and routing operations.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s interpretation of the requirements under 35 USC 101, the bounds of the claimed invention, and the grounds of the previous and current rejection. First, with respect to the Applicant’s argument that, “The specification explains that the operative features of the system may improve efficiency of computing devices used to facilitate the disclosed functionality and may reduce the amount of computer operations performed by the processors and memories of the system. See, e.g., paragraph [0041],” the Examiner is not persuaded. In this case, paragraph 41 states, “The systems and methods disclosed herein may include further functionality and features. For example, the operative functions of the system 100 and method may be configured to execute on a special-purpose processor specifically configured to carry out the operations provided by the system 100 and method. Notably, the operative features and functionality provided by the system 100 and method may increase the efficiency of computing devices that are being utilized to facilitate the functionality provided by the system 100 and method 200. For example, through the use of the devices, components, programs, and/or networks of the system 100, machine learning and/or artificial intelligence capabilities may be utilized so as to reduce the amount of computer operations need to be performed by the devices in the system 100 using the processors and memories of the system 100 than in systems that are not capable of machine learning as described in this disclosure. In such a context, less processing power needs to be utilized because the processors and memories do not need perform analyses and operations that have already been learned by the system 100. As a result, there may be substantial savings in the usage of computer resources by utilizing the software, functionality, methodologies, and algorithms provided in the present disclosure.” (Emphasis added). With respect to this disclosure, the Examiner notes that this recitation is merely conclusory, and does not set forth any details of how the claimed invention would improve computer functionality; and instead, it merely asserts, “the operative features and functionality provided by the system 100 and method may increase the efficiency of computing devices that are being utilized to facilitate the functionality provided by the system 100 and method 200,” “machine learning and/or artificial intelligence capabilities may be utilized so as to reduce the amount of computer operations need to be performed by the devices in the system 100 using the processors and memories of the system,” and “less processing power needs to be utilized because the processors and memories do not need perform analyses and operations that have already been learned by the system 100.” As shown here, nothing in the specification indicates how the features and functionality increase efficiency of computing devices (particularly, the Applicant’ sown specification states that this only “may” occur, thus, it is not a definitive statement of improvement). Further, regarding the discussion regarding machine learning and artificial intelligence, nothing in the claims recites these features, and thus, any discussion regarding these computer operations are beyond the scope of the claims, and would not determine if the claims are directed to improvements in computer functionality. Second, with respect to improvements in computer functionality, the Examiner note that MPEP 2106.05(a) states, “If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art. For example, in McRO, the court relied on the specification’s explanation of how the particular rules recited in the claim enabled the automation of specific animation tasks that previously could only be performed subjectively by humans, when determining that the claims were directed to improvements in computer animation instead of an abstract idea. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313-14, 120 USPQ2d at 1100-01. In contrast, the court in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC relied on the specification’s failure to provide details regarding the manner in which the invention accomplished the alleged improvement when holding the claimed methods of delivering broadcast content to cellphones ineligible. 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016).” (Emphasis added). As shown and emphasized here, the MPEP sets forth that if the argued improvement is only discussed in a conclusory manner, then the Examiner should not determine that the claim improves technology. In this case, as discussed above, the Applicant’s argued improvement in the specification, is merely in a conclusory manner, and does not set forth any details regarding the manner in which the invention accomplishes the alleged improvement; thus, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Second, with regards to the Applicant’s argument regarding the amended claim element, “transmitting a signal from a selected device of the system to a computing device receiving or processing location data or input data, where the signal indicates a specific quantity of computer processor resources or computer memory resources to be used for processing the data, generating outputs, generating the prediction or forecast, or generating the routing,” specifically that, “This is not merely post-solution activity or generic data display. It is a resource-management operation applied within the claimed location-processing and routing workflow, and it meaningfully limits how the computer system performs the claimed forecast and routing operations,” the Examiner is not persuaded. In this case, the Applicant’s claim recites transmitting a signal, from a device to a computing device, that indicates a quantity of computer processor/memory resources to use to perform the recited abstract idea. In this case, the recited element is determined to invoke extrasolution activity, as this is merely activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim, and further encompass merely data transmission of instructions. Notably, the claimed elements do not encompass any elements directed towards the computing device actually carrying out specific operations regarding computer processing/memory resources, and instead, merely encompass a transmission of a signal. Further, it is noted that having a generic computer element (e.g. computing device) being used as a tool to carry out the abstract idea (e.g. processing the location data or input data, generating outputs based on the location data or input data, generating the prediction or forecast, or generating the routing), is further determined to recite merely “apply it.” As shown in MPEP 2106.05(f), “Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.” (Emphasis added). In this case, the Applicant’s claim merely invokes the use of the computing device to carry out the abstract idea, and that some other device signals the computing device to use processor/memory resources. Thus, the Applicant has failed to show that signaling a computing device to use processor/memory resources when carrying out the abstract idea, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that this rejection is proper.
The Applicant continues on page 15 of their response, “The amended claims also include significantly more than any alleged abstract idea under Step 2B. The Office Action characterizes the prior claims as using generic computer elements as tools to carry out business activity. The pending claims, however, now require more than simply using a processor, memory, GPS sensor, customer device, and graphical interface in their ordinary capacities. They require a specific signal that identifies a specific quantity of processor or memory resources to be used for the claimed data-processing and output-generation operations. The specification describes this functionality as "effective computing resource management" and expressly identifies examples including processor clock cycles, processor speed, processor cache, processing location data, generating outputs based on data, and performing operations of the system. See paragraph [0042]. The claim therefore recites an ordered combination in which sensor-based location acquisition, digital-map generation, forecast-based route generation, and computer-resource management operate together as a particular computer-implemented solution, rather than as a generic instruction to apply a business concept on a computer.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s interpretation of the requirements under 35 USC 101, the bounds of the claimed invention, and the grounds of the previous and current rejection. First, with respect to the Applicant’s argument that the signal identifying a specific quantity of processor or memory resources to be used adds significantly more to the abstract idea, the Examiner is not persuaded. In this case, the Applicant has pointed to paragraph 42 of their specification for support of their position, which the Examiner notes states, “Notably, in certain embodiments, various functions and features of the system 100 and methods may operate without human intervention and may be conducted entirely by computing devices, robots, and/or processes. For example, in certain embodiments, multiple computing devices may interact with the vehicle 115 of the system 100 to provide the functionality supported by the system 100. Additionally, in certain embodiments, the computing devices of the system 100 may operate continuously to reduce the possibility of errors being introduced into the system 100. In certain embodiments, the system 100 and methods may also provide effective computing resource management by utilizing the features and functions described in the present disclosure. For example, in certain embodiments, when analyzing location data, input data, and/or any other data traversing the system 100, any selected device in the system 100 may transmit a signal to a computing device receiving or processing the data that only a specific quantity of computer processor resources (e.g. processor clock cycles, processor speed, processor cache, etc.) may be dedicated to processing the data, generating outputs based on the data, performing any other operation conducted by the system 100, or any combination thereof. For example, the signal may indicate an amount of processor cycles of a processor that may be utilized to process location data, and/or specify a selected amount of processing power that may be dedicated to processing the location data or any of the other operations performed by the system 100. In certain embodiments, a signal indicating the specific amount of computer processor resources or computer memory resources to be utilized for performing an operation of the system 100 may be transmitted from the vehicle 115 and/or the first and/or second user devices 102, 111 to the various components and devices of the system 100.” (Emphasis added). As shown and emphasized here, the Applicant’s specification merely asserts that in some embodiments of the Applicant’s invention, the system may also provide effective computing resource management by utilizing the features and functions described in the disclosure, which is merely conclusory. Further, the specification states that any device can transit a signal to the computing device that only a specific quantity of computer processor resources may be dedicated to operations. Notably, as discussed above, this does not add significantly more to the abstract idea, as the signal transmission is deemed merely extrasolution activity, and the use of the computer resources to carry out the abstract idea, is deemed merely a recitation of “apply it.” Second, with regards to the Applicant’s argument that, “The claim therefore recites an ordered combination in which sensor-based location acquisition, digital-map generation, forecast-based route generation, and computer-resource management operate together as a particular computer-implemented solution, rather than as a generic instruction to apply a business concept on a computer,” the Examiner is not persuaded. In this case, as discussed in paragraph 11 of the Non-Final rejection mailed 6 February 2026, the combination of sensor-based location acquisition, digital-map generation, and forecast-based route generation, does not add significantly more to the abstract idea. Further, by amending the claim to include the further element of computer-resource management, as discussed above, this merely equates an application of “apply it,” and extra-solution activity, and this, does not add significantly more to the abstract idea. Regarding the argument that the combination “operate together as a particular computer-implemented solution,” the Examiner is not persuaded. Notably, MPEP 2106.05(a)(I) states, “In computer-related technologies, the examiner should determine whether the claim purports to improve computer capabilities or, instead, invokes computers merely as a tool. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1336, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In Enfish, the court evaluated the patent eligibility of claims related to a self-referential database. Id. The court concluded the claims were not directed to an abstract idea, but rather an improvement to computer functionality. Id. It was the specification’s discussion of the prior art and how the invention improved the way the computer stores and retrieves data in memory in combination with the specific data structure recited in the claims that demonstrated eligibility. 822 F.3d at 1339, 118 USPQ2d at 1691. The claim was not simply the addition of general purpose computers added post-hoc to an abstract idea, but a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts. 822 F.3d at 1339, 118 USPQ2d at 1691.” (Emphasis added). In this case, as discussed above, the Applicant’s specification has failed to set forth how the invention improved the way the computer functions, and instead, the addition of the general purpose computers were merely implemented as tools to carry out the abstract idea, and not to provide a solution to a problem in the software arts. Thus, the Examiner is not persuaded that the claimed combination amounts to significantly more. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that this rejection is proper.
The Applicant continues on page 15 of their response, “The Office Action previously stated that Applicant had not identified a technological problem solved by a technological solution. The present amendments directly address that concern. The technological problem is not merely how to increase food-truck sales; it is how the computing system manages the processing of location data and input data used to generate forecast and routing outputs. The claimed solution is to transmit a resource-management signal specifying the quantity of processor or memory resources to be utilized for those operations. Because the claims now recite a concrete computing-resource control feature tied to the claimed processing and routing workflow, Applicant respectfully submits that the claims are patent eligible under § 101.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s interpretation of the requirements under 35 USC 101, the bounds of the claimed invention, and the grounds of the previous and current rejection. First, with respect to the Applicant’s argument that, “The technological problem is not merely how to increase food-truck sales,” it is noted that increasing food-truck sales is a business problem, and not a technological problem. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), “Notably, the court did not distinguish between the types of technology when determining the invention improved technology. However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology.” (Emphasis added). In this case, the claimed use of the generic computer elements merely improves the business process of identifying food trucks and customers, and increasing the likelihood of sales, which is the abstract idea, and not computers or technology. Second, with regards to the Applicant’s argument that, “it is how the computing system manages the processing of location data and input data used to generate forecast and routing outputs,” the Examiner notes that as discussed above in the previous rejections, this is merely the abstract idea itself. Specifically, processing of location data and input data used to generate forecast and routing outputs, encompass the recited abstract idea of managing commercial activities (marketing, sales activities, managing business relations). Further, as discussed above, transmitting a resource-management signal specifying the quantity of processor or memory resources to be utilized for those operations, is merely extrasolution activity, and “apply it,” and thus is not part of the claimed solution. Notably, the Applicant’s disclosure has failed to provide a discussion that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, nor has it identified technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art. Instead, the Applicant’s specification merely asserts that a signal can be sent to the computing device that indicates how many resources are to be used to carry out the abstract idea, which fails to provide support for a technological solution. Thus, the Examiner is not persuaded of error, as the Applicant has failed to show that the claims recite a combination of elements that improve computer functionality, another technology, or technical field. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that this rejection is proper.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 14, and 20 with regards to transmitting a signal regarding the amount of resources to use have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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. The claims recite providing a food truck option via a graphical user interface of an application; determining, by utilizing the at least one global positioning sensor positioned in proximity to the vehicle, a location of the vehicle associated with the food truck option; providing, via the application, the location of a vehicle associated with the food truck option to a customer device accessing the application; receiving a signal from a sensor of the customer device indicating a customer device location of the customer device; generating a digital map including the location of the vehicle associated with the food truck option and locations of other vehicles associated with other food truck options, wherein the digital map further provides, based on the signal, a visual indication of the customer device location relative to the location of the vehicle and the locations of the other vehicles associated with the other food truck options; displaying, via the graphical user interface, the location of the vehicle associated with the food truck option on a map where locations of other vehicles associated with other food truck options are displayed; enabling the customer device to access a food truck profile of the food truck option that includes content associated with the food truck option; generating a prediction or forecast for at least one future location of the vehicle based at least in part on one or more of: (i) an identification of at least one future event to be held, (ii) activity conducted via the application using the customer device, (iii)searches conducted via the application, and (iv) queries made via the customer device; generating a proposed trip for the vehicle based on the prediction or forecast; automatically generating routing on the digital map for the proposed trip, wherein the routing comprises stops that present at least one opportunity to connect with an optimal number of customers; and transmit, from a selected device of the system to a computing device receiving or processing location data or input data used to generate the prediction or forecast or the routing, a signal indicating a specific quantity of computer processor resources or computer memory resources to be utilized for processing the location data or input data, generating outputs based on the location data or input data, generating the prediction or forecast, or generating the routing
The limitations of providing a food truck option, determining a location of the vehicle associated with the food truck option, providing a location of a vehicle associated with the food truck option to a customer device, receiving customer location information, generating a map including the location of vehicles associated with food truck options and customer device locations, displaying the location of the vehicle associated with the food truck option on a map where locations of other vehicles associated with other food truck options are displayed, enabling the customer device to access a food truck profile of the food truck option that includes content associated with the food truck option, generating a prediction or forecast for at least one future location of the vehicle based on events or customer input, generating routing on the digital map for the proposed trip that comprises stops that present opportunities to connect with an optimal number of customers; as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses the management of commercial activities (marketing, sales activities, managing business relations) with the use of generic computer elements as tools. That is, other than reciting the use of generic computer elements (memory, processor, graphical user interface, customer device, application, GPS sensor, sensor of customer device), the claim recites an abstract idea. For example, the elements of providing food truck options, providing locations of food trucks relative to the user’s location to a user on a map display, and enabling a user to view food truck profiles, encompasses providing a customer service provider options to browse and view, wherein the customer can select a service provider to view and place orders with; thus, elements which recite marketing, sales activities, managing business relations. In addition, generating predictions/forecasts for future locations of the food truck, generating a proposed trip, and presenting a proposed route on a map; encompasses the performance of marketing, and managing the behaviors and interactions between people. Therefore, the claims recite elements that fall into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not recite additional elements that improve the functioning of a computer, another technology, or technical field. The claims do not recite the use of, or apply the abstract idea with, a particular machine, the claims do not recite the transformation of an article from one state or thing into another. Finally, the claims do not recite additional elements that apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Instead, the claims recite the use of generic computer elements (memory, processor, graphical user interface, customer device, application, GPS sensor, sensor of customer device) as tools to carry out the abstract idea. In addition, the claims further recite the use of a GPS in proximity to a vehicle to determine the location of the vehicle, which merely narrows the field of use by defining where generic GPS sensors are located, and further recites using generic computer elements in their ordinary capacity (GPS sensors for recording locations), and thus does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. In addition, the claims recite receiving customer location information, which is deemed extrasolution activity of data gathering. In addition, the claims recite transmitting a signal indicating a quantity of computer processor/memory resources to be utilized; which is deemed extrasolution activity, and “apply it.” The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using generic computer elements and machines to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. In addition, the claims recite extrasolution of data gathering encompassing collecting customer location information, which is also deemed well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (MPEP 2106.05(d), “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)”). In addition, the claims recite transmitting a signal indicating a quantity of computer processor/memory resources to be utilized; which is deemed extrasolution activity, that is also deemed well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (See at least paragraph 42 which describes transmitting the signal at such a high-level of generality, that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize it as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in order to satisfy 112a). The claims are directed to non-patent eligible subject matter.
The dependent claims 2-13 and 15-19, taken individually and in combination do not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or add significantly more to the abstract idea itself. In particular, claims further recite that the GPS sensor is part of the merchant’s smartphone or vehicle, which merely narrows the field of use by defining where a generic GPS sensor is located, and further recites using generic computer elements in their ordinary capacity (GPS sensor for recording locations), and thus does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or add significantly more to the abstract idea itself (claims 2 and 3). In addition, the claims further recite allowing a customer to place an order with the truck or reserve the truck itself, which is the performance of commercial interactions (sales activities, business relations), and therefore further recites elements that fall into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas (claims 4 and 7). In addition, the claims further recite displaying menus, prices, food truck information, or reviews, which encompasses marketing and sales activities, and therefore further recites elements that fall into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas (claim 5). In addition, the claims further recite displaying location information of the service providers to a customer as the customer moves, which merely narrows the field of use by defining when content is displayed, and thus does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or add significantly more to the abstract idea itself (claim 6). In addition, the claims further recite providing future locations of the vehicle, which encompasses marketing and sales activities, and therefore further recites elements that fall into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas (claim 8). In addition, the claims further recite allowing a customer to provide feedback or reviews for a service, which encompasses the management of business relations, and therefore further recites elements that fall into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas (claim 9). In addition, the claims recite providing updates to related to the food truck, such as menu updates, which merely further, which encompasses marketing and sales activities, and therefore further recites elements that fall into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas (claim 10). In addition, the claims further recite enabling third party API’s to be used, which further recites the use of generic computer elements, in their ordinary capacity, as tools, and thus does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or add significantly more to the abstract idea itself (claim 11). In addition, the claims further recite displaying a wait time for items, which encompasses marketing and sales activities, and therefore further recites elements that fall into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas (claim 12). In addition, the claims further recite initiating food preparation based on the customer location, which encompasses managing sales activities and business relations, and therefore further recites elements that fall into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas (claim 13). In addition, the claims further recite receiving expected future locations of customers, and setting an optimal location for vehicles based on the future locations, which encompasses managing marketing and business relations of food trucks based on customer movement, and therefore further recites elements that fall into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas (claims 15 and 16). In addition, the claims further recite providing customers alternate provider options, which encompasses marketing and sales activities, and therefore further recites elements that fall into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas (claim 17). In addition, the claims further recite allowing customers to maker business profiles with their preferences, which encompasses managing business relations, and therefore further recites elements that fall into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas (claim 18). In addition, the claims further recite forecasting demand for a business based on customer data, which encompasses managing business relations, and therefore further recites elements that fall into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas (claim 19).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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 for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 9, 10, 14, 17, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nordstrom (US 2013/0027227 A1) (hereinafter Nordstrom), in view of Grigg et al. (US 2013/0046635 A1) (hereinafter Grigg), in view of Rao et al. (US 2020/0386565 A1) (hereinafter Rao), and further in view of Alexander et al. (US 2019/0121855 A1) (hereinafter Alexander).
With respect to claims 1, 14, and 20, Nordstrom teaches:
At least one global positioning sensor positioned in proximity to a vehicle (See at least paragraphs 34, 61, 62, 68, 69, 91, 92, 115-124, and 463 which describe customers using an application to search for food trucks using a user interface, wherein the locations of the food trucks are tracked in real-time using an associated GPS device, and wherein the locations of the trucks are displayed on a map to the customer).
A memory that stores instructions; and a processor that executes the instructions to configure the processor to (See at least paragraphs 28, 30, 33, 34, and 76 which describe user devices that stores and run applications on memory).
Providing a food truck option via a graphical user interface of an application (See at least paragraphs 34, 61, 62, 68, 69, and 115-124 which describe customers using an application to search for food trucks using a user interface).
Determine, by utilizing the at least one global positioning sensor positioned in proximity to the vehicle, a location of the vehicle associated with the food truck option (See at least paragraphs 34, 61, 62, 68, 69, 91, 92, 115-124, and 463 which describe customers using an application to search for food trucks using a user interface, wherein the locations of the food trucks are tracked in real-time using an associated GPS device, and wherein the locations of the trucks are displayed on a map to the customer).
Providing, via the application, a location of a vehicle associated with the food truck option to a customer device accessing the application, wherein the location of the vehicle is provided via a global positioning sensor in proximity to the vehicle (See at least paragraphs 34, 61, 62, 68, 69, 91, 92, 115-124, and 463 which describe customers using an application to search for food trucks using a user interface, wherein the locations of the food trucks are tracked in real-time using an associated GPS device, and wherein the locations of the trucks are displayed on a map to the customer).
Receive a signal from a sensor of the customer device indicating a customer device location of the customer device (See at least paragraph 34 which describes receiving requests for food services, wherein the requests from customers include the locations of customers querying for services based on the customer’s GPS location).
Generate a digital map including the location of the vehicle associated with the food truck option and locations of other vehicles associated with other food truck options, wherein the digital map further provides, based on the signal, a visual indication of the customer device location relative to the location of the vehicle and the locations of the other vehicles associated with the other food truck options (See at least paragraphs 34, 61, 62, 68, 69, 91, 92, 115-124, and 463 which describe customers using an application to search for food trucks using a user interface, wherein the locations of the food trucks are tracked in real-time using an associated GPS device, and wherein the locations of the trucks are displayed on a map to the customer).
Displaying, via the graphical user interface, the location of the vehicle associated with the food truck option on the digital map where the locations of the other vehicles associated the with other food truck options are displayed (See at least paragraphs 34, 61, 62, 68, 69, 91, 92, 115-124, and 463 which describe customers using an application to search for food trucks using a user interface, wherein the locations of the food trucks are tracked in real-time using an associated GPS device, and wherein the locations of the trucks are displayed on a map to the customer).
Enabling the customer device to access a food truck profile of the food truck option that includes content associated with the food truck option (See at least paragraphs 86-99, 115-124, 168, 299, 517, and 518 which describe vendor profiles that are provided to customers upon selection, including menus, pricing, and the ability to order from the trucks).
Nordstrom discloses all of the limitations of claims 1, 14, and 20 as stated above. Nordstrom does not explicitly disclose the following, however Grigg teaches:
Generate a prediction or forecast for at least one future location of the vehicle based at least in part on one or more of: (i) an identification of at least one future event to be held, (ii) activity conducted via the application using the customer device, (iii) searches conducted via the application, and (iv) queries made via the customer device (See at least paragraphs 3-7, 25, 44, and 101-104 which describe generating a recommendation of future locations for a food truck, wherein the future locations are based on transaction information, GPS measurements, customer requests, time of day, calendar day, and the type of items sold).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention to combine the system and method of tracking food trucks with GPS enabled devices, wherein the locations of the vehicles are provided to interested customers of Nordstrom, with the system and method of generating a recommendation of future locations for a food truck, wherein the future locations are based on transaction information, GPS measurements, customer requests, time of day, calendar day, and the type of items sold of Grigg. By determining recommended future locations for a merchant using various criteria, and broadcasting advertisements to interested customers in the estimated future location, customers will predictably be able to plan for food trucks to order from, as well as encouraging future commercial interactions.
The combination of Nordstrom and Grigg discloses all of the limitations of claims 1, 14, and 20 as stated above. Nordstrom and Grigg do not explicitly disclose the following, however Rao teaches:
Generate a prediction or forecast for at least one future location of the vehicle based at least in part on one or more of: (i) an identification of at least one future event to be held, (ii) activity conducted via the application using the customer device, (iii)searches conducted via the application, and (iv) queries made via the customer device; generate a proposed trip for the vehicle based on the prediction or forecast; automatically generate routing on the digital map for the proposed trip, wherein the routing comprises stops that present at least one opportunity to connect with an optimal number of customers (See at least paragraphs 26-28, 33, 34, 40, 45, 46, 51-59, and 65 which describe a server receiving food truck profile and location information, and users’ profile and location information, wherein the information includes current and historical locations of the food truck and users, forecasted events, and activities of the user devices, wherein the server generates a prediction of future locations for the food truck and suggests a route and stops for the food truck to reach an optimal group of users, and wherein the route is presented on a map of the food truck).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention to combine the system and method of tracking food trucks with GPS enabled devices, wherein the locations of the vehicles are provided to interested customers of Nordstrom, with the system and method of generating a recommendation of future locations for a food truck, wherein the future locations are based on transaction information, GPS measurements, customer requests, time of day, calendar day, and the type of items sold of Grigg, with the system and method of a server receiving food truck profile and location information, and users’ profile and location information, wherein the information includes current and historical locations of the food truck and users, forecasted events, and activities of the user devices, wherein the server generates a prediction of future locations for the food truck and suggests a route and stops for the food truck to reach an optimal group of users, wherein expected opportunities for each stop are identified and stops that reach the most potential customers are determined, and wherein the route with the identified subset of stops is presented on a map of the food truck of Rao. By predicting future locations for a food truck based on collected food truck and customer location, and presenting an optimal route to the food truck, including where to stop, a planning service will predictably enable food trucks to attract the optimal number of customers, and thus generate the highest revenue via increased service.
The combination of Nordstrom, Grigg, and Rao discloses all of the limitations of claims 1, 14, and 20 as stated above. Nordstrom, Grigg, and Rao do not explicitly disclose the following, however Alexander teaches:
Transmit, from a selected device of the system to a computing device receiving or processing location data or input data used to generate the prediction or forecast or the routing, a signal indicating a specific quantity of computer processor resources or computer memory resources to be utilized for processing the location data or input data, generating outputs based on the location data or input data, generating the prediction or forecast, or generating the routing (See at least paragraph 64 which describe a selected device transmitting a signal to a computing device, wherein the signal indicates a specific quantity of computer processor or memory resources to be used by the computing device to perform the processing and analysis).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention to combine the system and method of tracking food trucks with GPS enabled devices, wherein the locations of the vehicles are provided to interested customers of Nordstrom, with the system and method of generating a recommendation of future locations for a food truck, wherein the future locations are based on transaction information, GPS measurements, customer requests, time of day, calendar day, and the type of items sold of Grigg, with the system and method of a server receiving food truck profile and location information, and users’ profile and location information, wherein the information includes current and historical locations of the food truck and users, forecasted events, and activities of the user devices, wherein the server generates a prediction of future locations for the food truck and suggests a route and stops for the food truck to reach an optimal group of users, wherein expected opportunities for each stop are identified and stops that reach the most potential customers are determined, and wherein the route with the identified subset of stops is presented on a map of the food truck of Rao, with the system and method of a selected device transmitting a signal to a computing device, wherein the signal indicates a specific quantity of computer processor or memory resources to be used by the computing device to perform the processing and analysis of Alexander. By transmitting a signal to a computing system to indicate the amount of computer processor/memory resources to be used when processing data, a system will predictably provide effective computing resource management (see paragraph 64 of Alexander).
With respect to claim 2, the combination of Nordstrom, Grigg, Rao, and Alexander discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. In addition, Nordstrom teaches:
Wherein the processor is further configured to share the location of the vehicle associated with the food truck option via a smartphone including a global positioning sensor of the at least one global positioning sensor that is in proximity to the vehicle (See at least paragraphs 91-93, 463, 472-476, and 480-482 which describe tracking food trucks using a GPS enabled device, such as their smartphone, and reporting this location to customers).
With respect to claim 4, Nordstrom/Grigg/Rao/Alexander discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. In addition, Nordstrom teaches:
Wherein the processor is further configured to enable the customer device to make an order for a food item provided by a business associated with the vehicle and the food truck option (See at least paragraphs 320-325, 343-348, 407, and 417-422 which describe a user using the application to remotely place an order with a food truck).
With respect to claim 5, Nordstrom/Grigg/Rao/Alexander discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. In addition, Nordstrom teaches:
Wherein the processor is further configured to display a menu, pricing information, food truck information, business information, a review, or a combination thereof, when the food truck profile of the food truck option is accessed by the customer device (See at least paragraphs 86-99, 115-124, 168, 299, 517, and 518 which describe vendor profiles that are provided to customers upon selection, including menus, pricing, reviews, and business information).
With respect to claim 6, Nordstrom/Grigg/Rao/Alexander discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. In addition, Nordstrom teaches:
Wherein the processor is further configured to display the location of the vehicle relative to the locations of the other vehicles associated with the other food truck options on the map in real time as a customer device location of the customer device changes in real time (See at least paragraphs 34, 61, 62, 68, 69, 91, 92, 115-124, and 463 which describe customers using an application to search for food trucks using a user interface, wherein the locations of the food trucks are tracked in real-time using an associated GPS device, and wherein the locations of the trucks are displayed on a map to the customer as the customer changes locations).
With respect to claim 9, Nordstrom/Grigg/Rao/Alexander discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. In addition, Nordstrom teaches:
Wherein the processor is further configured to enable a user associated with the customer device to provide feedback, a review, commentary, or a combination thereof, associated with the food truck option via the application (See at least paragraphs 399-405 which describe an application allowing users to provide feedback and reviews for food trucks, wherein the information is received and provided to other customers).
With respect to claim 10, Nordstrom/Grigg/Rao/Alexander discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. In addition, Nordstrom teaches:
Wherein the processor is further configured to provide an update relating to the food truck option, wherein the update comprises an update to a menu of the food truck option, an update to pricing of a food item of the menu, an update to the location of the vehicle, an update to information associated with the food truck option, an update associated with a business associated with the food truck option, an update relating to an amount of demand for services provided by the business, an update relating to additional future locations for the vehicle associated with the food truck option, an update relating to an availability of the food time, an update relating to a weather condition in an environment in which the vehicle is located, an update relating to a booking of the vehicle, any other update, or a combination thereof (See at least paragraphs 115-124, 86-99, and 168 which describe providing users with food truck vendor feedback, including changes in menu, locations, and availability).
With respect to claim 17, Nordstrom/Grigg/Rao/Alexander discloses all of the limitations of claim 14 as stated above. In addition, Nordstrom teaches:
Enabling the application to provide an alternate food truck option if the food truck option is unavailable to the customer device (See at least paragraphs 115-124, and 168 which describe alerting customers to food truck options upon being searched, wherein the alert includes favorited food trucks and other vendors when the favorite is not in the customer’s searched area).
With respect to claim 18, Nordstrom/Grigg/Rao/Alexander discloses all of the limitations of claim 14 as stated above. In addition, Nordstrom teaches:
Enabling a user of the customer device to establish a user profile including preferences associated with food items, locations, pricing, weather conditions, or a combination thereof, preferred by the user (See at least paragraphs 67, 100-113, 168, 182-186, and 410 which describe customers creating customer profiles, wherein the profiles include preferences for food items, locations, and specific vendors).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nordstrom, Grigg, Rao, and Alexander as applied to claim 1 as stated above, and further in view of Garden et al. (US 2020/0070717 A1) (hereinafter Garden).
With respect to claim 3, Nordstrom/Grigg/Rao/Alexander discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Nordstrom, Grigg, Rao, and Alexander do not explicitly disclose the following, however Garden teaches:
Wherein the processor is further configured to share the location of the vehicle associated with the food truck option via a global positioning sensor of the at least one global positioning sensor of the vehicle itself (See at least paragraphs 78 and 110, which describe mobile vendors, wherein the vendors’ trucks include GPS sensors and report their location to a managing service).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention to combine the system and method of tracking food trucks with GPS enabled devices, wherein the locations of the vehicles are provided to interested customers of Nordstrom, with the system and method of generating a recommendation of future locations for a food truck, wherein the future locations are based on transaction information, GPS measurements, customer requests, time of day, calendar day, and the type of items sold of Grigg, with the system and method of a server receiving food truck profile and location information, and users’ profile and location information, wherein the information includes current and historical locations of the food truck and users, forecasted events, and activities of the user devices, wherein the server generates a prediction of future locations for the food truck and suggests a route and stops for the food truck to reach an optimal group of users, and wherein the route is presented on a map of the food truck of Rao, with the system and method of a selected device transmitting a signal to a computing device, wherein the signal indicates a specific quantity of computer processor or memory resources to be used by the computing device to perform the processing and analysis of Alexander, with the system and method of tracking mobile vendors’ trucks using a built in GPS device of the truck of Garden. By tracking vehicle movements using a built in GPS sensor, a vendor would predictably have a means to report its location, without requiring the use of additional equipment.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nordstrom, Grigg, Rao, and Alexander as applied to claim 1 as stated above, and further in view of S, RH. (2014). Food truck rentals: The new strategies. Restaurant Hospitality, , n/a. Retrieved from https://dialog.proquest.com/professional/docview/1519976735?accountid=131444 (hereinafter RH).
With respect to claim 7, Nordstrom/Grigg/Rao/Alexander discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Nordstrom, Grigg, Rao, and Alexander do not explicitly disclose the following, however RH teaches:
Wherein the processor is further configured to enable a user of the customer device to book the food truck option and the vehicle for a selected period of time (See page 1 which describes an application service that allows for customers to browse a listing of available food trucks, and book a food truck for an event).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention to combine the system and method of tracking food trucks with GPS enabled devices, wherein the locations of the vehicles are provided to interested customers of Nordstrom, with the system and method of generating a recommendation of future locations for a food truck, wherein the future locations are based on transaction information, GPS measurements, customer requests, time of day, calendar day, and the type of items sold of Grigg, with the system and method of a server receiving food truck profile and location information, and users’ profile and location information, wherein the information includes current and historical locations of the food truck and users, forecasted events, and activities of the user devices, wherein the server generates a prediction of future locations for the food truck and suggests a route and stops for the food truck to reach an optimal group of users, and wherein the route is presented on a map of the food truck of Rao, with the system and method of a selected device transmitting a signal to a computing device, wherein the signal indicates a specific quantity of computer processor or memory resources to be used by the computing device to perform the processing and analysis of Alexander, with the system and method of an application service that allows for customers to browse a listing of available food trucks, and book a food truck for an event of RH. By allowing customers to browse and book food trucks for a period of time, such as an event, a management will predictably encourage additional commerce by providing food trucks an easy revenue stream.
Claims 8, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nordstrom, Grigg, Rao, and Alexander as applied to claims 1 and 14 as stated above, and further in view of Resheff et al. (US 2021/0035196 A1) (hereinafter Resheff).
With respect to claim 8, Nordstrom/Grigg/Rao/Alexander discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Nordstrom, Grigg, Rao, and Alexander do not explicitly disclose the following, however Resheff teaches:
Wherein the processor is further configured to provide, via the application, additional future locations of the vehicle associated with the food truck option over a period of time (See at least paragraphs 23, 31, and 49 which describe collecting location information for mobile merchants, wherein the location information is used to predict future locations of the merchant, and providing this information to potential customers).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention to combine the system and method of tracking food trucks with GPS enabled devices, wherein the locations of the vehicles are provided to interested customers of Nordstrom, with the system and method of generating a recommendation of future locations for a food truck, wherein the future locations are based on transaction information, GPS measurements, customer requests, time of day, calendar day, and the type of items sold of Grigg, with the system and method of a server receiving food truck profile and location information, and users’ profile and location information, wherein the information includes current and historical locations of the food truck and users, forecasted events, and activities of the user devices, wherein the server generates a prediction of future locations for the food truck and suggests a route and stops for the food truck to reach an optimal group of users, and wherein the route is presented on a map of the food truck of Rao, with the system and method of a selected device transmitting a signal to a computing device, wherein the signal indicates a specific quantity of computer processor or memory resources to be used by the computing device to perform the processing and analysis of Alexander, with the system and method of collecting location information for mobile merchants, wherein the location information is used to predict future locations of the merchant, and providing this information to potential customers of Resheff. By determining future locations of food trucks and providing these locations to customers, customers will predictably be able to identify locations where trucks will be, and thus determine the optimal location merchant to pick that aligns with their planned travel.
With respect to claim 12, Nordstrom/Grigg/Rao/Alexander discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Nordstrom, Grigg, Rao, and Alexander do not explicitly disclose the following, however Resheff teaches:
Wherein the processor is further configured to display a wait time for a user of the customer device to obtain an order of a food item (See at least paragraph 49 which describes providing customers with wait times for food trucks).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention to combine the system and method of tracking food trucks with GPS enabled devices, wherein the locations of the vehicles are provided to interested customers of Nordstrom, with the system and method of generating a recommendation of future locations for a food truck, wherein the future locations are based on transaction information, GPS measurements, customer requests, time of day, calendar day, and the type of items sold of Grigg, with the system and method of a server receiving food truck profile and location information, and users’ profile and location information, wherein the information includes current and historical locations of the food truck and users, forecasted events, and activities of the user devices, wherein the server generates a prediction of future locations for the food truck and suggests a route and stops for the food truck to reach an optimal group of users, and wherein the route is presented on a map of the food truck of Rao, with the system and method of a selected device transmitting a signal to a computing device, wherein the signal indicates a specific quantity of computer processor or memory resources to be used by the computing device to perform the processing and analysis of Alexander, with the system and method of providing customers with wait times for food trucks of Resheff. By providing customers with food truck information, such as wait times, a customer will predictably be able to make the optimal choice for selecting a food truck to conduct business with, as they will find the merchants that satisfy their preferences.
With respect to claim 19, Nordstrom/Grigg/Rao/Alexander discloses all of the limitations of claim 14 as stated above. Nordstrom, Grigg, Rao, and Alexander do not explicitly disclose the following, however Resheff teaches:
Forecasting demand for a business associated with the food truck option based on aggregated data from a plurality of customer devices including the customer device that have ordered from the business (See at least paragraphs 23, 26, 31, 49, 50, and 172 which describe determining expected wait times (e.g. demand) and service locations based on transaction data of user devices and merchant data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention to combine the system and method of tracking food trucks with GPS enabled devices, wherein the locations of the vehicles are provided to interested customers of Nordstrom, with the system and method of generating a recommendation of future locations for a food truck, wherein the future locations are based on transaction information, GPS measurements, customer requests, time of day, calendar day, and the type of items sold of Grigg, with the system and method of a server receiving food truck profile and location information, and users’ profile and location information, wherein the information includes current and historical locations of the food truck and users, forecasted events, and activities of the user devices, wherein the server generates a prediction of future locations for the food truck and suggests a route and stops for the food truck to reach an optimal group of users, and wherein the route is presented on a map of the food truck of Rao, with the system and method of a selected device transmitting a signal to a computing device, wherein the signal indicates a specific quantity of computer processor or memory resources to be used by the computing device to perform the processing and analysis of Alexander, with the system and method of determining expected wait times (e.g. demand) and service locations based on transaction data of user devices and merchant data of Resheff. By providing customers with food truck information, such as wait times, a customer will predictably be able to make the optimal choice for selecting a food truck to conduct business with, as they will find the merchants that satisfy their preferences.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nordstrom, Grigg, Rao, and Alexander as applied to claim 1 as stated above, and further in view of Amin et al. (US 2014/0129951 A1) (hereinafter Amin)
With respect to claim 11, Nordstrom/Grigg/Rao/Alexander discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Nordstrom, Grigg, Rao, and Alexander do not explicitly disclose the following, however Amin teaches:
Wherein the processor is further configured to enable third party application programming interface integration with the application (See at least paragraph 93 which describe a system and method of allowing a customer to search for services using an application, wherein the application enables third party APIs to be integrated within it).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention to combine the system and method of tracking food trucks with GPS enabled devices, wherein the locations of the vehicles are provided to interested customers of Nordstrom, with the system and method of generating a recommendation of future locations for a food truck, wherein the future locations are based on transaction information, GPS measurements, customer requests, time of day, calendar day, and the type of items sold of Grigg, with the system and method of a server receiving food truck profile and location information, and users’ profile and location information, wherein the information includes current and historical locations of the food truck and users, forecasted events, and activities of the user devices, wherein the server generates a prediction of future locations for the food truck and suggests a route and stops for the food truck to reach an optimal group of users, and wherein the route is presented on a map of the food truck of Rao, with the system and method of a selected device transmitting a signal to a computing device, wherein the signal indicates a specific quantity of computer processor or memory resources to be used by the computing device to perform the processing and analysis of Alexander, with the system and method of allowing a customer to search for services using an application, wherein the application enables third party APIs to be integrated within it of Amin. By implementing third party APIs into an application, the food truck finder of Nordtrom will predictably be able to receive input and information using known methods.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nordstrom, Grigg, Rao, and Alexander as applied to claim 1 as stated above, and further in view of Goldberg et al. (US 2019/0050952 A1) (hereinafter Goldberg).
With respect to claim 13, Nordstrom/Grigg/Rao/Alexander discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Nordstrom, Grigg, Rao, and Alexander does not explicitly disclose the following, however Goldberg teaches:
Wherein the processor is configured to initiate preparation of a food item ordered via the application based on a current customer device location of the customer device of a user (See at least paragraphs 56-57 and 62 which describe a food truck initiating food preparation for an order based on the location of the customer device and the ETA to the food truck).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention to combine the system and method of tracking food trucks with GPS enabled devices, wherein the locations of the vehicles are provided to interested customers of Nordstrom, with the system and method of generating a recommendation of future locations for a food truck, wherein the future locations are based on transaction information, GPS measurements, customer requests, time of day, calendar day, and the type of items sold of Grigg, with the system and method of a server receiving food truck profile and location information, and users’ profile and location information, wherein the information includes current and historical locations of the food truck and users, forecasted events, and activities of the user devices, wherein the server generates a prediction of future locations for the food truck and suggests a route and stops for the food truck to reach an optimal group of users, and wherein the route is presented on a map of the food truck of Rao, with the system and method of a selected device transmitting a signal to a computing device, wherein the signal indicates a specific quantity of computer processor or memory resources to be used by the computing device to perform the processing and analysis of Alexander, with the system and method of a food truck initiating food preparation for an order based on the location of the customer device and the ETA to the food truck of Goldberg. By initiating food preparation for an order based on the customer location and ETA to the truck, a vendor will predictably be able to determine the optimal time for cooking food, and thus, provide food to customers at the optimal temperature.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nordstrom, Grigg, Rao, and Alexander as applied to claim 14 as stated above, and further in view of Postrel (US 2012/0271717 A1) (hereinafter Postrel).
With respect to claim 15, Nordstrom/Grigg/Rao/Alexander discloses all of the limitations of claim 14 as stated above. Nordstrom, Grigg, Rao, and Alexander do not explicitly disclose the following, however Postrel teaches:
Generating a signal indicating expected future locations of a plurality of customer devices including the customer device (See at least paragraphs 56, 61, 63, 67, and 68 which describe tracking customer real-time locations, wherein the location information is used to predict future locations and a destination, and wherein the management system generates incentives and advertisements for merchants in proximity of the predicted future locations).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention to combine the system and method of tracking food trucks with GPS enabled devices, wherein the locations of the vehicles are provided to interested customers of Nordstrom, with the system and method of generating a recommendation of future locations for a food truck, wherein the future locations are based on transaction information, GPS measurements, customer requests, time of day, calendar day, and the type of items sold of Grigg, with the system and method of a server receiving food truck profile and location information, and users’ profile and location information, wherein the information includes current and historical locations of the food truck and users, forecasted events, and activities of the user devices, wherein the server generates a prediction of future locations for the food truck and suggests a route and stops for the food truck to reach an optimal group of users, and wherein the route is presented on a map of the food truck of Rao, with the system and method of a selected device transmitting a signal to a computing device, wherein the signal indicates a specific quantity of computer processor or memory resources to be used by the computing device to perform the processing and analysis of Alexander, with the system and method of tracking customer real-time locations, wherein the location information is used to predict future locations and a destination, and wherein the management system generates incentives and advertisements for merchants in proximity of the predicted future locations of Postrel. By predicting future locations and using this information to determine vendor incentives and advertisements, a managing system will predictably be able to determine optimal vendors to advertise to a user in a manner that would encourage additional commercial actions.
With respect to claim 16, the combination of Nordstrom, Grigg, Rao, Alexander, and Postrel discloses all of the limitations of claims 14 and 15 as stated above. In addition, Nordstrom teaches:
Setting an optimal future location of the vehicle associated with the food truck option based on the expected future locations of the plurality of customer devices (See at least paragraphs 34, 37, 38, 136, 139, 146, and 147 which describes determining the optimal position of a food truck based on customer searches and potential customer location information).
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 MICHAEL P HARRINGTON whose telephone number is (571)270-1365. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 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, Jeffrey Zimmerman can be reached at (571)-272-4602. 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.
Michael Harrington
Primary Patent Examiner
14 September 2026
Art Unit 3628
/MICHAEL P HARRINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights