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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/27/2023 and 10/23/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Under Step 1 of the eligibility analysis the claims are directed to statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03. Specifically, the method, as claimed in claims 1-14 and 16-20, is directed to the process. Additionally, the computer, as claimed in claim 15, is directed to a machine.
While the claims fall within statutory categories, under Step 2A, Prong 1 of the eligibility analysis (MPEP 2106.04), the claimed invention recites the abstract idea of providing first and second items in the same format for selection and fulfillment. Specifically, representative claim 1 recites the abstract idea of:
Receiving, from a plurality of first service providers, first item data for a plurality of first items provided by the plurality of first services providers in a first data format;
Storing the first item data for the plurality of first items provided by the plurality of first service providers in the first data format;
Receiving from a plurality of second service providers, second item data for a plurality of second items provided by the second service providers in a second data format;
Converting the second item data for the plurality of second items in the second data format to the first data format;
Receiving from a user a selection of a first service provider;
Providing to the user a display of one or more first items provided by the first service provider using first item data in the first data format;
Providing to the user a display of one or more second items provided by a second service provider using second item data in the first data format along with the display of the one or more first items provided by the first service provider;
Receiving form the user a selection of the displayed ne or more first items provided by the first service provider and the displayed one or more second items of the second service provider, wherein the one or more first items and the one or more second items form an aggregate of items; and
Initiating a fulfillment of the selection for the aggregate of items.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1 of the eligibility analysis, it is necessary to evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception by referring to subject matter groupings enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a). The abstract idea identified above is considered to be a certain method of organizing human activity. Certain methods of organizing human activity include “fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).”” MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). In this case, the abstract idea recited in representative claim 1 is a certain method of organizing human activity because receiving first/second item data, converting the item data, receiving a selection, displaying items, receiving a selection, and initiating fulfillment is a commercial or legal interaction because it is a sales activity and/or relates to business relations. Thus, representative claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2 of the eligibility analysis, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception, it is then necessary to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. MPEP 2106.04(d). The courts have identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application include limitations merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.04(d). In this case, representative claim 1 includes additional elements such as a central server computer, data storage, and user device. Although reciting such additional elements, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant's specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration. Similar to the limitations of Alice, representative claim 1 merely recites a commonplace business method (i.e., providing item information) being applied on a general-purpose computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Thus, the claimed additional elements are merely generic elements and the implementation of the elements merely amounts to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. Since the additional elements merely include instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, the abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application.
Under Step 2B of the eligibility analysis, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception that is not integrated into a practical application of that exception, it is then necessary to evaluate the additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). MPEP 2106.05. In this case, as noted above, the additional elements recited in independent claim 1 are recited and described in a generic manner merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of representative claim 1 do not add anything that is not already present when they are considered individually. In Alice, the court considered the additional elements “as an ordered combination,” and determined that “the computer components...‘ad[d] nothing. ..that is not already present when the steps are considered separately’... [and] [v]iewed as a whole...[the] claims simply recite intermediated settlement as performed by a generic computer.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217, (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1972). Similarly, when viewed as a whole, representative claim 1 simply conveys the abstract idea itself facilitated by generic computing components. Therefore, under Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, there are no meaningful limitations in representative claim 1 that transforms the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
As such, representative claim 1 is ineligible.
Dependent Claims 2-14 do not aid in the eligibility of independent claim 1. For example, claims 2-14 merely further define the abstract limitations of claim 1.
Furthermore, it is noted that certain dependent claims include additional elements supplemental to those recited in independent claim 1: a machine learning model (claim 5), an application (claims 6, 9). However, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. These additional elements are merely generic elements and are likewise described in a generic manner in Applicant’s specification. Additionally, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-4, 7-8, and 10-14 do not recite additional elements supplemental those recited in claim 1. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the reasons described above with respect to claim 1.
Thus, dependent claims 2-14are also ineligible.
Independent claims 15 and 16 recite the same abstract idea represented in representative claim 1. Independent Claim 15 recites the additional elements of a central server computer comprising a processor and non-transitory computer readable medium, user device, and data storage. Independent Claim 16 recites the additional elements of a user device and central server computer. The additional elements in Independent claims 15 and 16 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the reasons described above with respect to claim 1.
Similarly, the dependent claims 18-20 do not recite additional elements supplemental those recited in claims 2-14. Claim 17 recites the additional element of a mobile phone. However, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. These additional elements are merely generic elements and are likewise described in a generic manner in Applicant’s specification. Additionally, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements to not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the reasons described above with respect to claims 2-4, respectively.
Thus, dependent claims 17-20 are also ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-12 and 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hossain et al. (US 2021/0056567) in view of Wang et al. (US 2022/0101250).
Regarding Claims 1, 15, and 16, Hossain discloses A method comprising: (See at least Abstract)
receiving, by a central server computer from a plurality of first service providers, first item data for a plurality of first items provided by the plurality of first service providers in a first data format; (See at least paragraph [0005] disclosing receiving product information for at least one product for a storefront, [0008], [0010], [0058], [0089], [0097])
storing, by the central server computer in a data storage, the first item data for the plurality of first items provided by the plurality of first service providers in the first data format; (See at least paragraph [0018] disclosing storing received product data as a synchronization data model, [0090])
receiving, by the central server computer from a plurality of second service providers, second item data for a plurality of second items provided by the second service providers in a second data format; (See at least paragraph [0005] & [0010] disclosing receiving, for one or more storefronts, product information for products, [0089], [0097])
converting, by the central server computer, the second item data for the plurality of second items in the second data format to the first data format; (See at least paragraph [0098] disclosing converting/translating product information to a translated product format for the selected channel which involves selecting and/or formatting the appropriate data needed for each required product data field of each individual channel)
receiving, by the central server computer from the user device, a selection of the displayed one or more first items provided by the first service provider and the displayed one or more second items of the second service provider, wherein the one or more first items and the one or more second items form an aggregate of items; (See at least paragraph [0079] disclosing customers ability browse merchant products and add the items to cart and pay for cart, [0080] disclosing browse merchants products on channels, [0097] disclosing plurality of storefronts on different channels)
initiating, by the central server computer, a fulfillment of the selection for the aggregate of items (See at least paragraph [0054] disclosing buy button for online store that has collection of storefronts from plurality of merchants that may be used in connection with an online channel, [0058]-[0059] disclosing online checkout and payment processing, [0077] disclosing customer facing application including online store or channels that merchants list products and be able to purchase from, [0081]-[0082], [0084] disclosing order fulfillment)
However, Hossain does not expressly provide for receiving, by the central server computer from a user device, a selection of a first service provider; providing, by the central server computer to the user device, a display of one or more first items provided by the first service provider using first item data in the first data format; providing, by the central server computer to the user device, a display of one or more second items provided by a second service provider using second item data in the first data format, along with the display of the one or more first items provided by the first service provider).
Wang discloses receiving, by the central server computer from a user device, a selection of a first service provider; providing, by the central server computer to the user device, a display of one or more first items provided by the first service provider using first item data in the first data format; providing, by the central server computer to the user device, a display of one or more second items provided by a second service provider using second item data in the first data format, along with the display of the one or more first items provided by the first service provider; (See at least paragraph [0022] disclosing selecting second merchants for user interface to order one or more additional items with the first order of items from the first merchant, [0027] disclosing user presented with suggestion to bundles order upon selection of a first merchant for browsing items offered by the first merchant and may determine possible second merchants based on indication of interest in first merchant or particular item from first merchant, Fig. 6 & 7 disclosing burger store and Bob’s convenience store items displayed together and add for purchasing).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included selecting and providing the first item and second item data along with one another as taught by Wang in the synchronized merchant system of Hossain because it would allow for more efficient ordering with one order as opposed to separate orders/separate deliveries. See Wang paragraph [0002], [0019].
Regarding Claim 2, Hossain and Wang teach or suggest all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Hossain discloses wherein converting the second item data for the plurality of second items in the second data format to the first data format comprises transferring some data values in data fields in the second data format to similar data fields in the first data format, not including data fields and the values in the data fields in the second data format in the first data format; and populating data fields in the first data format that are not present in the second data format. (See at least paragraph [0057] disclosing dynamically populating the page with data from an online store, [0098] disclosing converting/translating product information to a translated product format for the selected channel which involves selecting and/or formatting the appropriate data needed for each required product data field of each individual channel, [0102] disclosing prepopulate category fields for various products).
Regarding Claim 3, Hossain and Wang teach or suggest all of the limitations of claim 1. Hossain does not expressly provide for determining, by the central server computer, the second service provider based on a proximity of the second service provider to the first service provider. However, Wang discloses determining, by the central server computer, the second service provider based on a proximity of the second service provider to the first service provider. (See at least paragraph [0020] disclosing selecting second merchants based on threshold distance of at least one of first merchant location)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included selecting and providing the first item and second item data along with one another as taught by Wang in the synchronized merchant system of Hossain because it would allow for more efficient ordering with one order as opposed to separate orders/separate deliveries. See Wang paragraph [0002], [0019].
Regarding Claim 4, Hossain and Wang teach or suggest all of the limitations of claim 3. Hossain does not expressly provide for wherein determining the second service provider from the plurality of second service providers based on the first service provider comprises using a location based pairing method.. However, Wang discloses wherein determining the second service provider from the plurality of second service providers based on the first service provider comprises using a location based pairing method. (See at least paragraph [0020] disclosing selecting second merchants based on threshold distance of at least one of first merchant location, [0074], Fig.2)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included selecting and providing the first item and second item data along with one another as taught by Wang in the synchronized merchant system of Hossain because it would allow for more efficient ordering with one order as opposed to separate orders/separate deliveries. See Wang paragraph [0002], [0019].
Regarding Claim 5, Hossain and Wang teach or suggest all of the limitations of claim 3. Hossain does not expressly provide for wherein determining the second service provider from the plurality of second service providers based on the first service provider comprises using a machine learning model. However, Wang discloses wherein determining the second service provider from the plurality of second service providers based on the first service provider comprises using a machine learning model. (See at least paragraph [0021] disclosing select second merchant based on machine learning, [0055])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included selecting and providing the first item and second item data along with one another as taught by Wang in the synchronized merchant system of Hossain because it would allow for more efficient ordering with one order as opposed to separate orders/separate deliveries. See Wang paragraph [0002], [0019].
Regarding Claim 6, Hossain and Wang teach or suggest all of the limitations of claim 1. Hossain does not expressly provide for receiving, by the central server computer, pairing data associated with the first service provider, the pairing data indicating allowable second service providers and allowable items that can be displayed alongside first items from the first service provider on an application on the user device. However, Wang discloses receiving, by the central server computer, pairing data associated with the first service provider, the pairing data indicating allowable second service providers and allowable items that can be displayed alongside first items from the first service provider on an application on the user device. (See at least paragraph [0055] disclosing second merchants selected based on items being compatible with first order items, [0060] disclosing what items to present from second merchant based on first merchant/first items, [0098], [0128], [0132] disclosing cuisine compatibility and complementing using rules, [0133]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included selecting and providing the first item and second item data along with one another as taught by Wang in the synchronized merchant system of Hossain because it would allow for more efficient ordering with one order as opposed to separate orders/separate deliveries. See Wang paragraph [0002], [0019].
Regarding Claim 7, Hossain and Wang teach or suggest all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Hossain discloses wherein the first data format has data fields including: a name, description, image, category identifier, and value field. (See at least paragraph [0002] disclosing fields such as product ID number, price, category, image, availability, etc., [0083] disclosing currency, [0088] disclosing category, UPC, brand gender, condition, etc.).
Regarding Claim 8, Hossain and Wang teach or suggest all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Hossain discloses wherein the second data format has data fields including: a name, description, image, category identifier, value, currency, and a universal product code. (See at least paragraph [0002] disclosing fields such as product ID number, price, category, image, availability, etc., [0083] disclosing currency, [0088] disclosing category, UPC, brand gender, condition, etc.).
Regarding Claim 9, Hossain and Wang teach or suggest all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Hossain discloses wherein the display of one or more first items provided by the first service provider and the display of one or more second items provided by the second service provider are displayed on an application installed on the user device. (See at least paragraph [0057] disclosing application installed on customer device).
Regarding Claim 10, Hossain and Wang teach or suggest all of the limitations of claim 1. Hossain does not expressly provide for wherein the selection of the first service provider causes the central server computer to select the second service provider of the plurality of second service providers. However, Wang discloses wherein the selection of the first service provider causes the central server computer to select the second service provider of the plurality of second service providers. (See at least paragraph [0055] disclosing second merchants selected based on items being compatible with first order items, [0060] disclosing what items to present from second merchant based on first merchant/first items, [0098], [0128], [0132] disclosing cuisine compatibility and complementing using rules, [0133], [0027] disclosing user presented with suggestion to bundles order upon selection of a first merchant for browsing items offered by the first merchant and may determine possible second merchants based on indication of interest in first merchant or particular item from first merchant, Fig. 6 & 7 disclosing burger store and Bob’s convenience store items displayed together and add for purchasing).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included selecting and providing the first item and second item data along with one another as taught by Wang in the synchronized merchant system of Hossain because it would allow for more efficient ordering with one order as opposed to separate orders/separate deliveries. See Wang paragraph [0002], [0019].
Regarding Claim 11, Hossain and Wang teach or suggest all of the limitations of claim 1. Hossain does not expressly provide for wherein the selection of one or more first items provided by the first service provider is used to determine the second service provider from the plurality of second service providers. However, Wang discloses wherein the selection of one or more first items provided by the first service provider is used to determine the second service provider from the plurality of second service providers. (See at least paragraph [0055] disclosing second merchants selected based on items being compatible with first order items, [0060] disclosing what items to present from second merchant based on first merchant/first items, [0098], [0128], [0132] disclosing cuisine compatibility and complementing using rules, [0133], [0027] disclosing user presented with suggestion to bundles order upon selection of a first merchant for browsing items offered by the first merchant and may determine possible second merchants based on indication of interest in first merchant or particular item from first merchant, Fig. 6 & 7 disclosing burger store and Bob’s convenience store items displayed together and add for purchasing).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included selecting and providing the first item and second item data along with one another as taught by Wang in the synchronized merchant system of Hossain because it would allow for more efficient ordering with one order as opposed to separate orders/separate deliveries. See Wang paragraph [0002], [0019].
Regarding Claim 12, Hossain and Wang teach or suggest all of the limitations of claim 1. Hossain does not expressly provide for wherein the selection of one or more first items provided by the first service provider is used to determine a subset of second items provided by the second service provider. However, Wang discloses wherein the selection of one or more first items provided by the first service provider is used to determine a subset of second items provided by the second service provider. (See at least paragraph [0055] disclosing second merchants selected based on items being compatible with first order items, [0060] disclosing what items to present from second merchant based on first merchant/first items, [0098], [0128], [0132] disclosing cuisine compatibility and complementing using rules, [0133] disclosing subset of second merchants and/or items to offer the user, [0027] disclosing user presented with suggestion to bundles order upon selection of a first merchant for browsing items offered by the first merchant and may determine possible second merchants based on indication of interest in first merchant or particular item from first merchant, Fig. 6 & 7 disclosing burger store and Bob’s convenience store items displayed together and add for purchasing).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included selecting and providing the first item and second item data along with one another as taught by Wang in the synchronized merchant system of Hossain because it would allow for more efficient ordering with one order as opposed to separate orders/separate deliveries. See Wang paragraph [0002], [0019].
Regarding Claim 14, Hossain and Wang teach or suggest all of the limitations of claim 1. Hossain does not expressly provide for wherein the fulfillment of the selection for the aggregate of items is completed by a single transporter that obtains the first items from the first service provider and the second items from the second service provider and delivers the aggregate of items to the user. However, Wang discloses wherein the fulfillment of the selection for the aggregate of items is completed by a single transporter that obtains the first items from the first service provider and the second items from the second service provider and delivers the aggregate of items to the user. (See at least paragraph [0019] disclosing bundling to single agent deliver multiple items from multiple different merchants as part of same delivery).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included selecting and providing the first item and second item data along with one another as taught by Wang in the synchronized merchant system of Hossain because it would allow for more efficient ordering with one order as opposed to separate orders/separate deliveries. See Wang paragraph [0002], [0019].
Regarding Claim 17, Hossain and Wang teach or suggest all of the limitations of claim 16. Additionally, Hossain discloses wherein the user device is a mobile phone (See at least paragraph [0055] disclosing customer device being mobile computing device, [0073]).
Regarding Claim 18, Hossain and Wang teach or suggest all of the limitations of claim 16. Additionally, Hossain discloses wherein the second items are retail items (See at least paragraph [0002], [0052], [0054], Fig. 9). Hossain does not expressly provide for the first items are food items. However, Wang discloses wherein the first items are food items (Wang: see at least paragraph [0058] disclosing menu items like entrees, side dishes, drinks, desserts, etc., [0087]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included selecting and providing the first item and second item data along with one another as taught by Wang in the synchronized merchant system of Hossain because it would allow for more efficient ordering with one order as opposed to separate orders/separate deliveries. See Wang paragraph [0002], [0019].
Regarding Claim 19, Hossain and Wang teach or suggest all of the limitations of claim 16. Additionally, Hossain discloses wherein converting comprise populating new data fields and removing data fields(See at least paragraph [0057] disclosing dynamically populating the page with data from an online store, [0098] disclosing converting/translating product information to a translated product format for the selected channel which involves selecting and/or formatting the appropriate data needed for each required product data field of each individual channel, [0102] disclosing prepopulate category fields for various products, [0144] disclosing some channels would grey out or remove certain product fields).
Regarding Claim 20, Hossain and Wang teach or suggest all of the limitations of claim 19. Additionally, Hossain discloses wherein converting further comprises keeping data fields in the first and second data formats (See at least paragraph [0057] disclosing dynamically populating the page with data from an online store, [0098] disclosing converting/translating product information to a translated product format for the selected channel which involves selecting and/or formatting the appropriate data needed for each required product data field of each individual channel, [0102] disclosing prepopulate category fields for various products, [0144] disclosing some channels would grey out or remove certain product fields and updating/synchronizing only as needed – some data fields for some channels and not for others).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hossain et al. (US 2021/0056567) in view of Wang et al. (US 2022/0101250), and further in view of Yalamanchi et al. (US 8,527,369).
Regarding Claim 13, Hossain and Wang teach or suggest all of the limitations of claim 16. Hossain does not expressly provide for wherein the first items are prepared food items and the second items are alcoholic beverages. However, Wang discloses wherein the first items are prepared food items and the second items are beverages (Wang: see at least paragraph [0058] disclosing menu items like entrees, side dishes, drinks, desserts, etc., [0087], Fig. 6 & 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included selecting and providing the first item and second item data along with one another as taught by Wang in the synchronized merchant system of Hossain because it would allow for more efficient ordering with one order as opposed to separate orders/separate deliveries. See Wang paragraph [0002], [0019].
However, neither Hossain nor Wang expressly provide for the beverages being alcoholic. Yalamanchi discloses item categories and product categories including that of alcoholic beverages (See at least col 2, lines 1-17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included alcoholic beverages as taught by Yalamanchi in the synchronized merchant system of Hossain/Wang because it would allow for more efficient categories of products to be sold and help improve the quality of customer experience to better find specific items. See Yalamanchi: col 2, lines 1-34.
Conclusion
The references cited in the form PTO-892 were not applied under relevant section §103 in the above Office Action, however, they are considered relevant to both claimed and unclaimed features of the instant invention. Applicant is herein advised to review the cited prior art references prior to responding to the instant Office Action in order to expedite prosecution of the instant application. For example:
“Dynamic courier routing for a food delivery service” (Steever, Z., Karwan, M. and Murray, C., Dynamic courier routing for a food delivery service, 2019 Computers & Operations Research, 107, pp.173-188.) disclosing analyzing best way to split vs not split deliveries where individual customer is ordering from more than one restaurant.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRITTANY E BARGEON whose telephone number is (571)272-2861. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am to 6:00pm.
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, Jeffrey A Smith can be reached at (571) 272-6763. 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.
/B.E.B/Examiner, Art Unit 3688
/Jeffrey A. Smith/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3688