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 .
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 (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 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.
Claims 1 - 2, 8, 13, 15 - 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Garrett et al. (US 20140249938 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Garrett discloses a method of preparing an order from a business placed by a customer distant from the business (Abstract discloses “…receiving, in a computer system, a selection of an order by a user of a user device, the order including a selection of a restaurant and at least one item to purchase from the restaurant … determining, by the computer system, if the user is within a geofence defined in regard to the restaurant…”; wherein distant from business is determined from being outside the geofence), the method comprising:
receiving, from the customer, the order that includes at least one item in need of preparation (Abstract discloses “…receiving, in a computer system, a selection of an order by a user of a user device, the order including a selection of a restaurant and at least one item to purchase from the restaurant ..”; [0005] & claim 1 disclose same; Fig. 3, step 314; [0035]);
determining, by a computer processor, an amount of time needed to prepare the at least one item of the order (Fig. 3, step 316; [0036] discloses “…the server 20 may determine how long it will take to prepare the order provided by the user based on the time it takes to prepare each item (input by the coordinator), the day of the week, and/or the time of day (determining the level of traffic at the restaurant and staffing), among others …”; wherein the computer processor is the server);
positioning, dependent upon the amount of time needed to prepare the at least one item of the order, a geofence around the business ([0046] 2nd last sentence discloses “As such, the order preparation time for the entire order may factor into the defined geofence 234, 236.”; [0048] discloses “Such information allows the algorithm to modify the geofence 234, 236 based on other factors, such as … the actual time required to prepare an item or order offered by the restaurant.”);
tracking a position of the customer ([0039] discloses “Additionally, server 20 can receive and track the GPS position of the user. Server 20 makes this determination based on the GPS data transmitted by the user device 40 to the server 20”);
and in response to the customer crossing the geofence, beginning preparation of the at least one item of the order (Fig. 3, step 320, 322; [0038] discloses “For example, in some embodiments, the order may be held at the user device 40 or server 20 until the user is within the geofence 234, 236 “; [0041] discloses “For example, in some embodiments, the order may be held by the user device 40 or server 20 until the user is within the geofence 234, 236;…. If the order is held by the user device 40, then once the user is within the geofence 234, 236, the order may be transmitted to the server 20 and then on to the restaurant system 30 (or from the user device 40 directly to the restaurant system 30), particularly the POS 32 if applicable, which then processes the order in the restaurant...”).
Regarding claim 2, Garrett discloses receiving traffic information on roads between the customer and the business, wherein the position of the geofence is further dependent upon the traffic information ([0048] discloses “Such information allows the algorithm to modify the geofence 234, 236 based on other factors, such as new or untrained employees or typical traffic patterns of the associated geographic area,…”; [0052] discloses “It should be understood that such embodiments allow multiple geofences to be associated with one or more restaurant in order to account for different traffic patterns or modes of transportation”; wherein receiving traffic patterns is inherent since traffic patterns are used).
Regarding claim 8, Garrett discloses the position of the customer is tracked via a mobile application on a mobile phone associated with the customer ([0030] discloses “….the user device 40 may monitor the location of the user to determine if the user is within the geofence 234, 236,….”; [0039] discloses “As previously described, in some embodiments, user device 40 monitors the GPS location of the user, which is the same location as the user device 40..”; [0040], 1st sentence discloses similar).
Claim 13 is similarly analyzed as claim 1, with claim 13 reciting equivalent apparatus limitations.
Claim 15 is similarly analyzed as claim 2.
Claim 16 is similarly analyzed as claim 8.
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.
Claims 3 - 7, 14, 17 – 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garrett et al. (US 20140249938 A1) in view of Georgiadis et al. (US 20220101288 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Garrett does not disclose storing previous driving behavior of the customer during previous orders by the customer, wherein the position of the geofence is further dependent upon the previous driving behavior.
In the same field of endeavor, however, Georgiadis discloses storing previous driving behavior of the customer during previous orders by the customer, wherein the position of the geofence is further dependent upon the previous driving behavior ([0116] discloses “In some implementations, the user device and a vehicle identifier are associated with the trip based on the received and authenticated data, whereas in some implementations, previously received route data and/or historic data may also be utilized for the association“; [0177] discloses “In some implementations, a corresponding geofence may be specified by a combination of an origin location, a destination location, one or more intermediate locations, and one or more proposed routes of travel.”; wherein previous driving behavior is one or more of the above and storing previous driving behavior is obvious and inherent since it is used to determine the geofence).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to use the method, as taught by Georgiadis, in the system of Garrett because setting the geofence based on the above would ensure that is optimized for that particular driver.
Regarding claim 4, Garrett does not disclose the driving behavior of the customer includes at least one of an origin of the customer, a route the customer takes to the business from the origin, and an average time the customer takes to travel from the origin to the business.
In the same field of endeavor, however, Georgiadis discloses the driving behavior of the customer includes at least one of an origin of the customer, a route the customer takes to the business from the origin, and an average time the customer takes to travel from the origin to the business ([0177] discloses “In some implementations, a corresponding geofence may be specified by a combination of an origin location, a destination location, one or more intermediate locations, and one or more proposed routes of travel.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to use the method, as taught by Georgiadis, in the system of Garrett because setting the geofence based on the above would ensure that is optimized for that particular driver.
Regarding claim 5, Garrett does not disclose providing, to the customer, a proposed route to the business that is estimated to take the customer a least amount of time to arrive at the business as compared to other routes.
In the same field of endeavor, however, Georgiadis discloses providing, to the customer, a proposed route to the business that is ([0076]; [0177]). Proposing a route “estimated to take the customer a least amount of time to arrive at the business as compared to other routes” is obvious to try (Rationales for Obviousness (MPEP 2143, Rationale E) since that is the most common route most people take.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to use the method, as taught by Georgiadis, in the system of Garrett because the route with the least time would get the customer to the restaurant quickest.
Regarding claim 6, Garrett does not disclose repositioning the geofence dependent in response to the customer deviating from the proposed route.
In the same field of endeavor, however, Georgiadis discloses the geofence is related to the route ([0175]; [0177]). Hence, if the customer takes a route other than the proposed route, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to update the geofence.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to use the method, as taught by Georgiadis, in the system of Garrett because updating the geofence when the route changes would result in a more accurate arrival time estimation.
Regarding claim 7, Garrett does not disclose the position of the geofence is further dependent upon a route the customer takes to arrive at the business.
In the same field of endeavor, however, Georgiadis discloses the position of the geofence is further dependent upon a route the customer takes to arrive at the business ([0116] discloses “In some implementations, the user device and a vehicle identifier are associated with the trip based on the received and authenticated data, whereas in some implementations, previously received route data and/or historic data may also be utilized for the association“; [0177] discloses “In some implementations, a corresponding geofence may be specified by a combination of an origin location, a destination location, one or more intermediate locations, and one or more proposed routes of travel.”; wherein the geofence can be determined based on previous or historic route data).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to use the method, as taught by Georgiadis, in the system of Garrett because setting the geofence based on the above would ensure that is optimized for that particular driver.
Claim 14 is similarly analyzed as claim 3.
Claim 17 is similarly analyzed as claim 5.
Claim 18 is similarly analyzed as claim 6.
Claims 9 - 12, 19 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garrett et al. (US 20140249938 A1) in view of Rollinson et al. (US 20060178943 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Garrett discloses restaurant (Title; Abstract; Fig. 3, block 312) and the at least one item is a food item in need of preparation (Abstract, last sentence) but does not disclose quick service restaurant.
In the same field of endeavor, however, Rollinson discloses quick service restaurant ([0091] discloses “…this prep time parameter may be reasonably set as low as ten minutes for merchants in the Quick Service Restaurant (QSR) or fast-food categories …”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to use Quick Service Restaurant (QSR) or fast-food restaurants, as taught by Rollinson, in the system of Garrett because at QSR / fast-food restaurants the wait time is low, as is well known in the art.
Regarding claim 10, Garrett discloses the position of the geofence is further dependent upon a number of pending orders at the quick service restaurant ([0045] discloses “…so the geofence 234, 236 may be adjusted depending on the level of activity projected at the restaurant. Additionally, in some embodiments, the restaurant system 30 may transmit information associated with the level of activity at the restaurant to the server 20 (e.g., the average wait, the number of orders in the system, the user's order in the preparation queue, among others),…”).
Regarding claim 11, Garrett does not disclose in response to the beginning of preparation of the at least one item of the order, notifying the customer that preparation has begun on the at least one food item.
In the same field of endeavor, however, Rollinson discloses in response to the beginning of preparation of the at least one item of the order, notifying the customer that preparation has begun on the at least one food item ([0044] discloses “During step 102, the user is reminded of the exact prep time 104 (FIG. 11K) associated with the order to permit the user to schedule order placement (transmission) so that arrival for pickup can occur immediately upon completion of order preparation …. step 112 branches to the step 116, which informs the user of final order confirmation by means of, for example, the GUI display illustrated in FIG. 11L. Such final order confirmation data includes, without limitation, the exact pickup time 118 to which the merchant is committed (this is also the order completion time and may represent, for example, the transmission time plus the associated static prep time; wherein from the pickup time and prep time, one of ordinary skill in the art knows when prep has begun).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to use the method, as taught by Rollinson, in the system of Garrett because this would allow the user to know when the order is ready.
Regarding claim 12, Garrett does not disclose in response to the beginning of preparation of the at least one item of the order, providing an estimate of an amount of time until preparation of the order is complete.
In the same field of endeavor, however, Rollinson discloses in response to the beginning of preparation of the at least one item of the order, providing an estimate of an amount of time until preparation of the order is complete ([0044] discloses “During step 102, the user is reminded of the exact prep time 104 (FIG. 11K) associated with the order to permit the user to schedule order placement (transmission) so that arrival for pickup can occur immediately upon completion of order preparation …. step 112 branches to the step 116, which informs the user of final order confirmation by means of, for example, the GUI display illustrated in FIG. 11L. Such final order confirmation data includes, without limitation, the exact pickup time 118 to which the merchant is committed (this is also the order completion time and may represent, for example, the transmission time plus the associated static prep time; wherein from prep time and pickup time, time for completion is known).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to use the method, as taught by Rollinson, in the system of Garrett because this would allow the user to know when the order is ready.
Claim 19 is similarly analyzed as claim 9.
Claim 20 is similarly analyzed as claim 10.
Other Prior Art Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
The following patents/publications are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to geofencing for restaurant orders:
Mylonas (US 11227347 B2) discloses System and Method for Utilizing Transit Data to Determine Where a Transit Traveler's Order Is Placed in An Order Queue.
Svenson et al. (US 10467559 B1) discloses Order Fulfillment and Tracking Systems and Methods.
Kelly et al. (US 20180253805 A1) discloses Drive-Thru / Point-Of-Sale Automated Transaction Technologies and Apparatus.
Burks et al. (US 20160244311 A1) Discloses Structural Food Preparation Systems and Methods.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADOLF DSOUZA whose telephone number is (571)272-1043. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9 AM - 5 PM.
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, Chieh M Fan can be reached at 571-272-3042. 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.
/ADOLF DSOUZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2632