Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of claims
Applicant's submission filed on 3/25/25 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 5-11, 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwantes et al. (US 20190304004 A1), in view of KELLSTRAND et al. (2013/0311230 A1), in view of KEITH (WO 2013142209 A1), in further view of Dal Mutto et al. (US 20190108396 A1).
Re-claim 1, Schwantes et al. teach a system for third-party shopper exit verification, the system comprises:
- a store user device in a retail store; a network interface; a third-party shopper database; and
a central computer system, the central computer system comprising a control circuit configured to:
--provide, via the network interface to a third-party shopper device of a third-party shopper executing a third-party shopper application, items in a customer order to be collected by a third-party shopper from the retail store;
(see e.g. [0015] The online concierge system 102 is configured to transmit orders received from customers 104 to one or more shoppers 108. A shopper 108 may be a contractor, employee, or other person (or entity) who is enabled to fulfill orders received from the online concierge system 102. shoppers 108 make use of a shopper mobile application 112 which is configured to interact with the online concierge system 102.
[0018] Additionally, the shopper management engine 210 accesses a shopper database 212 which stores information describing each shopper 108, such as his/her name, gender, rating, previous shopping history, and so on. The shopper management engine 210 transmits the list of items in the order to the shopper 108 via the shopper mobile application 112.
[0040] In response to receiving the order authorization 526, the online concierge system 102 assigns 528 the order to a shopper 108.)
--detect a completion of a shopping trip for the customer order;
(see e.g..[0041] In this embodiment, the shopper 108 scans the items with the SMA 112 to compile the basket 536, which the online concierge system 102 uses to determine the transaction log 412. For example, as discussed above, the shopper 108 may scan each item with a mobile device, and the barcode scanning module 320 provides information describing each picked and scanned item to the basket manager 322, which maintains a list of the picked items in the basket 536. The SMA 112 transfers the basket 536 to the online concierge system 102.)
--retrieve third-party shopper information associated with the third-party shopper from the third-party shopper database; and
(see e.g. [0018] Additionally, the shopper management engine 210 accesses a shopper database 212 which stores information describing each shopper 108, such as his/her name, gender, rating, previous shopping history, and so on.
Schwantes et al., do not teach the following limitation as claimed.
However, KELLYSTRAND et al. teach –
--determine whether to initiate an in-store audit process based at least on the third-party shopper information
(see e.g. [0024] In some implementations, audit module 102 may determine whether the in-trip audit should occur further based on past shopping trips and/or audit history of shoppers.
[0019] FIG. 1 illustrates a block diagram of a system 100 for initiating an in-trip audit, in accordance with various embodiments of the present invention. An "in-trip audit" includes an audit that is initiated during a shopping trip.) (As in Schwantes et al.)
--in the event that the audit process is required: --cause an audit request to display on the store user device; and
(see e.g. [0031] In some implementations, audit module 102 and/or administrative module 104 may cause self-scan device 108 to indicate that a partial in-trip audit, a full in-trip audit, or no audit should occur irrespective of the audit parameter or the probability. In these implementations, checkout terminal 110 may receive the indication and determine whether the in-trip audit should occur. For example, audit module 102 and/or administrative module 104 may cause self-scan device 108 to display a special checkout barcode that encodes the indication. Checkout terminal 110 may read the special checkout barcode and act accordingly.)
[0035] In some implementations, during the shopping trip, audit module 102 may monitor audit parameters such as a number of scanned and/or voided items, time between scans, and/or other audit parameters. In some of these implementations, prior to checkout, audit module 102 may determine whether an in-trip audit should occur.)
--in the event that the audit process is not required: cause an exit instruction to be displayed on the third-party shopper device.
(see e.g. [0044] In operation 208, if the audit score does not exceed or is not below the predefined audit threshold, process 200 may proceed to an operation 212, which may include determining that the in-trip audit should not occur.
[0031] In some implementations, audit module 102 and/or administrative module 104 may cause self-scan device 108 to indicate that a partial in-trip audit, a full in-trip audit, or no audit should occur irrespective of the audit parameter or the probability. Checkout terminal 110 may read the special checkout barcode and act accordingly.)
***The Examiner notes if the indication is ‘no audit’, then accordingly, the shopper will be allowed to exit based on the checkout barcode indicating ‘no exit’.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Schwantes et al., and include the steps cited above, as taught by KELLYSTRAND et al., in order to have an ability to perform such audits on an in-trip basis that makes binary determinations of whether to audit. (see e.g. [0005]).
Schwantes et al., in view of KELLYSTRAND et al., do not teach the following limitation as claimed.
However, KEITH teaches --determine whether the third-party shopper passes the audit process […] before the third-party shopper exits the store; and
--causes an exit pass for exiting the store to be displayed on the third-party shopper device if the third-party shopper passes the audit process in-store;
(see e.g. [0024] generating in response to the successful purchase of said one or more goods or services via the identified payment means a unique code, said unique code associated with said data record such that said unique code contains a link to said data record; transmitting said unique code to the consumer's mobile device for use by the consumer to verify to the retailer the purchase of said one or more goods or services.
[0026] In a related embodiment, the code is in the form of a quick response ("QR") code.
[0060] In the preferred embodiment, the QR code is used only for verification purposes and not payment.
[0057] [0058] This QR-coded digital receipt is scanned for verification by the retailer through the use of a companion verification application residing on the retailer's electronic device. In the preferred embodiment, the retailer verification component is fully mobile and may be used by a live associate anywhere in-store, such as at a designated service desk, near the exit doors, or throughout the store by an associate while walking around tending to shoppers and performing daily tasks.
[0089] In particular, once all transaction items are successfully completed, the service provider web API returns a unique, transaction specific QR code for display on the consumer's mobile device, such as a smart phone. As discussed in additional detail below, in a preferred embodiment the QR code contains embedded therein a token in the form of a Uniform Resource Location (URL) string that links to information regarding the purchase of goods and services.
[0090] At step 216, the consumer presents the unique code to the retailer to verify the purchase. Once the service provider web API sends the unique code to the consumer, the consumer's device makes the code available for capture by the retailer, who can then use the code to verify the purchase of goods and services. In the preferred embodiment, the app visually displays the unique code, in this instance a QR code, on the shopper's mobile device so that the shopper may exit the store with confidence that his or her transaction was successfully completed. )
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Schwantes et al., in view of KELLYSTRAND et al., and include the steps cited above, as taught by KEITH, in order to ensure that the consumer is not engaging in theft of goods or services (see e.g. [0059]).
Schwantes et al., in view of KELLYSTRAND et al., in view of KEITH, do not teach the following limitation as claimed.
KEITH et al. teach determining that the third-party shopper passes the audit process before the third-party shopper exits the store; (i.e. the successful purchase) and send the exit pass to the shopper.
KEITH et al.’s determination of a passed audit (successful purchase) is not based on the comparison of item identifiers.
However, Dal Mutto et al. teach –--receive item identifiers of items in possession of the third-party shopper scanned in-store at the store user device
determine whether the third-party shopper passes the audit process based on comparing item identifiers of items in possession of the third-party shopper and scanned in-store during the audit process with items in the customer order
(see e.g. [0187] For example, in some embodiments of the present invention, the system may be directly applied to the verification of packing lists of items in a warehouse picking process. For example, a customer may place an order with mail order or internet retailer to purchase several items. A warehouse picker (e.g., a human or a robot) may navigate the aisles and shelves of a warehouse to gather the items ordered by the customer in order to fill the order. Accordingly, in some embodiments of the present invention, the scanning systems 99 scan the carts and the objects collected by the pickers to ensure that the picked items match the items on the customer's order. Furthermore, object identification, when executed on a packed box, can be used to verify that the box contains the items ordered by the user (and not other items).
[0020] The one or more objects may be components of an order to be shipped, and the memory of the analysis agent may further store instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: retrieve a shipping manifest including a list of one or more items expected to be included in the order to be shipped; compare the metadata identifying the one or more objects to the list of one or more items of the shipping manifest; and detect differences between the list of expected components and the metadata of the one or more objects.
[0079].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Schwantes et al., in view of KELLYSTRAND et al., in view of KEITH, and include the steps cited above, as taught by Dal Mutto et al., in order to ensure that the picked items match the items on the customer's order. (see e.g. [0187]).
Re-claim 5, Schwantes et al. teach the system of claim 1, wherein the central computer system is further configured to: provide a shopping list of items associated with the customer order to the third-party shopper;
(see e.g. [0015] The online concierge system 102 is configured to transmit orders received from customers 104 to one or more shoppers 108. A shopper 108 may be a contractor, employee, or other person (or entity) who is enabled to fulfill orders received from the online concierge system 102.
and receive, from the third-party shopper application, item identifiers associated with items on the item list; wherein the completion of the shopping trip is detected based on the item identifiers received from the third-party shopper application.
[0015] Each shopper 108 fulfills an order received from the online concierge system 102 at one or more retailers 110, delivers the order to the customer 104, or performs both fulfillment and delivery. In one embodiment, shoppers 108 make use of a shopper mobile application 112 which is configured to interact with the online concierge system 102.
[0022] FIG. 3B is a diagram of the shopper mobile application (SMA) 112, according to one embodiment. ---The SMA 112 also includes a basket manager 322 which maintains a running record of items collected by the shopper 108 for purchase at a retailer 110. This running record of items is commonly known as a “basket”. In one embodiment, the barcode scanning module 320 transmits information describing each item (such as its cost, quantity, weight, etc.) to the basket manager 322, which updates its basket accordingly. The SMA 112 also includes a system communication interface 324 which interacts with the online concierge system 102. For example, the system communication interface 324 receives an order from the online concierge system 102 and transmits the contents of a basket of items to the online concierge system 102. The SMA 112 also includes an image encoder 326 which encodes the contents of a basket into an image. For example, the image encoder 326 may encode a basket of goods (with an identification of each item) into a QR code which can then be scanned by an employee of the retailer 110 at check-out.
[0030] In one embodiment, the SMA 112 transmits the basket to the online concierge system 102, which uses the items in the basket to generate the transaction log 412 for a picked order. In another embodiment, a retailer 110 scans the items picked by the shopper 108 and transmits a list of items or the transaction log to the online concierge system 102.)
Re-claims 6, 7, Schwantes et al., do not teach the following limitations.
However, KELLSTRAND et al. teach the system of claim 1, wherein whether to initiate the audit process is determined based on a number of completed shopping trips by the third-party shopper, a length of third-party shopper account history, and/or past audit results associated with the third-party shopper.
(see e.g. [0024] In some implementations, audit module 102 may determine whether the in-trip audit should occur further based on past shopping trips and/or audit history of shoppers.)
--wherein whether to initiate the audit process is further determined based on a total cost of the customer order, costs of items in the customer order, and item types in the customer order.
(see e.g. [0021] In some implementations, audit module 102 may receive an audit parameter and compare the audit parameter to a predefined audit threshold. The audit parameter may include, for example, the duration of a shopping trip, a number of scans or voids (e.g., scanned then removed items) during the shopping trip, a number or value (e.g., price) of items scanned during the shopping trip, and/or a number of consecutive shopping trips having a low number or value of scanned items. In some implementations, the predefined audit threshold may be variable depending on the type of item being scanned. For example, the threshold for voiding particular types of items such as seafood or deli items may be less than for other types of items. In a particular example, voiding two seafood or deli items may cause the in-trip audit to occur whereas voiding two canned goods may not cause the in-trip audit to occur.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Schwantes et al., and include the steps cited above, as taught by KELLSTRAND et al., in order to determine a probability that the in-trip audit should still occur (see e.g. [0025] and also to insure all shoppers are audited at least periodically. (see e.g. [0012]).
Re-claims 8, 9, Schwantes et al., in view of KELLSTRAND et al., teach the system of claim 1, but do not teach the following limitations.
However, KEITH et al. explicitly teach wherein the exit instruction comprises an exit pass including a machine-readable optical code displayed on the third-party shopper device.
[0026] In a related embodiment, the code is in the form of a quick response ("QR") code.
[0060] In the preferred embodiment, the QR code is used only for verification purposes and not payment.
[0057] [0058] This QR-coded digital receipt is scanned for verification by the retailer through the use of a companion verification application residing on the retailer's electronic device. In the preferred embodiment, the retailer verification component is fully mobile and may be used by a live associate anywhere in-store, such as at a designated service desk, near the exit doors, or throughout the store by an associate while walking around tending to shoppers and performing daily tasks.
The system of claim 8, further comprises: an exit device with an optical code scanner, wherein the exit device is configured to provide a visual indication of whether the third-party shopper is verified to exit the retail store based on scanning the machine-readable optical code of the exit pass.
[0090] At step 216, the consumer presents the unique code to the retailer to verify the purchase. Once the service provider web API sends the unique code to the consumer, the consumer's device makes the code available for capture by the retailer, who can then use the code to verify the purchase of goods and services. In the preferred embodiment, the app visually displays the unique code, in this instance a QR code, on the shopper's mobile device so that the shopper may exit the store with confidence that his or her transaction was successfully completed. )
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Schwantes et al., in view of KELLYSTRAND et al., and include the steps cited above, as taught by KEITH , in order to ensure that the consumer is not engaging in theft of goods or services (see e.g. [0059]).
Re-claim 10, Schwantes et al. teach the system of claim 1, wherein the customer order is a pre-paid order or a pre- authorized payment order placed by a customer other than the third-party shopper;
(see e.g. [0036] The online concierge system 102 transmits the payment amount, the token, and any other customer information (e.g., name on card, security code, card type) to the identified payment processing system 502. The order processing engine 102 may also transmit an instruction to the payment processing system 502 to put a hold on the customer's payment card based on the payment amount and payment information, and to confirm the order.
[0037] - [0039] In response to the payment information and order amount 516, the payment processing system 502 initiates a hold order 518 for the payment amount indicated by the online concierge system 102 on the customer's payment card. The payment processing system 502 transmits a hold request 520 to a credit card company 504 for the amount and the payment card.)
--and wherein the central computer system is further configured to cause the third-party shopper device to display delivery instructions for the customer order.
[0019] As part of fulfilling an order, the order fulfillment engine 206 may access a customer database 214 which stores information describing each customer. This information could include each customer's name, address, gender, shopping preferences, favorite items, stored payment instruments, and so on.
[0021] The preferences management interface 306 may also allow the user to manage other details such as his/her favorite or preferred retailers 110, preferred delivery times, special instructions for delivery, and so on
[0015] The online concierge system 102 is configured to transmit orders received from customers 104 to one or more shoppers 108. A shopper 108 may be a contractor, employee, or other person (or entity) who is enabled to fulfill orders received from the online concierge system 102. -- Each shopper 108 fulfills an order received from the online concierge system 102 at one or more retailers 110, delivers the order to the customer 104, or performs both fulfillment and delivery. In one embodiment, shoppers 108 make use of a shopper mobile application 112 which is configured to interact with the online concierge system 102.)
Note: in order for the shopper to deliver the order, it is anticipated that the delivery instructions are conveyed to the shopper.
Claim 11 recites similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected under the same arts and rationale.
Claim 15 recites similar limitations as claim 5 and is therefore rejected under the same arts and rationale.
Claim 16 recites similar limitations as claim 6 and is therefore rejected under the same arts and rationale.
Claim 17 recites similar limitations as claim 7 and is therefore rejected under the same arts and rationale.
Claim 18 recites similar limitations as claim 8 and is therefore rejected under the same arts and rationale.
Claim 19 recites similar limitations as claim 9 and is therefore rejected under the same arts and rationale.
Claim 20 recites similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected under the same arts and rationale.
Claims 2, 3, 4, 12, 13, 14, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwantes et al. (US 20190304004 A1), in view of KELLSTRAND et al. (2013/0311230 A1), in view of KEITH (WO 2013142209 A1), in view of Dal Mutto et al. (US 20190108396 A1),, in further view of Karlsson (US 20160292677 A1).
Re-claims 2, 3, Schwantes et al., in view of KELLSTRAND et al., in view of KEITH , in view of Dal Mutto et al. teach the system of claim 1, but do not teach the following limitations.
However, Karlsson teaches the system of claim 1, further comprises: a self-checkout terminal, wherein the completion of the shopping trip is detected based on receiving a terminal identifier associated with the self-checkout terminal from the third-party shopper device. -- wherein the self-checkout terminal is configured to display the terminal identifier as a machine-readable optical code scannable by the third-party shopper device.
(see e.g. [0021] [0136] Client C scans check-out code 12 located adjacent to POS terminal 2. Client C decodes check-out 12 code and extracts the POS terminal identifier (see FIG. 14B). Client C then calls server 1, providing the POS terminal identifier and requests a check-out session at the identified POS terminal 2. [0111] By scanning check-out codes 12, placed at one of the cash desks in the store (17), user ends the shopping session and starts a check-out session. When the check-out session has ended a digital receipt 8 is generated and may be displayed in display 300 of client C.
[0011] According to further aspect to the invention said logic stored on the costumer device is arranged to electronically identify a check-out code and to use said check-out code to connect to a point-of-sale terminal for completion of a sale, which provides the advantage that reliable and easy handled checking out/payment may be achieved. [0130] r. When self-service shopping session ends, user U scans check-out code 12, e.g. located adjacent to one of the POS terminals 2 by means of logic 4. [0136] Client C scans check-out code 12 located adjacent to POS terminal 2. Client C decodes check-out 12 code and extracts the POS terminal identifier (see FIG. 14B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Schwantes et al., in view of KELLSTRAND et al., in view of KEITH , in view of Dal Mutto et al., and include the steps cited above, as taught by Karlsson, in order to provides the advantage that reliable and easy handled checking out/payment may be achieved.(see e.g. Karlsson [0011]).
Claim 12 recites similar limitations as claim 2 and is therefore rejected under the same arts and rationale.
Claim 13 recites similar limitations as claim 3 and is therefore rejected under the same arts and rationale.
Claim 14 recites similar limitations as claim 4 and is therefore rejected under the same arts and rationale.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument:
Thus, no cited reference or combination thereof discloses receiving "item identifiers of items in possession of the third-party shopper scanned in-store at the store user device" during an in-store audit process and determining "whether the third-party shopper passes the audit process based on comparing the item identifiers of items in possession of the third-party shopper with items in the customer order before the third-party shopper exits the store"
Examiner’s response:
The Examiner notes that Schwantes et al. already teach sending scanned items to the online system.
Schwantes et al. teach (in e.g..[0041] In this embodiment, the shopper 108 scans the items with the SMA 112 to compile the basket 536, which the online concierge system 102 uses to determine the transaction log 412. For example, as discussed above, the shopper 108 may scan each item with a mobile device, and the barcode scanning module 320 provides information describing each picked and scanned item to the basket manager 322, which maintains a list of the picked items in the basket 536. The SMA 112 transfers the basket 536 to the online concierge system 102.)
*****Note: scanning an item entails retrieving its identification.
The new reference Dal Mutto et al. further teaches matching items from the customer list with scanned items at the store using an object identification technique.
Applicant’s argument:
Therefore, absent hindsight, it would not have been obvious for a person of ordinary skilled in the art to combine the references as asserted in the Office Action.
Examiner’s response:
Applicants contention that the rejection relies on hindsight reconstruction is unavailing. It must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But, whereas here, the rejection takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Further, reason for the modification/combination need not appear in one or more of relied upon references. Instead, the examiner when analyzing the evidence may employ common sense not inconsistent with the ordinary level of knowledge and skill in the art at the time of the invention. See Perfect Web Techs. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1328-29 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Reliance on common sense does not imply the use of impermissible hindsight.
Schwantes et al. teach: An online concierge system receives an order from a customer with a list of items and allocates the order to a retailer at which the items can be picked.
KELLYSTRAND et al. teach “The system and method described herein may be used to make a binary determination of whether to initiate an in-trip audit of self-scans in a self-checkout system.”
Keith et al. teach: the app visually displays the unique code, in this instance a QR code, on the shopper's mobile device so that the shopper may exit the store with confidence that his or her transaction was successfully completed. )
Dal Mutto et al. teach the scanning systems 99 scan the carts and the objects collected by the pickers to ensure that the picked items match the items on the customer's order.
Therefore, it is clear that the rejection takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 LUNA CHAMPAGNE whose telephone number is (571)272-7177. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Florian Zeender can be reached on 571 272-6790. 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.
/LUNA CHAMPAGNE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
September 11, 2025