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
Examiner’s Comments
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 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.
Column and line (or Paragraph Number) citations have been provided as a convenience for Applicants, but the entirety of each reference should be duly considered. Any recitation of a Figure element, e.g. “Figure 1, element T should be construed as inherently also reciting “and relevant disclosure thereto”.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 63/340,032, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. The provisional application discloses the general concept but does not provide the specificity disclosed and claimed in the current application. Claims 1-20 are not supported by the prior application and the effective filing date will be 5/10/23.
Specification/Drawings
The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code. Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the interior space of claims 1, 13-14 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4, 10, 13-14, 17, and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In each of claims 1, 13, and 14, the abbreviation “POS” should perhaps instead be “point-of-sale” as set forth at [0043] in the specification.
In each of claims 4 and 17, “said ordered items” should be simply “ordered items” as this is the first occurrence of the recitation.
In each of claims 10 and 19, the recitation “said ordered times” should be “said ordered items”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 905.
For claim 1, JP 905 (JP 2018114905) discloses a mobile general store truck for purchasing items, the mobile general store truck comprising:
a variety of goods ([0002,0010]) for purchase by customers at a POS with said mobile general store truck;
wherein said variety of goods are selected from a group consisting of food items ([0002]), beverages, tobacco, and household items;
wherein said variety of goods are accessible at a scheduled location (implicitly) at a scheduled time;
wherein said mobile general store truck (FIG.5) is a mobile shop comprising a drivable truck; and
further wherein said mobile general store truck having an interior space (FIG.6) for physical shopping of said variety of goods by the customers.
For claim 13, further wherein said purchase comprising a POS purchase ([0021]) or a vending purchase at said mobile general store truck.
For claim 2, said mobile general store truck regularly changes geographic locations. “[W]here the Patent Office has reason to believe that a functional limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter may, in fact, be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, it possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on. In re Schrieber 128 F.3d 1478 (quoting In re Swinehart). In this instance, a truck has the inherent feature of being movable and capable to change its geographic location. Claim 2 adds no additional structural limitations.
PNG
media_image1.png
293
672
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 905 in view of Faigin et al. (11842414).
For claim 3, Faigin et al. teaches delivery vehicle (300) with integrated vending system having a user interface (330) for allowing customers (30) to interact directly with the vehicle (300). The interface includes an interactive display (332) on an exterior surface of the vehicle, which display allows for showing customers current inventory (322) of products (P).
For claim 14, Faigin et al. further teach the vehicle capable of receiving online purchase orders from users (FIGS.2A-E) with the end user device being a stationary device, such as a personal computer, a smart television, a smart speaker, or other interactive devices.
For claim 15, Faigin et al. discloses a profile database (‘user preferences’ and ‘memory hardware’) configured to save profiles and information (such as times of day, locations) of said purchases of said mobile general store truck.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have provided the truck of JP 905 to be capable of receiving online orders, saving user preferences, and comprising a display all as taught by Faigin et al. in order to inform the shopping customers and allow for easier transactions.
PNG
media_image2.png
417
670
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 4-7 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 905, as modified above, and further in view of Borden (10269273).
JP 905, as modified, fails to provide an exterior surface of the truck displaying a website URL Border teaches a mobile system for adverting products and services.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to add to JP 905, as modified, a URL on an exterior of the truck as taught by Borden in order to advertise and secure business.
For claims 5-6 and 17, JP 905 as modified with Faigin et al. as set forth above already provided the recited digital display (330).
For claim 7, Borden already teaches providing advertisement and using a QR code is well known to a PHOSITA as an alternative.
Claims 8-10, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 905, as modified above, and further in view of WO 2017/119016 (WO 016).
For claims 8-9 and 18, JP 905, as modified with Faigin et al. above, discloses a payment processor 340 (Faigin) but fails to disclose a specific slot for debit/credit cards.
WO 016 teaches a POS terminal device (200) including a slot (“payment slot 152lt5) for a credit card.
PNG
media_image3.png
579
782
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to add to JP 905, as modified, a payment slot capable of reading credit cards in order to allow this method of payment.
For claims 10 and 19, JP 905, as modified, discloses the exterior surface having a window (FIG.5) for passing ordered items from said interior space to the customer. The window shown in FIG.5 of JP 905, as modified, is opened and capable of passing items therethrough.
Claims 11-12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 905, as modified above, and further in view of Faigin et al. (11842414).
JP 905, as modified, is silent on the specific vehicle being autonomous or self-driving, a feature taught again by Faigin et al. (Col 1, lines 15-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success to have provided the truck of JP 905, as modified, as an autonomous vehicle as taught by Faigin et al. in order to prevent corporations from having to employ and therefore fairly pay human beings a living wage.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Dale (2002/0128923) teaches URL(s) on decals that are attached to a user’s vehicle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HILARY L GUTMAN whose telephone number is 571.272.6662. 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, PAUL DICKSON can be reached on 571.272.7742. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the 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. Should you have questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HILARY L GUTMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3614