Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-5, 8-22 are presented for examination. Claims 1, 10, 17, and 18 are amended. Claims 6 and 7 are cancelled. Claims 21 and 22 are new. This office action is response to the applicant’s response submitted on 7/23/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 10 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. Although neither Belveal et al. (US20170085390A1) or Sugawara et al. (JP2020038484A) disclose that the payments to/from the primary and secondary users of the app are handled within the same app or that both user’s accounts are maintained in the same remote computing device, Kumar et al. (US10740715B1) does disclose this limitation as described below in the Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 section.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 21 and 22 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. Although neither Belveal et al. (US20170085390A1) or Sugawara et al. (JP2020038484A) disclose the additional details of the transactions cited, Kumar et al. (US10740715B1) and Winters et al. (US20190172050A1) disclose this limitation as described below in the Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 section.
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.
Claims 1-5, 8-9, 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belveal et al. (US20170085390A1), in view of Sugawara et al. (JP2020038484A), further in view of Kumar et al. (US10740715B1), further in view of Iacono et al. (US20180260883A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Belveal teaches “A method of operating a laundry appliance, the method comprising: initiating an operation cycle of the laundry appliance in response to a command from a primary user via a first remote user interface device;” (Belveal [0088] "The customer application 310 may be configured to enable the user 102 to send one or more service request(s) 502 to request additional service(s) to be performed with respect to the user's laundry. For example, the service request(s) 502 may request one or more of the following: addition of time to a laundry machine 112, such as more drying time or an additional wash cycle; addition of detergent, fabric softener, dryer sheet(s), or other items to a laundry machine 112; movement of laundry from one laundry machine 112 to another, such as moving laundry from a washer to a dryer and starting a dry cycle"),
“determining the operation cycle is within a completion threshold” (Belveal [0139] "The management module(s) 206 may determine that a laundry cycle, or other predetermined operational period of time, has expired on a laundry machine 112 being used by a user 102."),
“and the first remote user interface device is more than a predetermined threshold distance away from the laundry appliance;” (Belveal [0038] "The user device may detect the beacon signal through a wireless network interface of the user device and, based on the received signal level being at least a threshold level, the customer application may determine that the user device is within a threshold distance of the laundry machine"),
“providing a prompt on the first remote user interface device” (The customer application has the ability to present a notification to the user as described in Belveal [0083] "the customer application 310 may present a notification"),
“because the operation cycle is within the completion threshold and the first remote user interface device is more than the predetermined threshold distance away from the laundry appliance,” (Belveal describes the user submitting service requests while away from the laundromat in Belveal [0090] "the user 102 may start one or more loads of laundry and leave the laundromat 100 to go to their home, their office, a store, a coffee shop, or elsewhere, and the user 102 may submit service request(s) 502 for further handling of their laundry while the user 102 is not present in the laundromat 100."
Belveal describes detecting whether a user is near the laundromat in Belveal [0057] "Based on the detection of the beacon signal by a wireless network interface of the mobile device 104, the customer application may determine that the mobile device 104 is within a threshold distance of the doors 106. For example, the customer application may infer that the mobile device 104 is within a threshold distance of the doors 106 based at least in part on a received signal level (e.g., signal strength) of the beacon signal."
Belveal Fig. 12 teaches the management server 204 sending a status notification 1204 to the user device 104a because a laundry cycle has completed. In response to that notification, the user may decide to request an additional service 1208.
PNG
media_image1.png
584
735
media_image1.png
Greyscale
),
“the prompt on the first remote user interface device comprising a delivery inquiry;” (Belveal [0088] "The customer application 310 may be configured to enable the user 102 to send one or more service request(s) 502 to request additional service(s) to be performed with respect to the user's laundry. For example, the service request(s) 502 may request one or more of the following: addition of time to a laundry machine 112, such as more drying time or an additional wash cycle; addition of detergent, fabric softener, dryer sheet(s), or other items to a laundry machine 112; movement of laundry from one laundry machine 112 to another, such as moving laundry from a washer to a dryer and starting a dry cycle; removal of laundry from a laundry machine 112; folding of laundry; storage of laundry pending the return of the user 102; delivery of laundry to the user's home or other location, and so forth. "
The customer application has the ability to present a notification to the user as described in Belveal [0083] "the customer application 310 may present a notification", which could be a delivery service request.),
“receiving an affirmative response to the delivery inquiry;” (The customer application has the ability to present a notification to the user as described in Belveal [0083] "the customer application 310 may present a notification"
The notification may be a request for additional service as described in Belveal [0088] "The customer application 310 may be configured to enable the user 102 to send one or more service request(s) 502 to request additional service(s) to be performed with respect to the user's laundry."),
“locating a secondary user;” (Belveal [0141] "On receiving the service request(s) 1210, the management module(s) 206 may determine (1212) whether an attendant i.e. secondary user currently present at the laundromat 100. In some cases, a laundromat 100 may not be staffed with an attendant at all hours of the day. If it is determined that no attendant is currently available at the laundromat 100, the user 102 (e.g., the customer) may be notified (1222). For example, the management module(s) 206 may respond to the service request(s) 1210 with a message indicating, to the customer, that the additional service(s) are not currently available."),
“providing a prompt on a second remote user interface device associated with the secondary user after receiving the affirmative response to the delivery inquiry, the prompt on the second remote user interface device comprising a delivery request;” (Belveal [0142] "If an attendant is currently present at the laundromat 100, the management module(s) 206 may send (1214), or cause to be sent, one or more service instructions 1216 to be presented on an attendant device operated by the attendant (e.g., user 506). An attendant application executing on the attendant device (e.g., mobile device 104) may present (1218) the service instruction(s) 1216 to prompt the attendant to perform the additional service(s)"
The service instructions may be a delivery request as described in Belveal [0088] " For example, the service request(s) 502 may request one or more of the following... delivery of laundry to the user's home or other location").
Belveal does not appear to explicitly teach “receiving an affirmative response to the delivery request;”. However, Sugawara does teach this claim limitation (Sugawara teaches an agent i.e. secondary user pressing an accept button in order to accept the delivery request in Sugawara [0044-0045] "FIG. 16 is a schematic diagram showing an example of a request notification email sent to the agent terminal 5. As shown in FIG. As shown in FIG. 16, the request notification email will include the request details (the details entered on the request information registration page) as well as an order notification button (hyperlink) 703 labeled "Accept (receive) the request for service. The support server 1 is equipped with an order notification program 34, and the order notification button 703 serves as an execution button for the order notification program 34.").
Belveal does not appear to explicitly teach “providing a delivery confirmation on the first remote user interface device;”. However, Sugawara does teach this claim limitation (Sugawara [0048] "Although an illustration of the completion notification email is omitted, the email contains information that the laundry service provider has notified the user that the requested laundry service has been completed.").
Belveal and Sugawara are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of laundry methods. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having teachings of Belveal and Sugawara before him/her, to modify the teachings of a method of managing and controlling laundry machines of Belveal to include the teachings of a support system capable of ordering and receiving an order for laundry of Sugawara because adding the delivery request response and delivery confirmation of Sugawara would increase profitability of a laundromat because turnover rates will improve as described by Sugawara [0006] " As will be explained below, according to the invention described in claim 1 or 7 of the present application, people who have wanted to use a coin laundry but have been too busy to do so can now easily use a coin laundry by using a proxy service. This makes the service even more convenient for busy people, such as part-time housewives. In addition, for the substitutes, it means they can earn an income by making effective use of their spare time, which is beneficial for students and housewives who have relatively free time. Furthermore, coin laundry operators can expect increased profitability as turnover rates will improve.”
Belveal and Sugawara do not appear to explicitly teach “receiving a payment authorization from an instance of an application running on the first remote user interface device However, Kumar does teach this claim limitation (Kumar teaches the buyer being charged by service provider 103 and through buyer application 134 i.e. an application on the first remote user interface device in Kumar [Column 7 lines 52-57] "The buyer application 134 may further enable the buyer 110 to make a payment for an order using the buyer application 134. i.e. the buyer may authorize payment when ordering For instance, the service provider 104 may charge a buyer account associated with the buyer 110 for an amount associated with a particular order. In some examples, the buyer application 134 and the service computing device 102 may communicate with each other via one or more APIs."; Kumar teaches the application 134 being on a smart phone i.e. user interface device in Kumar [Column 7 lines 29-36] "buyers 110(1), 110(2), . . . 110(N) may be associated with respective buyer devices 132(1), 132(2), . . . 132(N) that may execute respective instances of buyer applications 134(1), 134(2), . . . 134(N). For example, buyers 110 may use buyer devices 132, such as smart phones, tablet computers, wearable computing devices, laptops, desktops, or the like, and these buyer devices 132 may have installed thereon the buyer application 134."),
“withdrawing money from a first account in a remote database via the application in response to the payment authorization, the first account owned by the primary user;” (Kumar teaches the order processing module charging the buyer’s account i.e. the first user’s account in Kumar [Column 8 lines 58-63] “The order processing module 140 may access a buyer account included in the buyer information 142 to charge a particular buyer account for a particular order. For instance, when a buyer signs up for service, or otherwise uses the service, the buyer may provide a credit card or other payment card information to enable the service provider to charge the account of the buyer for orders placed by the buyer.”),
“and applying a credit to a second account in the remote database via the application in response to the payment authorization, the second account associated with the secondary user.” (Kumar teaches the courier 120 i.e. secondary user being paid for the delivery job through order processing module 140 i.e. the payment transaction is mediated in a remote computing device in Kumar [Column 9 lines 25-32] "When the courier 120 has completed delivery of the combined order to the delivery location(s) 126, the courier 1220 may use the courier application 138 to inform the order processing module 140 that the delivery has been completed. The order processing module 140 may access a courier account included in courier information 146 for the particular courier 120 to credit the courier account of the particular courier 120 with payment for the delivery job."; Kumar Fig. 1 teaches the buyer app 134 and courier app 138 may communicate with the service computing device 102, which processes the charge and payment transactions in a remote computing device.
[AltContent: rect]
PNG
media_image2.png
594
895
media_image2.png
Greyscale
).
Belveal, Sugawara, and Kumar are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of delivery. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having teachings of Belveal, Sugawara, and Kumar before him/her, to modify the teachings of a method of managing and controlling laundry machines of Belveal modified to include the teachings of a support system capable of ordering and receiving an order for laundry of Sugawara to include the teachings of charging a buyer and paying a courier of Kumar because adding the system and environment to enable entities to utilize courier services provided by a service provider of Kumar would allow any person with a mobile device to immediately become a courier as described in Kumar [Column 2 lines 9-25] “Further, the technology herein can allow any person with a mobile device to immediately become a courier, or cease to be a courier, in a courier network that provides delivery services for delivery of items from merchants to buyers. Through the interaction of computing devices, mobile devices, and location sensors, implementations herein can manage an unpredictable sharing ecosystem in which a large number of people are able to start serving as couriers, or cease serving as couriers, as necessary, to accommodate ever changing circumstances and conditions of the merchants, the buyers, the service region, and the couriers themselves. Consequently, the technology disclosed herein may enable efficient crowdsourcing of courier services in an on-demand manner from a varying group of people for providing a delivery service to merchants and buyers, and which can further enable buyers to minimize delivery expenses by combining orders to be delivered by the couriers.”
Belveal, Sugawara, and Kumar do not appear to explicitly teach “receiving a payment authorization from an instance of an application running on the first remote user interface device after providing the delivery confirmation;” However, Iacano does teach this claim limitation (Iacano teaches that a user may provide payment at any time i.e. after providing delivery confirmation in Iacano [0056] "In any of these examples, a user may provide payment at any time, such as at the time of placing an order, while an item is being delivered, at the time of drop-off (e.g., interacting with a courier device), and so on."
Belveal, Sugawara, Kumar, and Iacano are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of delivery. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having teachings of Belveal, Sugawara, Kumar, and Iacano before him/her, to modify the teachings of a method of managing and controlling laundry machines of Belveal modified to include the teachings of a support system capable of ordering and receiving an order for laundry of Sugawara modified to include the system and environment to enable entities to utilize courier services provided by a service provider of Kumar to include the teachings of a user providing payment at any time of Iacano because adding the system and environment to enable entities to utilize courier services provided by a service provider of Iacano would allow the user to provide a card-less payment as described in Iacano [0057] “A user may provide payment through various method, such as cash, check, a payment card, Near Field Communication (NFC), Bluetooth®, an account, electronic payment, and so on. In some instances, the payment transaction module 214 enables card-less payments for transactions between a user and a merchant based on interaction of the user with a user device and interaction of the merchant with a merchant device. Accordingly, in some examples, a card-less payment transaction may include a transaction conducted at a POS location during which an electronic payment account of the user is charged without the user having to physically present a payment card to the merchant at the POS location. Consequently, the merchant need not receive any details about the financial account of the user for the transaction to be processed. As one example, the electronic payment may be charged to a credit card issuer or credit card number that the user provided when signing up with the service provider 102 for an electronic payment account. As another example, the user may have a quantity of money pre-paid in an account maintained for use in making the electronic payments. Other variations will also be apparent to those of skill in the art.”
Regarding Claim 2, Belveal in view of Sugawara, further in view of Kumar, further in view of Iacono also teaches “The method of claim 1, further comprising locking the laundry appliance after initiating the operation cycle” (Belveal [0091] "the door of the laundry machine 112 may automatically lock while a cycle is in progress"), and
“and unlocking the laundry appliance based on the affirmative response to the delivery request.” (Belveal [0082] "Altering the operational state may also include sending an instruction to the control module(s) 306 to cause the door of the laundry machine 112 to unlock, or to cause the control module(s) 306 to mechanically or electrically enable the laundry machine 112 to perform operations to process laundry.”).
Regarding Claim 3, Belveal in view of Sugawara, further in view of Kumar, further in view of Iacono also teaches “The method of claim 1, wherein locating the secondary user comprises identifying the secondary user based on a common residential zone with the primary user.” (Sugawara [0032] "More specifically, the agent information viewing program 38 searches the requester member information file using the requester member ID retained at the time of login, and obtains the address information of that member i.e. primary user. The address is then converted into latitude and longitude information, and the agent information file 22 is searched to obtain information on all agents i.e. secondary users whose addresses are within the area where the agent can perform services.").
Regarding Claim 4, Belveal in view of Sugawara, further in view of Kumar, further in view of Iacono also teaches “The method of claim 1, wherein the laundry appliance is a first laundry appliance, further comprising initiating an operation cycle of a second laundry appliance in response to a command from the second remote user interface device,” (Belveal [0088] "The customer application 310 may be configured to enable the user 102 to send one or more service request(s) 502 to request additional service(s) to be performed with respect to the user's laundry. For example, the service request(s) 502 may request one or more of the following: addition of time to a laundry machine 112, such as more drying time or an additional wash cycle; addition of detergent, fabric softener, dryer sheet(s), or other items to a laundry machine 112; movement of laundry from one laundry machine 112 to another, such as moving laundry from a washer to a dryer and starting a dry cycle;"
Belveal [0089] "The management module(s) 206 may access the service request(s) 502 received at the management server device(s) 204 and, if payment is processed successfully, the management module(s) 206 may generate one or more service instructions 504 that are sent to a mobile device 104 of a user i.e. secondary user 506."
Belveal [0089] "The service instruction(s) 504 may instruct the user 506 to perform the additional service(s) requested in the service request(s) 502.”),
“the second laundry appliance located in a common location with the first laundry appliance,” (Belveal Fig. 5 teaches washers being in the same laundromat as dryers.
PNG
media_image3.png
581
711
media_image3.png
Greyscale
),
“and wherein locating the secondary user comprises identifying the secondary user based on a completion time of the operation cycle of the second laundry appliance.” (Belveal teaches sending a request to an attendant i.e. a secondary user when a cycle completes in Belveal [0103] "Other information may also be considered, such as information indicating that the previous user 102 has requested that their laundry be removed from the laundry machine 112 by an attendant, or information that the previous user 102 of the laundry machine 112 is currently in the laundromat 100 and available to remove their laundry from the laundry machine 112 when the current cycle completes.").
Regarding Claim 5, Belveal in view of Sugawara, further in view of Kumar, further in view of Iacono also teaches “The method of claim 4, wherein the secondary user is identified based on determining the completion time of the operation cycle of the second laundry appliance is within a time limit of a completion time of the operation cycle of the first laundry appliance.” (Belveal teaches a first user reserving (i.e. a user being identified) an appliance based on a second user’s load finishing within the timeframe before the first user arrives in Belveal [0103] "In some implementations, when reserving a laundry machine 112, the management module(s) 206 may determine a laundry machine 112 to reserve based on information regarding when a current load is finishing and/or when a machine finishes (or is expected to finish) operating in a certain status or statuses. For example, all the laundry machines 112 in a laundromat 100 may be currently in use, but the status information 208 may indicate that one laundry machine 112 will be finishing in one minute. The management module(s) 206 may reserve that laundry machine 112, given that the current load is expected to finish by the time the reserving user 102 arrives. "
Regarding Claim 8, Belveal in view of Sugawara, further in view of Kumar, further in view of Iacono also teaches “The method of claim 1, wherein the laundry appliance is a dryer appliance.” (Belveal Fig. 5 [As shown above in claim 4] teaches that laundry machines 112 may be washers or dryers.).
Regarding Claim 9, Belveal in view of Sugawara, further in view of Kumar, further in view of Iacono also teaches “The method of claim 1, wherein the secondary user is a verified user,” (Sugawara teaches an agent i.e. secondary user inputting personal information which may be verified after the agent registers in Sugawara [0020] "Additionally, the agent member registration button 62 is linked to an agent member registration page. FIG. 6 is a schematic diagram showing an example of an agent member registration page. As shown in FIG. 6, the agent member registration page has a field for inputting personal information as well as a field 66 for inputting available areas."), and
“further comprising providing a verification of the secondary user to the first remote user interface device after receiving the affirmative response to the delivery request.” (Sugawara teaches the requester i.e. primary user selecting a substitute agent i.e. secondary user to complete the requested task in Sugawara [0059] "The support system can be configured so that a program on the support server 1 automatically extracts available substitutes from the substitute information file, but it is more flexible to make requests by checking the available substitute information before notifying the request, since the time can be changed according to the available substitute information. In addition, in this embodiment, the requester can select a specific agent from among the agents who are available to act on the request. This allows the user to, for example, request a proxy who they had a good impression of in the past, making the system ideal for making requests with peace of mind.").
Regarding Claim 17, Belveal in view of Sugawara, further in view of Kumar, further in view of Iacono also teaches “The method of claim 10, further comprising receiving a payment authorization from the first remote user interface device after providing the delivery confirmation (Kumar teaches the buyer 110 authorizing a payment using buyer application 134 i.e. an application on the first remote user interface device in Kumar [Column 7 lines 52-57] "The buyer application 134 may further enable the buyer 110 to make a payment for an order using the buyer application 134. For instance, the service provider 104 may charge a buyer account associated with the buyer 110 for an amount associated with a particular order. In some examples, the buyer application 134 and the service computing device 102 may communicate with each other via one or more APIs."; Kumar teaches the application 134 being on a smart phone i.e. a remote user interface device in Kumar [Column 7 lines 29-36] "buyers 110(1), 110(2), . . . 110(N) may be associated with respective buyer devices 132(1), 132(2), . . . 132(N) that may execute respective instances of buyer applications 134(1), 134(2), . . . 134(N). For example, buyers 110 may use buyer devices 132, such as smart phones, tablet computers, wearable computing devices, laptops, desktops, or the like, and these buyer devices 132 may have installed thereon the buyer application 134."), and
“The method of claim 10, further comprising receiving a payment authorization from the first remote user interface device after providing the delivery confirmation and before charging the primary user for delivery.” (Iacano teaches that a user may provide payment at any time i.e. after providing delivery confirmation in Iacano [0056] "In any of these examples, a user may provide payment at any time, such as at the time of placing an order, while an item is being delivered, at the time of drop-off (e.g., interacting with a courier device), and so on.").
Belveal, Sugawara, Kumar, and Iacano are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of delivery. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having teachings of Belveal, Sugawara, Kumar, and Iacano before him/her, to modify the teachings of a method of managing and controlling laundry machines of Belveal modified to include the teachings of a support system capable of ordering and receiving an order for laundry of Sugawara modified to include the system and environment to enable entities to utilize courier services provided by a service provider of Kumar to include the teachings of a user providing payment at any time of Iacano because adding the system and environment to enable entities to utilize courier services provided by a service provider of Iacano would allow the user to provide a card-less payment as described in Iacano [0057] “A user may provide payment through various method, such as cash, check, a payment card, Near Field Communication (NFC), Bluetooth®, an account, electronic payment, and so on. In some instances, the payment transaction module 214 enables card-less payments for transactions between a user and a merchant based on interaction of the user with a user device and interaction of the merchant with a merchant device. Accordingly, in some examples, a card-less payment transaction may include a transaction conducted at a POS location during which an electronic payment account of the user is charged without the user having to physically present a payment card to the merchant at the POS location. Consequently, the merchant need not receive any details about the financial account of the user for the transaction to be processed. As one example, the electronic payment may be charged to a credit card issuer or credit card number that the user provided when signing up with the service provider 102 for an electronic payment account. As another example, the user may have a quantity of money pre-paid in an account maintained for use in making the electronic payments. Other variations will also be apparent to those of skill in the art.”
Regarding Claim 18, Belveal in view of Sugawara, further in view of Kumar, further in view of Iacono also teaches “The method of claim 17, wherein the payment transaction comprises applying a credit to an account associated with the secondary user (Sugawara [0021] "Furthermore, although not shown, the agent member registration page is provided with an account information input field for inputting bank account information for receiving payment of the agency fee."; Sugawara teaches transferring the charged amount to the agent's i.e. secondary user's account at regular intervals, which could be done every time a requester i.e. first user provides a payment in Sugawara [0056] "The charges are then tallied at regular intervals (for example, every month). That is, the amount is tallied for each requester member ID and deducted from the deposit. In addition, the amount is totaled for each agent ID after deducting the commission fee, and the total amount is transferred to the agent's account."), and
“The method of claim 17, wherein the payment transaction comprises applying a credit to an account associated with the secondary user in the remote computing device in response to the payment authorization.” (Kumar teaches crediting a courier account included in courier information 146 through order processing module 140 i.e. the remote computing device in Kumar [Column 9 lines 25-32] "When the courier 120 has completed delivery of the combined order to the delivery location(s) 126, the courier 1220 may use the courier application 138 to inform the order processing module 140 that the delivery has been completed. The order processing module 140 may access a courier account included in courier information 146 for the particular courier 120 to credit the courier account of the particular courier 120 with payment for the delivery job.").
Claims 10-16, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belveal et al. (US20170085390A1), in view of Sugawara et al. (JP2020038484A), further in view of Kumar et al. (US10740715B1).
Regarding Claim 10, Belveal teaches “A method of operating a laundry appliance, the method comprising: initiating an operation cycle of the laundry appliance in response to a command from a primary user via a first remote user interface device;” (Belveal [0088] "The customer application 310 may be configured to enable the user 102 to send one or more service request(s) 502 to request additional service(s) to be performed with respect to the user's laundry. For example, the service request(s) 502 may request one or more of the following: addition of time to a laundry machine 112, such as more drying time or an additional wash cycle; addition of detergent, fabric softener, dryer sheet(s), or other items to a laundry machine 112; movement of laundry from one laundry machine 112 to another, such as moving laundry from a washer to a dryer and starting a dry cycle"),
“providing a prompt on the first remote user interface device,” (The customer application has the ability to present a notification to the user as described in Belveal [0083] "the customer application 310 may present a notification"),
“the prompt on the first remote user interface device comprising a delivery inquiry;” (Belveal [0088] "The customer application 310 may be configured to enable the user 102 to send one or more service request(s) 502 to request additional service(s) to be performed with respect to the user's laundry. For example, the service request(s) 502 may request one or more of the following: addition of time to a laundry machine 112, such as more drying time or an additional wash cycle; addition of detergent, fabric softener, dryer sheet(s), or other items to a laundry machine 112; movement of laundry from one laundry machine 112 to another, such as moving laundry from a washer to a dryer and starting a dry cycle; removal of laundry from a laundry machine 112; folding of laundry; storage of laundry pending the return of the user 102; delivery of laundry to the user's home or other location, and so forth.”
The customer application has the ability to present a notification to the user as described in Belveal [0083] "the customer application 310 may present a notification", which could be a delivery service request.),
“receiving an affirmative response to the delivery inquiry;” (Sugawara teaches an agent i.e. secondary user pressing an accept button in order to accept the delivery request in Sugawara [0044-0045] "FIG. 16 is a schematic diagram showing an example of a request notification email sent to the agent terminal 5. As shown in FIG. As shown in FIG. 16, the request notification email will include the request details (the details entered on the request information registration page) as well as an order notification button (hyperlink) 703 labeled "Accept (receive) the request for service. The support server 1 is equipped with an order notification program 34, and the order notification button 703 serves as an execution button for the order notification program 34 ."),
“locating a secondary user;” (Belveal [0141] "On receiving the service request(s) 1210, the management module(s) 206 may determine (1212) whether an attendant i.e. secondary user currently present at the laundromat 100. In some cases, a laundromat 100 may not be staffed with an attendant at all hours of the day. If it is determined that no attendant is currently available at the laundromat 100, the user 102 (e.g., the customer) may be notified (1222). For example, the management module(s) 206 may respond to the service request(s) 1210 with a message indicating, to the customer, that the additional service(s) are not currently available."),
“providing a prompt on a second remote user interface device associated with the secondary user after receiving the affirmative response to the delivery inquiry, the prompt on the second remote user interface device comprising a delivery request;” (Belveal [0142] "If an attendant is currently present at the laundromat 100, the management module(s) 206 may send (1214), or cause to be sent, one or more service instructions 1216 to be presented on an attendant device operated by the attendant (e.g., user 506). An attendant application executing on the attendant device (e.g., mobile device 104) may present (1218) the service instruction(s) 1216 to prompt the attendant to perform the additional service(s)"
Belveal [0088] " For example, the service request(s) 502 may request one or more of the following... delivery of laundry to the user's home or other location"),
“receiving an affirmative response to the delivery request; and” (The customer application has the ability to present a notification to the user as described in Belveal [0083] "the customer application 310 may present a notification"
The notification may be a request for additional service as described in Belveal [0088] "The customer application 310 may be configured to enable the user 102 to send one or more service request(s) 502 to request additional service(s) to be performed with respect to the user's laundry.").
Belveal does not appear to explicitly teach “providing a delivery confirmation on the first remote user interface device.” However, Sugawara does teach this claim limitation (Sugawara [0048] "Although an illustration of the completion notification email is omitted, the email contains information that the laundry service provider has notified the user that the requested laundry service has been completed.").
Belveal and Sugawara are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of laundry methods. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having teachings of Belveal and Sugawara before him/her, to modify the teachings of a method of managing and controlling laundry machines of Belveal to include the teachings of a support system capable of ordering and receiving an order for laundry of Sugawara because adding the delivery request response and delivery confirmation of Sugawara would increase profitability of a laundromat because turnover rates will improve as described by Sugawara [0006] " As will be explained below, according to the invention described in claim 1 or 7 of the present application, people who have wanted to use a coin laundry but have been too busy to do so can now easily use a coin laundry by using a proxy service. This makes the service even more convenient for busy people, such as part-time housewives. In addition, for the substitutes, it means they can earn an income by making effective use of their spare time, which is beneficial for students and housewives who have relatively free time. Furthermore, coin laundry operators can expect increased profitability as turnover rates will improve.”
Belveal and Sugawara do not appear to explicitly teach “charging the primary user for delivery, wherein charging the primary user comprises handling a charge transaction in a first instance of an application on the first remote user interface device;” However, Kumar does teach this claim limitation (Kumar teaches the buyer being charged by service provider 103 and through buyer application 134 i.e. an application on the first remote user interface device in Kumar [Column 7 lines 52-57] "The buyer application 134 may further enable the buyer 110 to make a payment for an order using the buyer application 134. i.e. the buyer may authorize payment when ordering For instance, the service provider 104 may charge a buyer account associated with the buyer 110 for an amount associated with a particular order. In some examples, the buyer application 134 and the service computing device 102 may communicate with each other via one or more APIs."; Kumar teaches the application 134 being on a smart phone i.e. user interface device in Kumar [Column 7 lines 29-36] "buyers 110(1), 110(2), . . . 110(N) may be associated with respective buyer devices 132(1), 132(2), . . . 132(N) that may execute respective instances of buyer applications 134(1), 134(2), . . . 134(N). For example, buyers 110 may use buyer devices 132, such as smart phones, tablet computers, wearable computing devices, laptops, desktops, or the like, and these buyer devices 132 may have installed thereon the buyer application 134”; Kumar teaches the order processing module charging the buyer’s account i.e. the first user’s account in Kumar [Column 8 lines 58-63] “The order processing module 140 may access a buyer account included in the buyer information 142 to charge a particular buyer account for a particular order. For instance, when a buyer signs up for service, or otherwise uses the service, the buyer may provide a credit card or other payment card information to enable the service provider to charge the account of the buyer for orders placed by the buyer.”),
“and paying the secondary user for delivery, wherein paying the secondary user comprises handling a payment transaction in a second instance of the application on the second remote user interface device, wherein each of the charge transaction and the payment transaction are mediated in a remote computing device.” (Kumar teaches the buyer being charged by service provider 103 and that buyer application 134 may communicate with service computing device 102 i.e. the charge is carried out on service computing device 102 which is remote in Kumar [Column 7 lines 52-57] "The buyer application 134 may further enable the buyer 110 to make a payment for an order using the buyer application 134. For instance, the service provider 104 may charge a buyer account associated with the buyer 110 for an amount associated with a particular order. In some examples, the buyer application 134 and the service computing device 102 may communicate with each other via one or more APIs."; Kumar teaches the courier 120 i.e. secondary user being paid for the delivery job through order processing module 140 i.e. the payment transaction is mediated in a remote computing device in Kumar [Column 9 lines 25-32] "When the courier 120 has completed delivery of the combined order to the delivery location(s) 126, the courier 1220 may use the courier application 138 to inform the order processing module 140 that the delivery has been completed. The order processing module 140 may access a courier account included in courier information 146 for the particular courier 120 to credit the courier account of the particular courier 120 with payment for the delivery job."; Kumar Fig. 1 [As shown above in claim 1] teaches the buyer app 134 and courier app 138 may communicate with the service computing device 102, which processes the charge and payment transactions in a remote computing device.),
Belveal, Sugawara, and Kumar are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of delivery. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having teachings of Belveal, Sugawara, and Kumar before him/her, to modify the teachings of a method of managing and controlling laundry machines of Belveal modified to include the teachings of a support system capable of ordering and receiving an order for laundry of Sugawara to include the teachings of charging a buyer and paying a courier of Kumar because adding the system and environment to enable entities to utilize courier services provided by a service provider of Kumar would allow any person with a mobile device to immediately become a courier as described in Kumar [Column 2 lines 9-25] “Further, the technology herein can allow any person with a mobile device to immediately become a courier, or cease to be a courier, in a courier network that provides delivery services for delivery of items from merchants to buyers. Through the interaction of computing devices, mobile devices, and location sensors, implementations herein can manage an unpredictable sharing ecosystem in which a large number of people are able to start serving as couriers, or cease serving as couriers, as necessary, to accommodate ever changing circumstances and conditions of the merchants, the buyers, the service region, and the couriers themselves. Consequently, the technology disclosed herein may enable efficient crowdsourcing of courier services in an on-demand manner from a varying group of people for providing a delivery service to merchants and buyers, and which can further enable buyers to minimize delivery expenses by combining orders to be delivered by the couriers.”
Regarding Claim 11, Belveal in view of Sugawara, further in view of Kumar also teaches “The method of claim 10, further comprising determining the operation cycle is within a completion threshold,” (Belveal [0139] "The management module(s) 206 may determine that a laundry cycle, or other predetermined operational period of time, has expired on a laundry machine 112 being used by a user 102."), and
“wherein the prompt on the first remote user interface device comprising the delivery inquiry is provided in response to determining the operation cycle is within the completion threshold.” (Belveal teaches the user submitting service requests e.g. delivery requests while not in the laundromat in Belveal [0090] "the user 102 may start one or more loads of laundry and leave the laundromat 100 to go to their home, their office, a store, a coffee shop, or elsewhere, and the user 102 may submit service request(s) 502 for further handling of their laundry while the user 102 is not present in the laundromat 100."
Belveal Fig. 12 [As shown above in claim 1] teaches the management server 204 sending a status notification 1204 to the user device 104a because a laundry cycle has completed. In response to that notification, the user may decide to request an additional service 1208 e.g. a laundry delivery request.).
Regarding Claim 12, Belveal in view of Sugawara, further in view of Kumar also teaches “The method of claim 10, further comprising determining the first remote user interface device is more than a predetermined threshold distance away from the laundry appliance,” (Belveal [0038] "The user device may detect the beacon signal through a wireless network interface of the user device and, based on the received signal level being at least a threshold level, the customer application may determine that the user device is within a threshold distance of the laundry machine"),
“wherein the prompt on the first remote user interface device comprising the delivery inquiry” (Belveal [0088] "The customer application 310 may be configured to enable the user 102 to send one or more service request(s) 502 to request additional service(s) to be performed with respect to the user's laundry. For example, the service request(s) 502 may request one or more of the following: addition of time to a laundry machine 112, such as more drying time or an additional wash cycle; addition of detergent, fabric softener, dryer sheet(s), or other items to a laundry machine 112; movement of laundry from one laundry machine 112 to another, such as moving laundry from a washer to a dryer and starting a dry cycle; removal of laundry from a laundry machine 112; folding of laundry; storage of laundry pending the return of the user 102; delivery of laundry to the user's home or other location, and so forth."
The customer application has the ability to present a notification to the user as described in Belveal [0083] "the customer application 310 may present a notification", which could be a delivery service request.), and
“is provided in response to determining the first remote user interface device is more than the predetermined threshold distance away from the laundry appliance.” (Belveal describes the user submitting service requests while away from the laundromat in Belveal [0090] "the user 102 may start one or more loads of laundry and leave the laundromat 100 to go to their home, their office, a store, a coffee shop, or elsewhere, and the user 102 may submit service request(s) 502 for further handling of their laundry while the user 102 is not present in the laundromat 100."
Belveal describes detecting whether a user is near the laundromat in Belveal [0057] "Based on the detection of the beacon signal by a wireless network interface of the mobile device 104, the customer application may determine that the mobile device 104 is within a threshold distance of the doors 106. For example, the customer application may infer that the mobile device 104 is within a threshold distance of the doors 106 based at least in part on a received signal level (e.g., signal strength) of the beacon signal."
Belveal Fig. 12 [As shown above in claim 1] teaches the management server 204 sending a status notification 1204 to the user device 104a because a laundry cycle has completed. In response to that notification, the user may decide to request an additional service 1208.).
Regarding Claim 13, the limitations of claim 13 are substantially the same as the limitations of claim 2 and are rejected due to the same reasons outlined above for claim 2.
Regarding Claim 14, the limitations of claim 14 are substantially the same as the limitations of claim 3 and are rejected due to the same reasons outlined above for claim 3.
Regarding Claim 15, the limitations of claim 15 are substantially the same as the limitations of claim 4 and are rejected due to the same reasons outlined above for claim 4.
Regarding Claim 16, the limitations of claim 16 are substantially the same as the limitations of claim 5 and are rejected due to the same reasons outlined above for claim 5.
Regarding Claim 19, the limitations of claim 19 are substantially the same as the limitations of claim 8 and are rejected due to the same reasons outlined above for claim 8.
Regarding Claim 20, the limitations of claim 20 are substantially the same as the limitations of claim 9 and are rejected due to the same reasons outlined above for claim 9.
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belveal et al. (US20170085390A1), in view of Sugawara et al. (JP2020038484A), further in view of Kumar et al. (US10740715B1), further in view of Iacono et al. (US20180260883A1), further in view of Winters et al. (US20190172050A1).
Regarding Claim 21, Belveal in view of Sugawara, further in view of Kumar, further in view of Iacono teaches “The method of claim 1, wherein withdrawing money from the first account comprises withdrawing a first amount,” (Kumar teaches the buyer being charged by service provider 103 in Kumar [Column 7 lines 52-57] "The buyer application 134 may further enable the buyer 110 to make a payment for an order using the buyer application 134. For instance, the service provider 104 may charge a buyer account associated with the buyer 110 for an amount associated with a particular order. In some examples, the buyer application 134 and the service computing device 102 may communicate with each other via one or more APIs."),
“wherein applying the credit to the second account comprises crediting a second amount,” (Kumar teaches the courier 120 i.e. secondary user being paid for the delivery job via courier application 138 in Kumar [Column 9 lines 25-32] "When the courier 120 has completed delivery of the combined order to the delivery location(s) 126, the courier 1220 may use the courier application 138 to inform the order processing module 140 that the delivery has been completed. The order processing module 140 may access a courier account included in courier information 146 for the particular courier 120 to credit the courier account of the particular courier 120 with payment for the delivery job.").
None of Belveal, Sugawara, Kumar, or Iacono appear to explicitly teach “and wherein the first amount is not equal to the second amount.” However, Winters does teach this claim limitation (Winters teaches that a delivery service may provide only a portion of the amount charged to the customer to the service provider i.e. the amounts are not equal in Winters [0039] "In some embodiments, a merchant, referral service, delivery service, and/or one or more service providers may be separate entities acting to provide a delivery and/or other service to a customer. Some embodiments may include allocating a payment for an order among the service providers. In some embodiments, each such service provider may agree to an allocation before performing a service (e.g., through a bidding process, through a contractual agreement, and so on). In some embodiments, a merchant, a referral service provider, and/or any other entity may receive the payment and provide a portion to each other service provider according to the allocation. In some embodiments, the payment to the service providers may be taken from a payment to the merchant for the purchase price, from a portion due a referral provider (e.g., 10% cut), as a service fee charged to a customer, and so on."
Belveal, Sugawara, Kumar, Iacano, and Winters are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of delivery. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having teachings of Belveal, Sugawara, Kumar, Iacano, and Winters before him/her, to modify the teachings of a method of managing and controlling laundry machines of Belveal modified to include the teachings of a support system capable of ordering and receiving an order for laundry of Sugawara modified to include the system and environment to enable entities to utilize courier services provided by a service provider of Kumar modified to include the teachings of the system and environment to enable entities to utilize courier services provided by a service provider of Iacano to include the teachings of paying the service provider a portion of the amount paid to the service provider of Winters because adding the systems and methods that may relate to referral and/or delivery services of Winters would allow the users and the merchant to both make money as described in Winters [0039] “In some embodiments, a merchant, referral service, delivery service, and/or one or more service providers may be separate entities acting to provide a delivery and/or other service to a customer. Some embodiments may include allocating a payment for an order among the service providers. In some embodiments, each such service provider may agree to an allocation before performing a service (e.g., through a bidding process, through a contractual agreement, and so on). In some embodiments, a merchant, a referral service provider, and/or any other entity may receive the payment and provide a portion to each other service provider according to the allocation. In some embodiments, the payment to the service providers may be taken from a payment to the merchant for the purchase price, from a portion due a referral provider (e.g., 10% cut), as a service fee charged to a customer, and so on.”
Regarding Claim 22, the limitations of claim 22 are substantially the same as the limitations of claim 21 and are rejected due to the same reasons outlined above for claim 21.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gerard et al. (US9928540B1) teaches that couriers i.e. secondary users and users i.e. first users may have applications that use at least a portion of the same code i.e. the first and secondary users may be using the same application in Gerard [Column 16 lines 61-67, column 17 lines 1-2] "In some instances, in order to treat the user(s) 108 as part of the courier system, the applications executing on the respective devices of the user(s) 108 may include at least a portion the same computer-executable code as the applications executing on the respective devices of the courier(s) 106. As such, the applications executing on the respective devices of the user(s) 108 may provide the user(s) 108 with the same functionality as the applications executing on the respective devices of the courier(s) 106."
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Zachary A Cain whose telephone number is (571)272-4503. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00-3:30 CST.
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, Kamini Shah can be reached at (571) 272-2279. 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.
/Z.A.C./Examiner, Art Unit 2116
/KAMINI S SHAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2116
Prosecution Insights