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 the Claims
Claims 1-22 were previously pending and subject to a non-final office action mailed 04/24/2025. Claims 1 and 13 were amended; no claim was cancelled or added in a reply filed 08/22/2025. Therefore claims 1-22 are currently pending and subject to the final office action below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks p. 8-9, filed 08/22/2025, with respect to 101 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 101 rejection of claims 1-22 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 102/103 rejection have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 7, 9-10, 13, 15, 19, and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilkinson (US 20190344965) in view of Irwin (US 2018/0374043)
As per claim 1/13, Wilkinson an automated order pickup system/method that enables impulse purchases of impulse purchase items during order pickup by a customer, the system comprising:
a housing (fig. 1-2, paragraph 14);
a plurality of order storage bins contained within the housing (fig. 20, paragraph 20);
an imaging system (paragraph 22, 66);
a display (paragraph 15); and
a user terminal comprising a controller configured to:
receive orders comprising one or more items that have been purchased or are designated for purchase by the customer, the order being designated for retrieval by the customer from the automated order pickup system (paragraph 62, 17, 25, 14);
assign each of the orders to at least one of the plurality of order storage bins (fig. 2, paragraph 20);
authenticate a credential provided to the customer, the credential being unique to the customer and/or to the order to be received by the customer (paragraph 23, 42);
receive information regarding the impulse purchase items available for impulse purchase by the customer during retrieval of the order to be received by the customer (paragraph 28, 31, 33-37); and
select promotional information for one or more of the impulse purchase items (paragraph 45-47); and
wherein, when the customer selects to purchase any of the impulse purchase items, the order pickup system is configured to dispense the impulse purchase items selected for purchase to the customer, as well as the one or more items in the order to be received by the customer (paragraph 43); and
wherein the promotional information is displayed to the customer on the display before, during, and/or after the customer receives the order (paragraph 45-47).
However, Wilkinson does not disclose but Irwin discloses wherein at least some of the plurality of order storage bins have a different size than others of the plurality of order storage bins, so as to accommodate therein different quantities and/or sizes of items in the order (paragraph 76-77, “The storage unit 100 may comprise one or several receptacle units each comprising a plurality of storage receptacles 132. Each storage receptacle 132 comprises a plurality of sides 134 and a door 136. The combination of the sides 134 and the door 136 defines a receiving volume configured to receive and hold a deposited item… The storage receptacles 132 may comprise a variety of shapes and sizes. In some embodiments, the storage unit 100 comprises a plurality of storage receptacles 132 of different sizes. Thus, as depicted in FIG. 1, the storage unit 100 includes a first storage receptacle 132a, a second storage receptacle 132b that is smaller than the first storage receptacle 132a, and a third storage receptacle 132c that is larger than the first storage receptacle 132a”); and
wherein the imaging system is configured to detect a volume occupied by the one or more items in the order and to select one of the plurality of order storage bins into which the one or more items of the order are to be deposited based on the volume detected by the imaging system (paragraph 88, 183-185, “[0088] The storage receptacle 132 further includes features configured to detect the presence or absence of an item within the receiving area of the storage receptacle 132. In some embodiments, the item detection feature configured to detect the presence or absence of an item within the receiving area of the storage receptacle 132 comprises, for example, a sensor 145. The sensor 145 may be a camera, or any other feature possessing the desired capabilities…In some embodiments, a scale, a sensor, or measuring device may be located at the storage unit 100, or may be incorporated into storage unit 100, providing a user with an opportunity to measure the size and weight of an item and provide the measurements to the storage unit 100. A user may manually input the measured item dimensions into the control unit 144, or the scale, sensor, or measuring device may communicate the measured item dimensions to control unit 144... If the user indicated the item size, the process 300D advances to decision state 308D, and determines whether any storage receptacles 132 of adequate size to hold the deposited item are available. In some embodiments, this determination includes, for example, a query of the receptacle database 171 to determine which receptacles are available and the sizes of the available receptacles.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitations as taught by Irwin in the teaching of Wilkinson, 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.
As per claim 3/15, Wilkinson discloses wherein the housing comprises multiple secure pickup points (paragraph 14-15).
As per claim 7/19, Wilkinson discloses wherein the user terminal is a kiosk (paragraph 14, 18, 25).
As per claim 9/21, Wilkinson discloses wherein the system is configured to deliver any of the impulse purchase items selected for purchase by the customer simultaneously with the customer’s order (paragraph 43).
As per claim 10/22, Wilkinson discloses wherein the promotional information is selected based on which of the impulse purchase items is most often ordered along with any of the one or more items in the customer’s order and/or which of the impulse purchase items is most often ordered along with any items in an order history of the customer (paragraph 35).
Claim(s) 2 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilkinson in view of Irwin (US 2018/0374043), as rejected in claim 1, in view of Huntley (US 2021/0049858).
As per claim 2/14, Wilkinson does not disclose but Huntley discloses wherein the housing comprises a single secure pickup point (paragraph 125).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitation above as taught by Huntley in the teaching of Wilkinson, 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.
Claim(s) 4-6, 8, 16-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilkinson in view of Irwin (US 2018/0374043), as rejected in claim 1, in view of Phillips (US 20210295412).
As per claim 4/16, Wilkinson does not disclose but Phillips discloses wherein the controller is configured to: transmit information regarding types and/or quantities of the impulse purchase items stored in the order pickup system to a retailer or vendor (paragraph 62); and receive instructions from the retailer or vendor about which of the impulse purchase items the promotional information should be displayed to the customer (paragraph 54-56).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitation above as taught by Phillips in the teaching of Wilkinson, 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.
As per claim 5/17, Wilkinson does not disclose but Phillips discloses wherein the promotional information regarding the availability of the impulse purchase items for purchase by the customer is selected by the controller based on time of day, day of week, day of year, and/or weather (paragraph 55).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitation above as taught by Phillips in the teaching of Wilkinson, 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.
As per claim 6/18, Wilkinson does not disclose but Phillips discloses wherein: the impulse purchase items include individual items, each of which can be purchased individually by the customer, separate from the one or more items in the customer’s order; and/or the impulse purchase items include groups of items, where each group of items can be purchased by the customer (paragraph 54-58).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitation above as taught by Phillips in the teaching of Wilkinson, 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.
As per claim 8/20, Wilkinson does not disclose but Phillips discloses wherein the display is a mobile device provided by the customer (paragraph 47).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitation above as taught by Phillips in the teaching of Wilkinson, 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.
Claim(s) 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilkinson in view of Irwin (US 2018/0374043) and Phillips (US 20210295412).
As per claim 11/12, Wilkinson in view of Irwin discloses the automated order pickup system of claim 1 (please see claim 1 rejection).
However, Wilkinson in view of Irwin does not disclose but Phillips discloses a centralized pickup system comprising: a plurality of the automated order pickup systems (paragraph 53, 62); a centralized controller (paragraph 53, 62); and a network configured to connect the plurality of automated order pickup systems to the centralized controller; wherein the centralized controller is configured to select the promotional information for one or more of the impulse purchase items across a designated geographic area across which the plurality of the automated order pickup systems is deployed and/or a customer base in a community designated for service by any of the plurality of the automated order pickup systems (paragraph 54-56).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the limitation above as taught by Phillips in the teaching of Wilkinson, 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR ZEROUAL whose telephone number is (571)272-7255. The examiner can normally be reached Flex schedule.
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 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.
OMAR . ZEROUAL
Examiner
Art Unit 3628
/OMAR ZEROUAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628