DETAILED ACTION
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
This action is in reply to the application filed on 12/27/2022.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because various reference characters are assigned to two different features of the drawings. Particularly, reference character “9” has been used to designate both a block of providing an order to a user in Fig. 2 and a hardware processor in Fig. 3. Additionally, reference character “19” has been used to designate both a user device in Fig. 1 and a historical database in Fig. 3. Additionally, reference character “30” has been used to designate both a merchant in Fig. 1 and a user registry in Fig. 3. Furthermore, reference character “104” has been used to designate both a CPU in Fig. 5 and a remote server in Fig. 6. Furthermore, reference character “106” has been used to designate both a cache in Fig. 5 and a private cloud in Fig. 6. Furthermore, reference character “110” has been used to designate both RAM in Fig. 5 and a processor set in Fig. 6. Furthermore, reference character “120” has been used to designate both a I/O adapter in Fig. 5 and processing circuitry in Fig. 6. Furthermore, reference character “122” has been used to designate both a first storage device in Fig. 5 and an operating system in Fig. 6. Furthermore, reference character “124” has been used to designate both a second storage device in Fig. 5 and a storage in Fig. 6. Furthermore, reference character “130” has been used to designate both a sound adapter in Fig. 5 and a remote database in Fig. 6. Furthermore, reference character “140” has been used to designate both a network adapter in Fig. 5 and a gateway in Fig. 6. Finally, reference character “142” has been used to designate both a transceiver in Fig. 5 and a “hot physical machine set” in Fig. 6. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Additionally, the drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 17, 103, 105, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 121, 123, 125, 141, 143, and 144. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Additionally, the drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 22, 34, 100, 400, 501, 502, 503, 504, 505, 506, 510, 520, 521, 511, 512, 513, 522, 514, 523, 524, 525, 515, 530, 540, 541, 542, 543, 544. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Finally, the drawings are objected to because element 142 in Fig. 6 reads “Hot Physical Machine Set” when it appears it should read “Host Physical Machine Set” to match the specification and correct an apparent typographical error. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [0019] recites “deliver vehicles 35” in line 2 when it appears it should recite “delivery vehicles 35” to correct an apparent typographical error
Paragraph [0030] recites “…to communicate with the system 200 through the user to the customer 12” in the final line when it appears it should recite “…to communicate with the system 200 through the interface to the customer 12” to correct an apparent typographical error
Paragraph [0031] recites “users 10” in line 2 when it appears it should recite “users 18” to correct an apparent typographical error
Paragraph [0034] recites “pickup point 1 25a and/or pickup point 2 25b” in the last two lines when it appears it should recite “pickup point 1 26a and/or pickup point 2 26b” to correct an apparent typographical error
Paragraph [0036] recites “users 9” and “system 100” in line 2 when it appears it should recite “users 18” and “system 200” to correct apparent typographical errors
Paragraph [0039] recites “the system 200 for dynamic shopping 200” in line 1 when it appears it should recite “the system
Paragraphs [0039], [0040], [0059], [0064], and [0069] all recite “historical database 21”, which does not match the number used for the historical database in the Figures. As discussed above, however, character “19” is used to designate both the historical database and a user device in the Figures. Reference character “21” is used to designate Temp. Shopping Facilities in the Figs. Examiner recommends picking a different reference character than either 21 or 19 and assigning that reference character to the historical database in the figures and specification.
Paragraph [0046] recites “hardware processor 22” in line 3 which does not match the reference character used for the hardware processor in Fig. 3. However, since the actual reference character used for the hardware processor, “9”, is also used to designate a block in the Fig. 2 flowchart, Examiner recommends amending Fig. 3 to use “22” to refer to the hardware processor to overcome this objection
Paragraph [0065] recites “the autonomous delivery vehicles 36” in line 1 when it appears it should recite “the autonomous delivery vehicles 35” to correct an apparent typographical error
Paragraph [0066] recites “…the pickup points 21a, 21b can be determined. If the customer 18 arrives at the pickup point 21a, 21b…” in line 2 when it appears it should recite “…the pickup points 26a, 26b can be determined. If the customer 18 arrives at the pickup point 26a, 26b…” to correct apparent typographical errors
Paragraph [0067] recites “a marketplace interface 31 for the subsequent order 31” in lines 4-5 when it appears it should recite “a marketplace interface [[31]] for the subsequent order 31” to correct an apparent typographical error
Paragraph [0070] recites “the computer implemented method may continue to the method may continue with…” in lines 1-2 when it appears it should recite “the computer implemented
Paragraph [0071] recites “The system bus 102 may be in communication with the system for ranking materials for post combustion carbon capture 200” in lines 9-10 and “As illustrated, the system 100 that provides for provenance based identification of policy deviations in cloud environments can be integrated into the processing system 400 by connection to the system bus 102” in the last three lines. The specification does not discuss “ranking materials for post combustion carbon capture” or “provenance based identification of policy deviations in cloud environments”.
Paragraph [0074] recites “system 400” in the last line when it appears it should recite “system 500” to correct an apparent typographical error
In paragraphs [0084]-[0099], the various components discussed regarding Fig. 6 list characters starting “5—” when the components in Fig. 6 have characters starting “1—”. Because several of the “1—” characters are used to indicate other features in other figures, Examiner suggests amending Fig. 6 to have the characters start with “5—” to avoid drawing and spec objections
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-4, 6, 8-11, 13, 16-18, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “determining with a product matching engine of the system for dynamic shopping other products…” in lines 5-6 and “initiating using the system of dynamic shopping, inclusion and transport…” in line 10 when it appears it should recite “determining, with a product matching engine of the system for dynamic shopping, other products…” and “initiating, using the system of dynamic shopping, inclusion and transport…”
Claims 2, 3, and 6 recite “The computer implemented method of claim 1 further comprising…” when it appears they should recite “The computer implemented method of claim 1, further comprising…”
Claims 4, 11, and 18 recite “the pickup vehicle of the customer” when it appears they should recite “a pickup vehicle of the customer”
Claim 8 recites “determine with a product matching engine products for potential order…” in line 7 when it appears it should recite “determine, with a product matching engine, products for potential order…”
Claim 9 recites “The system of claim 8, wherein further comprising displaying…” when it appears it should recite “The system of claim 8, wherein the hardware processor performs further operations comprising: displaying…” or similar
Claim 10 recites “The system of claim 8 further comprising tracking…” when it appears it should recite “The system of claim 8, wherein the hardware processor performs further operations comprising: tracking…” or similar
Claim 13 recites “The system of claim 12 further comprising updating…” when it appears it should recite “The system of claim 12, wherein the hardware processor performs further operations comprising: updating…” or similar
Claim 16 recites “The computer program product of claim 8, wherein further comprising displaying…” when it appears it should recite “The computer program product of claim 15, wherein the program code causes the processor to perform further operations comprising: displaying…”
Claim 17 recites “The computer program product of claim 15 further comprising tracking…” when it appears it should recite “The computer program product of claim 15, wherein the program code causes the processor to perform further operations comprising: tracking…”
Claim 20 recites “The computer program product of claim 18 further comprising updating…” when it appears it should recite “The computer program product of claim 18, wherein the program code causes the processor to perform further operations comprising: updating…”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 7 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 7 and 14 recite the limitation “the sending of delivery vehicles including the other products to the package pickup location". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. While their respective independent claims 1, and 8 introduce the initiation of the inclusion and transport of the other products”, in neither claim is a step of sending delivery vehicles introduced. Accordingly, there is no antecedent bases for the sending of delivery vehicles, and it is unclear if the sending of delivery vehicles falls underneath the step of initiating transport or if the sending of delivery vehicles is a separate step of the claimed invention. Accordingly, the scope of claims 7 and 14 are indefinite.
Regarding claim 15, the phrase "the computer program product can include a computer readable storage medium having computer readable program code embodied therewith" (emphasis added) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. Particularly, it is unclear whether the computer program product necessarily requires a computer readable storage medium or not. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For the purposes of applying prior art, Examiner is interpreting claim 15 as if the computer readable storage medium is required by the claim.
Also regarding claim 15, the claim recites the limitation “the program instructions” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. While “computer readable program code” is introduced earlier in claim 15, “program instructions” are not introduced. Therefore, the scope of claim 15 is indefinite for this antecedent basis reason as well as the exemplary language discussed above. For the purposes of examination, Examiner is interpreting “the program instructions” as “ the program code”.
Dependent claims 16-20 are indefinite by virtue of their dependence on indefinite independent claim 15.
Additionally, regarding claim 16, the claim recites “The computer program product of claim 8”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no computer program product introduced in claim 8. Accordingly, the scope of claim 16 is indefinite. It appears Applicant intended to have claim 16 depend on claim 15, which does have a computer program product. For the purposes of examination, Examiner is interpreting claim 16 as depending on claim 15 to restore antecedent basis.
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 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because “a computer program product” comprises transitory signals and is accordingly program per se. Examiner notes that while [0077] of the specification recites “The computer program produce may also be non-transitory”, a computer program product is not explicitly defined in the disclosure as necessarily being non-transitory. Furthermore, while [0078] and [0083] state that a computer readable storage medium is not transitory, Examiner notes that the computer program product of claim 15 can include a computer readable storage medium per claim 15. As the computer readable storage medium does not appear to be required in claim 15, the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 15 covers just the computer program product. As the computer program product is not explicitly defined in the specification as being non-transitory, claim 15 is program per se and does not fall within one of the statutory categories.
For similar reasoning and by virtue of their dependence on claim 15 above, dependent claims 16-20 also do not fall into a statutory category. In the interest of compact prosecution, Examiner will perform Alice/Mayo analysis on claims 16-20 as if they were within one of the statutory categories.
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 the determining of other products to promote to a customer who has ordered a product from a merchant.
As an initial matter, claims 1-7 fall into at least the process category of statutory subject matter. Claims 8-14 fall into at least the machine category of statutory subject matter. Finally, as discussed above, Examiner is interpreting claims 15-20 as if they were to fall into at least the manufacture category of statutory subject matter in the interest of compact prosecution. Therefore, all claims are being interpreted as if they fall into at least one of the statutory categories. Eligibility analysis proceeds to Step 2A.
In claim 1, the limitation of “A computer implemented method for dynamic shopping comprising: receiving, at a system for dynamic shopping which includes a computer, an order for a selected product and a package pickup location from a device of a user”, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “computer implemented”, “a system for dynamic shopping which includes a computer”, and “a device of a user,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. Similarly, the limitations of “determining, at the system for dynamic shopping, a type of product the user has ordered; determining with a product matching engine of the system for dynamic shopping other products for potential order by the user at the pickup location, wherein the product matching engine employs a neural network trained with a historical database of orders to match the type of the product the user has ordered to categories of products to select the other products for potential order by the user; and initiating using the system of dynamic shopping, inclusion and transport of the other products with the selected product for delivery to the package pickup location”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Additionally, claim 1 recites the concept of determining which other products to present to a user who has purchased a product from a merchant which is a certain method of organizing human activity including commercial interactions. A method for dynamic shopping comprising: receiving an order for a selected product and a package pickup location from a user; determining a type of product the user has ordered; determining other products for potential order by the user at the pickup location, wherein with a historical database of orders to match the type of the product the user has ordered to categories of products to select the other products for potential order by the user; and initiating inclusion and transport of the other products with the selected product for delivery to the package pickup location all, as a whole, fall under the category of commercial interactions. The claim falls into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Mere recitation of generic computer components does not remove the claim from this grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of the method being “computer implemented”, a system for dynamic shopping which includes a computer, a device of a user, a product matching engine, and a neural network trained with a historical database of orders. The recited additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The combination of these additional elements is also no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does 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 elements of the method being “computer implemented”, a system for dynamic shopping which includes a computer, a device of a user, a product matching engine, and a neural network trained with a historical database of orders amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The combination of these additional elements is also no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-3 further limit the abstract idea of claim 1 without adding any new additional elements. Therefore, by the analysis of claim 1 above these claims, individually and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 4 further limits the abstract idea of claim 1 while introducing the additional element of an autonomous vehicle. The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the element of an autonomous vehicle is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than generally linking the judicial exception to the field of autonomous vehicles. Adding this new additional element into the additional elements from claim 1 still amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and generally linking the judicial exception to the field of autonomous vehicles. The claim also does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components and generally linking a judicial exception to a field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 5-6 further limit the abstract idea of claim 1 without adding any new additional elements. Therefore, by the analysis of claim 1 above these claims, individually and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 7 further limits the abstract idea of claim 1 while introducing the additional elements of autonomous vehicles. The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the elements of autonomous vehicles is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than generally linking the judicial exception to the field of autonomous vehicles. Adding this new additional element into the additional elements from claim 1 still amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and generally linking the judicial exception to the field of autonomous vehicles. The claim also does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components and generally linking a judicial exception to a field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
In claim 8, the limitation of “A system for dynamic shopping comprising: a hardware processor; and a memory that stores a computer program product, the computer program product when executed by the hardware processor, causes the hardware processor to: receive an order for a selected product and a package pickup location from a device of a user”, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “A system for dynamic shopping comprising: a hardware processor; and a memory that stores a computer program product, the computer program product when executed by the hardware processor, causes the hardware processor to” and “a device of a user,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. Similarly, the limitations of “determine a type of product the user has ordered; determine with a product matching engine products for potential order by the user at the pickup location, wherein the product matching engine employs a neural network trained with a historical database of orders to match the type of the product the user has ordered to categories of products to select the other products for potential order by the user; and initiate inclusion and transport of the other products with the selected product for delivery to the package pickup location”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Additionally, claim 8 recites the concept of determining which other products to present to a user who has purchased a product from a merchant which is a certain method of organizing human activity including commercial interactions. Receive an order for a selected product and a package pickup location from a user; determine a type of product the user has ordered; determine products for potential order by the user at the pickup location, wherein with a historical database of orders to match the type of the product the user has ordered to categories of products to select the other products for potential order by the user; and initiate inclusion and transport of the other products with the selected product for delivery to the package pickup location all, as a whole, fall under the category of commercial interactions. The claim falls into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Mere recitation of generic computer components does not remove the claim from this grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a system for dynamic shopping, a hardware processor, a memory that stores a computer program product, the computer program product when executed by the hardware processor, causes the hardware processor to, a device of a user, a product matching engine, and a neural network trained with a historical database of orders. The recited additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The combination of these additional elements is also no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does 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 elements of a system for dynamic shopping, a hardware processor, a memory that stores a computer program product, the computer program product when executed by the hardware processor, causes the hardware processor to, a device of a user, a product matching engine, and a neural network trained with a historical database of orders amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The combination of these additional elements is also no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 9-10 further limit the abstract idea of claim 8 without adding any new additional elements. Therefore, by the analysis of claim 8 above these claims, individually and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 11 further limits the abstract idea of claim 8 while introducing the additional element of an autonomous vehicle. The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the element of an autonomous vehicle is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than generally linking the judicial exception to the field of autonomous vehicles. Adding this new additional element into the additional elements from claim 8 still amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and generally linking the judicial exception to the field of autonomous vehicles. The claim also does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components and generally linking a judicial exception to a field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 12-13 further limit the abstract idea of claim 1 without adding any new additional elements. Therefore, by the analysis of claim 1 above these claims, individually and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 14 further limits the abstract idea of claim 8 while introducing the additional elements of autonomous vehicles. The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the elements of autonomous vehicles is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than generally linking the judicial exception to the field of autonomous vehicles. Adding this new additional element into the additional elements from claim 8 still amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and generally linking the judicial exception to the field of autonomous vehicles. The claim also does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components and generally linking a judicial exception to a field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
In claim 15, the limitation of “A computer program product for dynamic shopping, the computer program product can include a computer readable storage medium having computer readable program code embodied therewith, the program instructions executable by a processor to cause the processor to: receive, using the processor, an order for a selected product and a package pickup location from a device of a user”, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “A computer program product for dynamic shopping, the computer program product can include a computer readable storage medium having computer readable program code embodied therewith, the program instructions executable by a processor to cause the processor to” and “a device of a user,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. Similarly, the limitations of “determine, using the processor, a type of product the user has ordered; determine, using the processor and a product matching engine, other products for potential order by the user at the pickup location, wherein the product matching engine employs a neural network trained with a historical database of orders to match the type of the product the user has ordered to categories of products to select the other products for potential order by the user; and initiate, using the processor, inclusion and transport of the other products with the selected product for delivery to the package pickup location”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Additionally, claim 15 recites the concept of determining which other products to present to a user who has purchased a product from a merchant which is a certain method of organizing human activity including commercial interactions. Receive an order for a selected product and a package pickup location from a user; determine a type of product the user has ordered; determine other products for potential order by the user at the pickup location, wherein with a historical database of orders to match the type of the product the user has ordered to categories of products to select the other products for potential order by the user; and initiate inclusion and transport of the other products with the selected product for delivery to the package pickup location all, as a whole, fall under the category of commercial interactions. The claim falls into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Mere recitation of generic computer components does not remove the claim from this grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a computer program product for dynamic shopping, a computer readable storage medium having computer readable program code embodied therewith, a processor, a device of a user, a product matching engine, and a neural network trained with a historical database of orders. The recited additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The combination of these additional elements is also no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does 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 elements of a computer program product for dynamic shopping, a computer readable storage medium having computer readable program code embodied therewith, a processor, a device of a user, a product matching engine, and a neural network trained with a historical database of orders amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The combination of these additional elements is also no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 16-17 further limit the abstract idea of claim 15 (as noted above, claim 16 is being interpreted as depending from claim 15) without adding any new additional elements. Therefore, by the analysis of claim 15 above these claims, individually and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 18 further limits the abstract idea of claim 15 while introducing the additional element of an autonomous vehicle. The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the element of an autonomous vehicle is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than generally linking the judicial exception to the field of autonomous vehicles. Adding this new additional element into the additional elements from claim 15 still amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and generally linking the judicial exception to the field of autonomous vehicles. The claim also does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components and generally linking a judicial exception to a field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 19-20 further limit the abstract idea of claim 18 without adding any new additional elements. Therefore, by the analysis of claim 18 above these claims, individually and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
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, 6, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tovey et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2019/0325367, hereafter known as Tovey) in view of Rao (U.S. Patent No. 11,250,488; hereafter known as Rao).
Regarding claim 1, Tovey teaches:
A computer implemented method for dynamic shopping comprising (see Fig. 2 and [0039]-[0068] for overall method including dynamic addition of impulse buys to orders, see Fig. 3 and [0069] for the computer implementing the method)
receiving, at a system for dynamic shopping which includes a computer, an order for a selected product and a package pickup location from a device of a user (see [0042] "In step 206, ASRS 150 may receive a first order from customer 130 for purchasing a first item via the merchant's website using different types of customer mobile device 120 via network 140" for receiving an order and [0027] "When customer 130 places an online order, e.g., via customer mobile device 120, for one or more items via a merchant's website, customer 130 may select ASRS 150 from a plurality of ASRSs associated with the merchant to pick up the one or more items of the online order" for receiving an ASRS which the customer is designating as the pickup location)
determining, at the system for dynamic shopping, a type of product the user has ordered (see [0059] "For example, customer 130 orders a TV for picking it up at ASRS 150")
determining with a product matching engine of the system for dynamic shopping other products for potential order by the user at the pickup location (see [0046] "In step 212, the server may generate, via one or more the processor, a subset of items based on an analysis of the customer's purchasing preferences, search history, purchase history, and the seasonal items" and [0059] "Customer 130 may have searched for an extra TV controller or a TV table but have not placed the related order via the merchant's website. Upon customer 130's arrival at ASRS 150 for picking up the order, central server 112 may generate a subset of items including the TV table or the controller to be presented on interactive touchscreen terminal 153")
and initiating using the system of dynamic shopping, inclusion and transport of the other products with the selected product for delivery to the package pickup location (see [0046] " In step 212, the server may generate, via one or more the processor, a subset of items based on an analysis of the customer's purchasing preferences, search history, purchase history, and the seasonal items...The items may also be located nearby ASRS for quick retrieval" and [0050] "In step 218, the first order may be updated automatically based on purchase selections by customer 130" and [0052] "In step 222, items included in the updated first order may be automatically retrieved from ASRS 150 via the conveying module of ASRS 150" and [0042] "The items in the order may be provided to ASRS 150 if not already present there" for initiating the inclusion and transport of the other products with the selected product into an order and transporting the products of the order to the ASRS pickup location)
While Tovey teaches determining other products to offer as impulse buys to a customer based on their purchase history, Tovey does not explicitly teach using a neural network trained on the historical database to match the type of product the customer ordered with categories of other products to select for potential order by the customer. However, Rao teaches:
wherein the product matching engine employs a neural network trained with a historical database of orders to match the type of the product the user has ordered to categories of products to select the other products for potential order by the user (see Fig. 7 and Col. 10 lines 48-62 "Specifically, in order to obtain a new category recommendation for a target user, one or more previous categories that the target user has purchased items from can be determined 712 and used as input into the model. The one or more previous categories may be processed 714 through the trained model. The model then determines 716, as an output, at least one new category that the target user is predicted to be interested in but has not previously made purchases from. In some embodiments, the new category determine by the neural network for the target user represents the next category that the target user is predicted to make a purchase from that the target user has not made a purchase in before. In some embodiments, one or more items belonging to the new category may be recommended 718 to the target user" and Col. 10 lines 40-46 "The neural network may be trained to determine a new category from the plurality of categories that a user is predicted to be interested in but has not previously purchased from based on one or more previous categories that the user has purchased from. In some other embodiments, the neural network may be trained using the raw historical purchase data" for using a neural network trained on a historical database of orders to determine a category of products to match with a category of product ordered by the user and recommending products from that category. See Col. 11 lines 34-36 for the category of product input into the model being the most recent category of item purchased. In combination with Tovey, the category of the selected item in the first order is would be input into the neural network to generate impulse buy recommendations in categories that the customer is likely to want to buy next)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the neural network suggesting different categories of items of Rao to the system of Tovey. As Rao states in Col. 1 lines 17-27 “despite the availability of such a wide array of product categories, a customer may typically purchase products from a limited number of categories. For example, a customer may have only purchased books and toys on the e-commerce platform, and may not be aware that other product categories, such as groceries, are also available. It is also a challenge for the e-commerce platform to recommend products to a customer from categories that a customer has not made any purchases in, as there is no data available for that customer in those product categories.” As Tovey bases suggestions off of previous searches and purchases, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that incorporating the ability of Rao’s neural network to recommend products that the user has not purchased before would lead to increased order sizes and generate more business for the combined system than Tovey alone.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Tovey and Rao teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Tovey further teaches:
updating the historical database following adding the other products to the order (see [0053] "In step 224, the analysis of items for inclusion in the ASRS may be automatically updated by the central server based on the purchase selections or declines by the customer" and [0056] "the customer's profile may be updated with new purchases and new search records" and [0016] "The customer's profile may include items associated with the customer's personal preferences, search history on a merchant's website, and order history" for the profile/historical database being updated based on what products are/are not selected to be added to the order)
Regarding claim 8, Tovey teaches:
A system for dynamic shopping comprising: a hardware processor (see Figs. 1 and 3 and [0018]-[0038] and [0069]-[0073] for the system overall. See [0070] "With reference to FIG. 3, an example system 300 can include a processing unit (CPU or processor) 320...It can be appreciated that the disclosure may operate on a computing device 300 with more than one processor 320 or on a group or cluster of computing devices networked together to provide greater processing capability. The processor 320 can include any general purpose processor and a hardware module or software module")
and a memory that stores a computer program product, the computer program product when executed by the hardware processor, causes the hardware processor to (see [0070] "an example system 300 can include a processing unit (CPU or processor) 320 and a system bus 310 that couples various system components including the system memory 330 such as read only memory (ROM) 340 and random access memory (RAM) 350 to the processor 320. The system 300 can include a cache of high speed memory connected directly with, in close proximity to, or integrated as part of the processor 320. The system 300 copies data from the memory 330 and/or the storage device 360 to the cache for quick access by the processor 320. In this way, the cache provides a performance boost that avoids processor 320 delays while waiting for data. These and other modules can control or be configured to control the processor 320 to perform various actions. Other system memory 330 may be available for use as well. The memory 330 can include multiple different types of memory with different performance characteristics. It can be appreciated that the disclosure may operate on a computing device 300 with more than one processor 320" for a processor executing the steps based on information stored in memory)
Regarding the remaining limitations of claim 8, see the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 15, Tovey teaches:
A computer program product for dynamic shopping, the computer program product can include a computer readable storage medium having computer readable program code embodied therewith, the program instructions executable by a processor to cause the processor to (see [0071] "In one aspect, a hardware module that performs a particular function includes the software component stored in a tangible computer-readable storage medium in connection with the necessary hardware components, such as the processor 320, bus 310, output device 370, and so forth, to carry out the function. In another aspect, the system can use a processor and computer-readable storage medium to store instructions which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform a method or other specific actions")
Regarding the remaining limitations of claim 15, see the rejection of claim 1 above.
Claims 2, 9, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tovey in view of Rao and Phillips et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2021/0295412, hereafter known as Phillips).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Tovey and Rao teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Tovey further teaches:
displaying the other products for potential order on the device of the user (see [0063] "For example, when a customer is proximate the ASRS, the platform may send a message and ask if the customer would like to check out assortments at the ASRS. The message may include the generated subset of stocked items for the customer")
and adding to the order for the selected product the other products from those selected by the user (see [0049]-[0050] "In step 216, the subset of the stocked items may be displayed on interactive touchscreen terminal 153 for customer 130 to select and add to the first order. In step 218, the first order may be updated automatically based on purchase selections by customer 130.")
Tovey further teaches the initial order being placed via the mobile device. As discussed above, Tovey teaches the other products being selected on a display of the ASRS, and does not explicitly teach the other products being selected on the user device. Phillips teaches the other products being selected on the user device (see [0047] "Referring ahead to FIGS. 10A and 10B, in order to prompt impulse purchases from a customer conducting an online purchase pick-up, an exemplary embodiment of the system for prompting impulse purchases 100 incorporates user detection/identification and presents one or more impulse purchase triggers/prompts 122 to a mobile device 108 of a user/customer" and [0050] "a customer may select to pick up the impulse purchase selection from a nearby locker, kiosk, or another suitable fulfillment solution" for the selection of the other product being made on a device of the user).
Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. That is in the substitution of the other products being selected on a user device of Phillips for the other products being selected on a kiosk screen of Tovey.
Particularly, Tovey teaches that the initial order is made on a mobile device of the user, thus teaching that the mobile device of the user has the capability to receive the selection of items. In the combination, this functionality would be merely used again to select the other items instead of having them selected on the kiosk screen. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Tovey and Rao teaches all of the limitations of claim 8 above. Regarding the limitations introduced in claim 9, see the rejection of claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Tovey and Rao teaches all of the limitations of claim 15 above (see claim interpretation section above for Examiner’s interpretation of claim 16 as depending on claim 15 instead of on claim 8). Regarding the limitations introduced in claim 16, see the rejection of claim 2 above.
Claims 3, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tovey in view of Rao and Ducrou et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,482,421; hereafter known as Ducrou).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Tovey and Rao teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Tovey further teaches:
tracking (see [0031] "The wireless detection system may include a plurality of wireless communication devices each of which are configured to function as a wireless sensor...The plurality of wireless communication devices may be configured to form a geo-fence around ASRS 150 by forming a virtual perimeter around a geographic region of ASRS 150. Accordingly, one or more of wireless communication devices may wirelessly detect the presence of one or more mobile devices, e.g., a mobile device 120, within a perimeter of geographic region around ASRS 150" and [0055] "detecting the customer's arrival further comprises identifying a geographic information of a mobile device associated with the customer by the geolocation module on central server 112" and [0061])
wherein upon reaching the package pickup location the system for dynamic shopping sends an inventory of the other products to be displayed to the user on the user device for potential order (see [0063] "For example, when a customer is proximate the ASRS, the platform may send a message and ask if the customer would like to check out assortments at the ASRS. The message may include the generated subset of stocked items for the customer" and [0061] "The geographic information may indicate that customer 130 is within a predetermined area associated with ASRS 150. The predetermined area may be determined based on a location of ASRS 150" and see [0005] and claim 3 for the arrival of the customer within a predetermined area as the arrival of the customer)
While Tovey teaches tracking a user mobile device location during transit to the pickup location, the combination of Tovey and Rao does not explicitly teach that the location being tracked is of the user pickup vehicle. Ducrou teaches tracking of a customer vehicle during transit to the order pickup location (see Col. 9 lines 26-28 “The geolocation data 138, as described above, may comprise information indicative of a geographic location of one or more of the user 128, vehicle 108, or user device 130” and Col. 7 lines 15-18 “Geolocation data 138 may be provided by other systems instead of or in addition to the user device 130. For example, the vehicular telematics systems may provide information such as a current geolocation of the vehicle 108” for tracking location of a customer pickup vehicle. See Col. 7 lines 34-36 for the tracking of the vehicle inbound to a pickup location).
Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. That is in the substitution of the tracking of a user vehicle in transit to a pickup location of Ducrou for the tracking of a user device in transit to a pickup location of Tovey.
Particularly, as discussed above, Ducrou explicitly considers the tracking of a customer vehicle inbound to a pickup location as a substitute for tracking a user device in transit to a pickup location. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Tovey and Rao teaches all of the limitations of claim 8 above. Regarding the limitations introduced in claim 10, see the rejection of claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Tovey and Rao teaches all of the limitations of claim 15 above. Regarding the limitations introduced in claim 17, see the rejection of claim 3 above.
Claims 4, 11, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tovey in view of Rao and Cummings et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2024/0420096, hereafter known as Cummings).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Tovey and Rao teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. While Tovey teaches the user coming to pick up the order, the combination of Tovey and Rao does not explicitly teach the customer arriving in an autonomous vehicle. Cummings teaches:
wherein the pickup vehicle of the customer is an autonomous vehicle (see [0072] "FIG. 1B is configured as a “click and collect” type consumer/merchant arrangement, whereby a consumer may place an order and subsequently pick up the products in the order from the merchant directly (e.g., via a curbside pickup service provided by the merchant 120)...The user 110 acts as both the user and the carrier in the embodiment of FIG. 1B" and [0069] "Carrier 130 may use any suitable vehicles for performing delivery and pickup operations as desired. For example, carrier 130 may use human operated vehicles, autonomously operated vehicles, and/or semi-autonomous vehicles, among others, for delivery and pickup services" for the user picking up their item by using an autonomous vehicle)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the user arriving to pick up their order in an autonomous vehicle as taught by Cummings in the combination of Tovey and Rao, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Specifically, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that how the user travels to the pickup would not impact the online ordering and subsequent purchase of impulse buys in the combination of Tovey and Rao.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Tovey and Rao teaches all of the limitations of claim 8 above. Regarding the limitations introduced in claim 11, see the rejection of claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Tovey and Rao teaches all of the limitations of claim 15 above. Regarding the limitations introduced in claim 18, see the rejection of claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Tovey, Rao, and Cummings teaches all of the limitations of claim 18 above. Tovey further teaches:
further comprising updating the historical database following adding the other products to the order (see [0053] "In step 224, the analysis of items for inclusion in the ASRS may be automatically updated by the central server based on the purchase selections or declines by the customer" and [0056] "the customer's profile may be updated with new purchases and new search records" and [0016] "The customer's profile may include items associated with the customer's personal preferences, search history on a merchant's website, and order history" for the profile/historical database being updated based on what products are/are not selected to be added to the order)
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tovey in view of Rao and Bhatt (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2015/0227882, hereafter known as Bhatt).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Tovey and Rao teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Tovey further teaches:
wherein the historical database provides training data for the neural network including selected product classification, user profile (see [0016] "The customer's profile may include items associated with the customer's personal preferences, search history on a merchant's website, and order history" In combination with Rao, the historical database is used to train the neural network)
While Tovey teaches user histories, Tovey does not explicitly teach a user profile with selected product classifications. Tovey also does not explicitly teach pickup location and temporary shopping facility at pickup location information in the historical database. Rao further teaches:
wherein the historical database provides training data for the neural network including selected product classification, user profile for selected product classification, (see Col. 5 lines 4-15 "Obtain historical purchase data of a plurality of users of the online platform, the historical purchase data including items from the catalog 304 purchased by each user and/or the respective categories of the items..." for training data including product classifications of selected products. See previous purchase data from a user and many other users to train the neural network. In combination, the user profiles comprising order histories of users would be used in training to determine what other categories of products to recommend)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the training the neural network suggesting different categories of items using historical purchased item categories of Rao to the system of Tovey. As Rao states in Col. 1 lines 17-27 “despite the availability of such a wide array of product categories, a customer may typically purchase products from a limited number of categories. For example, a customer may have only purchased books and toys on the e-commerce platform, and may not be aware that other product categories, such as groceries, are also available. It is also a challenge for the e-commerce platform to recommend products to a customer from categories that a customer has not made any purchases in, as there is no data available for that customer in those product categories.” As Tovey bases suggestions off of previous searches and purchases, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that incorporating the ability of Rao’s neural network to recommend products that the user has not purchased before would lead to increased order sizes and generate more business for the combined system than Tovey alone.
The combination of Tovey and Rao still does not explicitly teach the historical database comprising pickup location and temporary shopping facility at pickup location information. Bhatt teaches a historical database providing pickup locations and temporary shopping facilities at the pickup locations (see [0076] "If it is determined that the user is interested in retrieving the item from a mobile pickup location, one or more preferred areas for the user are determined...Determining a preferred area may be done by receiving information from the user as to their preferred areas, identifying preferred areas based on a user's past purchase and delivery history" for history of preferred pickups locations and locations at which the mobile pickup has been made from the mobile vehicle 290 in the past).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of a historical database including pickup locations and temporary shopping locations at pickup locations of Bhatt to the combination of Tovey and Rao would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Bhatt to the teaching of the combination of Tovey and Rao would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such a historical database including pickup locations and temporary shopping locations at pickup locations. Further, applying a historical database including pickup locations and temporary shopping locations at pickup locations to the combination of Tovey and Rao would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more efficient allocation of items to ASRS locations. As Tovey teaches in steps 202 and 204, likely impulse buys are stocked in the ASRS locations in advance of orders. By including previous pickup locations in the training data for the neural network, the combined system would be able to more accurately predict which pickup locations will need which products by pairing product recommendations with likely or historical pickup locations. This would result in more impulse buys already being located at the ASRS and reduce the need for delivery of items nearby the ASRS to the ASRS discussed in Tovey [0046].
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tovey in view of Rao and Brady et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,308,430; hereafter known as Brady).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Tovey and Rao teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. While Tovey teaches providing items to the ASRS established at a pickup location, the combination of Tovey and Rao does not explicitly teach the sending of autonomous delivery vehicles that stock inventory at the temporary shopping location at the pickup location to bring the other products to the package pickup location. Brady teaches:
wherein the sending of delivery vehicles including the other products to the package pickup location includes autonomous vehicles that stock an inventory at a temporary shopping facility established at the pickup location for the other products (see Col. 25 lines 32-42 "replenishments of items may be routed to autonomous ground vehicle units in the specific regions to address differences between predicted regional demand and forward-deployed inventory in those regions. For example, where the available inventory of a given item, or category of items, in a given region falls below the predicted (or known or observed) demand for such items, the inventory may be replenished by distributing additional items to the region, e.g., by a carrier vehicle, or by one or more other autonomous ground vehicles, from one or more fulfillment centers or other sources of such items" for replenishing mobile shopping vehicle using autonomous vehicles to replenish item stocks in the mobile shopping vehicle. See Col. 37 lines 27-31 for the mobile shopping vehicle being stopped to receive materials. In combination with Tovey, autonomous vehicles would be used to resupply a mobile ASRS at a customer-requested pickup location with items needed for a customer order)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of an autonomous vehicle supplying the other ordered items as well as generally stocking the temporary shopping facility of Brady to the combination of Tovey and Rao would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Brady to the teaching of the combination of Tovey and Rao would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such an autonomous vehicle supplying the other ordered items as well as generally stocking the temporary shopping facility. Further, applying an autonomous vehicle supplying the other ordered items as well as generally stocking the temporary shopping facility to the combination of Tovey and Rao would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more efficient delivery and restocking of items to the ASRS by lessening the need for human intervention in the restocking process. Human labor of the merchant operating the ASRS’s can be turned elsewhere.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Tovey and Rao teaches all of the limitations of claim 8 above. Regarding the limitations introduced in claim 14, see the rejection of claim 7 above.
Claims 12, 13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tovey in view of Rao, Cummings, and Bhatt.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Tovey, Rao, and Cummings teaches all of the limitations of claim 11 above. Tovey further teaches:
wherein the historical database provides training data for the neural network including selected product classification, user profile (see [0016] "The customer's profile may include items associated with the customer's personal preferences, search history on a merchant's website, and order history" In combination with Rao, the historical database is used to train the neural network)
While Tovey teaches user histories, Tovey does not explicitly teach a user profile with selected product classifications. Tovey also does not explicitly teach pickup location. Rao further teaches:
wherein the historical database provides training data for the neural network including selected product classification, user profile for selected product classification, (see Col. 5 lines 4-15 "Obtain historical purchase data of a plurality of users of the online platform, the historical purchase data including items from the catalog 304 purchased by each user and/or the respective categories of the items..." for training data including product classifications of selected products. See previous purchase data from a user and many other users to train the neural network. In combination, the user profiles comprising order histories of users would be used in training)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the training the neural network suggesting different categories of items using historical purchased item categories of Rao to the system of Tovey. As Rao states in Col. 1 lines 17-27 “despite the availability of such a wide array of product categories, a customer may typically purchase products from a limited number of categories. For example, a customer may have only purchased books and toys on the e-commerce platform, and may not be aware that other product categories, such as groceries, are also available. It is also a challenge for the e-commerce platform to recommend products to a customer from categories that a customer has not made any purchases in, as there is no data available for that customer in those product categories.” As Tovey bases suggestions off of previous searches and purchases, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that incorporating the ability of Rao’s neural network to recommend products that the user has not purchased before would lead to increased order sizes and generate more business for the combined system than Tovey alone.
The combination of Tovey and Rao still does not explicitly teach the historical database comprising pickup locations information. Bhatt teaches a historical database providing pickup locations (see [0076] "If it is determined that the user is interested in retrieving the item from a mobile pickup location, one or more preferred areas for the user are determined...Determining a preferred area may be done by receiving information from the user as to their preferred areas, identifying preferred areas based on a user's past purchase and delivery history" for history of preferred pickups locations and locations at which the mobile pickup has been made from the mobile vehicle 290 in the past)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of a historical database including pickup locations and temporary shopping locations at pickup locations of Bhatt to the combination of Tovey and Rao would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Bhatt to the teaching of the combination of Tovey and Rao would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such a historical database including pickup locations and temporary shopping locations at pickup locations. Further, applying a historical database including pickup locations and temporary shopping locations at pickup locations to the combination of Tovey and Rao would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more efficient allocation of items to ASRS locations. As Tovey teaches in steps 202 and 204, likely impulse buys are stocked in the ASRS locations in advance of orders. By including previous pickup locations in the training data for the neural network, the combined system would be able to more accurately predict which pickup locations will need which products by pairing product recommendations with likely or historical pickup locations. This would result in more impulse buys already being located at the ASRS and reduce the need for delivery of items nearby the ASRS to the ASRS discussed in Tovey [0046].
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Tovey, Rao, Cummings, and Bhatt teaches all of the limitations of claim 12 above. Tovey further teaches:
updating the historical database following adding the other products to the order (see [0053] "In step 224, the analysis of items for inclusion in the ASRS may be automatically updated by the central server based on the purchase selections or declines by the customer" and [0056] "the customer's profile may be updated with new purchases and new search records" and [0016] "The customer's profile may include items associated with the customer's personal preferences, search history on a merchant's website, and order history" for the profile/historical database being updated based on what products are/are not selected to be added to the order)
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Tovey, Rao, and Cummings teaches all of the limitations of claim 18 above. Regarding the limitations introduced in claim 19, see the rejection of claim 12 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Smith et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2018/0247369) teaches the receipt of an additional item to add to an online order for in-store pickup
Natesh et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,037,222) teaches recommending products and services to a user based on historical data using neural networks
Entezari et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2023/0056148) teaches recommending complementary items to a user
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL C MORONEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4403. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5:30.
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, Resha H. Desai can be reached at (571) 270-7792. 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.
/M.C.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/RESHA DESAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628