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 .
Response to Arguments
Argument:
PNG
media_image1.png
90
656
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Response:
Rejection has been withdrawn based on the amendment.
Argument:
PNG
media_image2.png
132
672
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Response:
The examiner disagrees. The recited technology is high level recitations of computers and per MPEP 2106.05(f) computer technology when recited at a high degree of generality does not provide a practical application or significantly more.
Argument:
PNG
media_image3.png
154
650
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Response:
MPEP 2106.05(A) recites:
In computer-related technologies, the examiner should determine whether the claim purports to improve computer capabilities or, instead, invokes computers merely as a tool. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1336, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In Enfish, the court evaluated the patent eligibility of claims related to a self-referential database. Id. The court concluded the claims were not directed to an abstract idea, but rather an improvement to computer functionality. Id. It was the specification’s discussion of the prior art and how the invention improved the way the computer stores and retrieves data in memory in combination with the specific data structure recited in the claims that demonstrated eligibility. 822 F.3d at 1339, 118 USPQ2d at 1691. The claim was not simply the addition of general purpose computers added post-hoc to an abstract idea, but a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts. 822 F.3d at 1339, 118 USPQ2d at 1691.
With respect to the instant claims, improved customer service would be an improved abstract idea. Per the above adding a general purpose computer is not an improvement to technology.
Argument:
PNG
media_image4.png
166
680
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Response:
Maintaining autonomy of mobile storefronts is not a technical problem it is a business problem. The claims solution to this is to allow storefronts to approve requests. This is not a technical solution, but rather a business solution.
Argument:
PNG
media_image5.png
224
660
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Response:
The examiner disagrees. Managing space availability is a business problem not a technical one. The recited technological elements are high level computers used in their ordinary capacity. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).
Argument:
PNG
media_image6.png
148
696
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Response:
The rejection did not allege a mental process.
Argument:
PNG
media_image7.png
498
672
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Response:
Availability of inventory based on regional availability is not a technical improvement it is a business improvement. The technological elements related to the claimed inventory management are high level computer components. Per MPEP 2106.05(f) an “apply it” implementation does not provide a practical application or significantly more.
******
Argument:
PNG
media_image8.png
102
676
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Response:
The examiner disagrees. The examiner does not see anything in claim 21 about a supplying mobile storefront identifying other mobile storefronts in a region.
Argument:
PNG
media_image9.png
76
642
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Response:
Claim 21 does not mention anything about service technicians accommodating their own customers through other storefronts.
Argument:
PNG
media_image10.png
198
646
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Response:
Claim 21 does not require rejecting service requests. Ortega does not teach mobile storefronts, but it is not relied upon for such. Furthermore, claim 21 does not mention making mobile storefronts in a region available to a supplying mobile storefront.
Argument:
PNG
media_image11.png
98
696
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Response:
Karuppoor is not individually relied on for teaching multiple storefronts that are collaborated between.
Argument:
PNG
media_image12.png
88
658
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Response:
The examiner does not see this reflected in claim 21.
Argument:
PNG
media_image13.png
226
706
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Response:
The examiner disagrees that claim 21 reflects the first supplying mobile storefront controlling availability of other mobile platforms. The “processor” is not recited as part of the first mobile storefront.
Argument:
PNG
media_image14.png
84
650
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Response:
It’s unclear what limitations in claim 24 are being referred to. There’s no “approval” of anything in claim 24.
Argument:
PNG
media_image15.png
156
780
media_image15.png
Greyscale
Response:
Ruppelt is not relied upon for approving/controlling. Those features are not present in claim 24.
Arguments regarding claim 25-30 generally refer to arguments made regarding claim 21. Examiner disagrees for the same reasons as above.
Argument:
PNG
media_image16.png
150
670
media_image16.png
Greyscale
Response:
Ortega is not relied upon for the franchise distribution model feature.
Argument:
PNG
media_image17.png
214
680
media_image17.png
Greyscale
Response:
The examiner disagrees. Claim 31 does not relied a supplying mobile storefront approving service scheduled at other storefronts.
Argument:
PNG
media_image18.png
104
664
media_image18.png
Greyscale
Response:
Claim 31 does not mention anything about rejecting service requests.
Argument:
PNG
media_image19.png
180
708
media_image19.png
Greyscale
Response:
Karuppoor is not relied upon for teaching the referenced features. The rejection relies on a combination of references.
Argument:
PNG
media_image20.png
178
680
media_image20.png
Greyscale
Response:
Karuppoor is not relied upon for anything to do with franchise distribution mdoels.
Argument:
PNG
media_image21.png
146
658
media_image21.png
Greyscale
Response:
Claim 31 encompasses a supplying storefront approving requests for its own customers at the supplying storefront. It’s not clear in the claims that the requests must relate to a different store.
Arguments regarding claims 32-37 relate to those above and are disagreed with for the same reasons.
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 21-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
All claims recite subject matter falling within one of the four categories of invention (Step 1).
Exemplary claims 21-30 recite:
21. (New) A system for operating a mobile storefront comprising: one or more mobile stores, each including an inventory compartment and a mobile store electronic communication device; a technician or customer electronic communication device; and a processor coupled to a computer readable storage medium having stored thereon computer executable instructions for use in controlling a support or service appointment in a broken tool wizard of the one or more mobile stores, the computer readable instructions, when executed by the processor, configuring the processor to:
synchronize a supplying mobile store to the technician or customer electronic communication device from the one or more mobile stores in a region based on available technician or customer data, available via the technician or customer electronic communication device and availability of at least one of a mobile store support, a repair service, and a pick-up service in the broken tool wizard, available to the supplying mobile store via the one or more mobile stores' electronic communication devices or through a franchise distribution model;
communicate a selection of the availability of the at least one of the mobile store support, the repair service, and the pick-up service to the mobile store electronic communication device of the supplying mobile store for approval, via the mobile store electronic communication device of the supplying mobile store; and automatically update the support or service appointments available via the one or more mobile stores' electronic communication devices or through the franchise distribution model upon approval.
22. (New) The system of claim 21, wherein the technician or customer data includes one or more of identification of the nature of the problem of a broken item, a description of the broken item, a description of the damage, a picture of the broken item, and a video of the broken item.
23. (New) The system of claim 21, wherein the availability of the at least one of the mobile store support, the repair service, and the pick-up service corresponds to one or more of an availability in the inventory compartment corresponding to the supplying mobile store, a replacement availability corresponding to the supplying mobile store, and a service schedule availability corresponding to the supplying mobile store.
24. (New) The system of claim 21, wherein available inventory in the inventory compartments of the supplying mobile store is identified as an alternative to the support or service appointment in a broken tool wizard, wherein the available inventory available to the supplying mobile store is available via the one or more mobile stores' electronic communication devices or through a franchise distribution model.
25. (New) The system of claim 21, wherein the availability of at least one of the mobile store support, the repair service, and the pick-up service in the broken tool wizard is expedited by a request for an expedited service that overrides the availability of the at least one of the mobile store support, the repair service, and the pick-up service available through the broken tool wizard.
26. (New) The system of claim 25, wherein the broken tool wizard identifies the support or service appointment as a warranty request.
27. (New) The system of claim 23, wherein the broken tool wizard identifies the availability of at least one of the mobile store support, the repair service, and the pick-up service based on available inventory space in the inventory compartment, available to the supplying mobile store via the one or more mobile stores' electronic communication devices or through a franchise distribution model.
28. (New) The system of claim 21, wherein upon selection the availability of the at least one of the mobile store support, the repair service, and the pick-up service the technician or customer electronic communication device is provided with payment options including one or more of a direct payment, a timed payment, a payment from a corporate account, a financed payment, a third-party payment service to establish a customer financing arrangement approved via the supplying mobile store electronic communication device.
29. (New) The system of claim 28, wherein the one or more payment options provided to the customer, via the customer electronic communication device, is determined by the supplying mobile store, via the mobile store electronic communication device of the supplying mobile store.
30. (New) The system of claim 21, wherein the processor communicates a service schedule or a mobile storefront site visit schedule on the display of the technician or customer electronic communication device based on the availability of at least one of the mobile store support, the repair service, and the pick-up service in the broken tool wizard, available to the supplying mobile store via the one or more mobile stores' electronic communication devices or through a franchise distribution model.
But for the underlined additional elements, claim 21-30 recite steps for controlling an interaction between a mobile store, a technician and a customer such that information can be shared between parties and used to effectuate a scheduling of services to the customer. Dependent claims further elements such as how this is done based on customer-provided information and mobile store inventory constraints and a payment process. All recited claims in 21-30 are directed to facilitating a transaction between a mobile store w/ a technician and a customer. This is a commercial interaction and as per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) is a method of organizing human activity.
Thus claims 21-30 recite an abstract idea (Step 2A_1).
The recited additional elements comprise:
1) mobile store with associated inventory compartment
2) technician/customer electronic device and mobile store electronic device
3) processor/medium/instructions
4) broken tool wizard (considered to be software application)
The technician/customer electronic devices, the mobile store electronic device, the processor/CRM/instructions and broken tool wizard are high level recitations of a computer implementation. Per MPEP 2106.05(f): Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
Thus the above mentioned elements do not provide a practical application or significantly more.
With respect to the mobile store with inventory compartment, which is recited as an elements of the system, MPEP 2106.05(h) recites that: a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible “simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
With respect to the instant claims, the mobile store is recited to limit the judicial exception to a particular field of use/technological environment. Per the above, it cannot provided a practical application or significantly more. Furthermore, NPL “What Tools Are You Using?” mentions “well-known tool truck brands” thus implying that the concept of a truck carrying an inventory compartment of tools is well known. Thus the mobile store is not regarded as significantly more because it is well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Based on the above, claims 21-30 are considered to be directed to an abstract idea without a practical application or significantly more (Step 2A_2 and Step 2B) and are ineligible.
Claims 31-37 recite steps and limitations similar to claims 21-30 and are considered ineligible for substantially the same reasons.
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.
Claim(s) 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ortega (US 20160307120 A1) in view of Karuppoor (US 20190091769 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Ortega discloses:
21. (New) A system for operating a mobile storefront comprising:
one or more mobile service providers
a technician or customer electronic communication device (claim limitation is phrased in the alternative and Ortega discloses a customer electronic device to submit repair requests see paragraph 42); and
a processor coupled to a computer readable storage medium having stored thereon computer executable instructions (abstract system is implemented on central computer which inherently means a CRM/software/processor implementation) for use in controlling a support or service appointment in a service providers (figure 2-6 and paragraph 40 show a software package that can schedule support/service appointments; the broadest reasonable interpretation of “wizard” is met by the disclosed software package)
synchronize a service provider service providers service provider service providerdevices or through a franchise distribution model (paragraph 45 technicians update their availability through their mobile devices); communicate a selection of the availability of the at least one of the mobile store support, the repair service, and the pick-up service to the mobile service provider service provider service provider service provider
automatically update the support or service appointments available via the one or more mobile service provider
Ortega fails to disclose:
1) Services are provided by service providers that are “mobile stores” which include an inventory compartment
2) the wizard is a “broken tool” wizard implying that services/repair relate to broken tools
However in an analogous art, Karuppoor et al. discloses:
Repair services performed by mobile stores (fig. 1 service vehicle 32 includes a compartment for storing spare parts see paragraph 24), wherein the repair services relate to broken tools (paragraph 24 repair/replace tool at a work site). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to conduct service calls using a vehicle storing inventory such that repairs like broken tool repairs can be made. The motivation for the combination is to decrease repair/replacement time (paragraph 3).
Regarding claim 22, Ortega as modified discloses:
22. (New) The system of claim 21, wherein the technician or customer data includes one or more of identification of the nature of the problem of a broken item, a description of the broken item, a description of the damage, a picture of the broken item, and a video of the broken item (Ortega paragraph 42 customer data input nature of issue)
Regarding claim 23, Ortega as modified discloses:
23. (New) The system of claim 21, wherein the availability of the at least one of the mobile store support, the repair service, and the pick-up service corresponds to one or more of an availability in the inventory compartment corresponding to the supplying mobile store, a replacement availability corresponding to the supplying mobile store, and a service schedule availability corresponding to the supplying mobile store (Ortega discloses service schedule availability paragraph 45; as modified per claim 21 the service provider is a mobile store).
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ortega (US 20160307120 A1) in view of Karuppoor (US 20190091769 A1) as applied to claim 21 and further in view of Ruppelt (US 20030050844 A1).
Regarding claim 24, Ortega as modified fails to disclsoe and Ruppelt discloses: wherein available inventory in the inventory compartments of the supplying mobile store is identified as an alternative to the support or service appointment in a broken tool wizard, wherein the available inventory available to the supplying mobile store is available via the one or more mobile stores' electronic communication devices or through a franchise distribution model (paragraph 21). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine this teaching with those of Ortega as modified by offering replacement products. The motivation for the combination is enable consumers to make decisions (paragraph 5).
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ortega (US 20160307120 A1) in view of Karuppoor (US 20190091769 A1) as applied to claim 21 and further in view of Mitchell (US 20100312605 A1).
Regarding claim 25, Ortega as modified fails to disclose and Mitchell discloses:
25. (New) The system of claim 21, wherein the availability of at least one of the mobile store support, the repair service, and the pick-up service in the broken tool wizard is expedited by a request for an expedited service that overrides the availability of the at least one of the mobile store support, the repair service, and the pick-up service available through the broken tool wizard (paragraph 62).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine this teaching with Ortega as modified by allowing emergency orders to take priority and reassigning resources to them. The motivation for the combination is improved efficiency (paragraph 55).
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ortega (US 20160307120 A1) in view of Karuppoor (US 20190091769 A1) and Mitchell (US 20100312605 A1) as applied to claim 25 and further in view of Taplan (US 20150379480 A1).
Regarding claim 26, Ortega as modified fails to disclose and Taplan discloses:
wherein the broken tool wizard identifies the support or service appointment as a warranty request (paragraph 95). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine this teaching with Ortega as modified by supporting capture of warranty status. The motivation for the combination is improved maintenance process (paragraph 5).
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ortega (US 20160307120 A1) in view of Karuppoor (US 20190091769 A1) as applied to claim 23 and further in view of Taplan (US 20150379480 A1).
Regarding claim 27, Ortega as modified fails to disclose and Taplan discloses:
27. (New) The system of claim 23, wherein the broken tool wizard identifies the availability of at least one of the mobile store support, the repair service, and the pick-up service based on available inventory space in the inventory compartment, available to the supplying mobile store (paragraph 25 selection of service based on available inventory) via the one or more mobile stores' electronic communication devices or through a franchise distribution model (paragraph 80 mobile store electronic device used to maintain inventory). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine this teaching with Ortega as modified by considering part availability when scheduling services. The motivation for the combination is improved maintenance process (paragraph 5).
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ortega (US 20160307120 A1) in view of Karuppoor (US 20190091769 A1) as applied to claim 21 and further in view of Bryan (US 20150286981 A1).
Regarding claim 28, Ortega as modified fails to disclose and Bryan discloses:
28. (New) The system of claim 21, wherein upon selection the availability of the at least one of the mobile store support, the repair service, and the pick-up service the technician or customer electronic communication device is provided with payment options including one or more of a direct payment, a timed payment, a payment from a corporate account, a financed payment, a third-party payment service to establish a customer financing arrangement approved via the supplying mobile store electronic communication device (paragraph 65 direct payment). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine this teaching with Ortega as modified by providing for invoice payment through customer devices. The motivation for the combination is improved system for providing services (paragraph 9).
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ortega (US 20160307120 A1) in view of Karuppoor (US 20190091769 A1) and Bryan (US 20150286981 A1) as applied to claim 21 and further in view of Xie (US 20150310421 A1)
Regarding claim 29, Ortega as modified fails to disclose and Xie discloses:
29. (New) The system of claim 28, wherein the one or more payment options provided to the customer, via the customer electronic communication device, is determined by the supplying mobile store, via the mobile store electronic communication device of the supplying mobile store (paragraph 56). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine this teaching with Ortega as modified by providing appropriate payment options. The motivation for the combination is an improved payment platform (paragraph 22).
Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ortega (US 20160307120 A1) in view of Karuppoor (US 20190091769 A1) as applied to claim 21 and further in view of Hauser (US 20120330710 A1).
Regarding claim 30, Ortega as modified discloses availability of at least one of the mobile store support, the repair service, and the pick-up service in the broken tool wizard, available to the supplying mobile store via the one or more mobile stores' electronic communication devices or through a franchise distribution model (Ortega paragraph 45 service scheduled through technician device; as modified per Karuppoor technician device or associated with mobile store). Ortega fails to disclose and Hauser discloses: wherein the processor communicates a service schedule or a mobile storefront site visit schedule on the display of the technician or customer electronic communication device based on the availability of the repair service (paragraph 24). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine this teaching with those of Ortega as modified by sending notifications to customer devices. The motivation for the combination is efficient coordination (paragraph 24).
Claim(s) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ortega (US 20160307120 A1) in view of Karuppoor (US 20190091769 A1) and Taplan (US 20150379480 A1).
Regarding claim 31, Ortega discloses:
31. (New) A non-transitory computer readable medium with computer executable instructions stored thereon executed by a processor to perform the method of operating a mobile service provider CRM/software/processor implementation): a software application (abstract system is implemented on central computer which inherently means a CRM/software/processor implementation), when executed by the processor, configures the processor to: synchronize a supplying mobile service provider service providers
communicate, through the display of the electronic communication device, an availability of at least one of a mobile service providerservice provider
communicate a selection of the at least one of the mobile service provider service provider service provider service provider
Ortega fails to disclose:
1) Services are provided by service providers that are “mobile stores”
2) the wizard is a “broken tool” wizard implying that services/repair relate to broken tools
3) the synchronizing being in combination with a franchise distribution model
However in an analogous art, Karuppoor et al. discloses:
Repair services performed by mobile stores (fig. 1 service vehicle 32 includes a compartment for storing spare parts see paragraph 24), wherein the repair services relate to broken tools (paragraph 24 repair/replace tool at a work site). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to conduct service calls using a vehicle storing inventory such that repairs like broken tool repairs can be made. The motivation for the combination is to decrease repair/replacement time (paragraph 3).
Ortega as modified still fails to disclose the synchronizing being in combination with a franchise distribution model
However Taplan discloses parts on a mobile service provider provided in a franchise model (paragraph 83-85). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine this teaching with those of Ortega as modified by using a franchise system to organize jobs. The motivation for the combination is an improved maintenance process (paragraph 5).
Claim(s) 32, 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ortega (US 20160307120 A1) in view of Karuppoor (US 20190091769 A1) and Taplan (US 20150379480 A1) as applied to claim 31 and further in view of Bryan (US 20150286981 A1).
Regarding claim 32, Ortega as modified fails to disclose and Bryan discloses:
32. (New) The computer readable medium of claim 31, wherein the availability of the at least one of the mobile store support, the repair service, and the pick-up service includes at least one payment option from available payment options available through the supplying mobile store front via the mobile store electronic communication device and the payment options includes at least one of a direct payment, a timed payment, a payment from a corporate account, a financed payment, and a payment from a third-party payment service (paragraph 65 direct payment). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine this teaching with Ortega as modified by providing for invoice payment through customer devices. The motivation for the combination is improved system for providing services (paragraph 9).
Regarding claim 33, Ortega as modified fails to disclose and Taplan discloses:
33. (New) The computer readable medium of claim 31, wherein the broken tool wizard identifies the availability of the at least one of the mobile store support, the repair service, and the pick-up service based on available inventory space in the inventory compartment (paragraph 25 selection of service based on available inventory), available to the supplying mobile store via the one or more mobile stores' electronic communication devices or through a franchise distribution model (paragraph 80 mobile store electronic device used to maintain inventory). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine this teaching with Ortega as modified by considering part availability when scheduling services. The motivation for the combination is improved maintenance process (paragraph 5).
Claim(s) 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ortega (US 20160307120 A1) in view of Karuppoor (US 20190091769 A1) and Taplan (US 20150379480 A1) and Bryan as applied to claim 33 and further in view of Dhaliwal (US 20170228709 A1).
Regarding claim 34, Ortega as modified discloses approving a job by the mobile storefront (paragraph 45), but fails to disclose:
34. (New) The computer readable medium of claim 33, wherein the computer readable instructions further configure the processor to automatically change the available inventory space in the supplying mobile storefront upon approval by the supplying mobile storefront.
However in an analogous art, Dhaliwal discloses response to approval automatically changing the available inventory space (paragraph 31 reserving parts). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine this teaching with Ortega as modified by reserving parts. The motivation for the combination is to minimize costs and lost productivity (paragraph 2).
Claim(s) 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ortega (US 20160307120 A1) in view of Karuppoor (US 20190091769 A1) and Taplan (US 20150379480 A1) and Bryan as applied to claim 33 and further in view of Yamaguchi (US 20190205827 A1).
Regarding claim 35, Ortega as modified fails to disclose and Yamaguchi discloses:
35. (New) The computer readable medium of claim 33, wherein the computer readable instructions further configure the processor to communicate with the one or more mobile storefronts or a distributor in a predetermined geographical region to pool available inventory space available through the supplying mobile storefront from the one or more mobile storefronts or a distributor in the predetermined geographical region (abstract stock management devices communications with a plurality of sales vehicles, and pools inventory see fig. 8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine this teaching with those of Ortega as modified by pooling inventory. The motivation for the combination is providing an improved experience to customers (paragraph 50).
Claim(s) 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ortega (US 20160307120 A1) in view of Karuppoor (US 20190091769 A1) and Taplan (US 20150379480 A1).
Regarding claim 36, Ortega discloses:
36. (New) A system for operating a mobile storefront comprising:
one or more mobile service providers service provider
a technician or customer electronic communication device (claim limitation is phrased in the alternative and Ortega discloses a customer electronic device to submit repair requests see paragraph 42); and
a processor coupled to a computer readable storage medium having stored thereon computer executable instructions (abstract system is implemented on central computer which inherently means a CRM/software/processor implementation) for use in controlling inventory and a repair or service space of theservice providers (figure 2-6 and paragraph 40 show a software package that can schedule support/service appointments; the broadest reasonable interpretation of “wizard” is met by the disclosed software package)
synchronize a service provider service providers
Ortega fails to disclose:
1) Services are provided by service providers that are “mobile stores” which include an inventory compartment
2) where upon synchronizing the supplying mobile store maintains control of the inventory and a repair or service space, via the mobile store electronic communication device of the supplying mobile store, that is communication as being available via the technician or customer electronic communication device.
Ortega as modified still fails to disclose:
2) where upon synchronizing the supplying mobile store maintains control of the inventory and a repair or service space, via the mobile store electronic communication device of the supplying mobile store, that is communication as being available via the technician or customer electronic communication device.
However Taplan discloses a synchronized system whereby the supplying mobile store maintains control of the inventory and a repair or service space via the mobile store electronic communication device of the supplying mobile store (paragraph 19) that is communication as being available via the technician or customer electronic communication device (paragraph 25-28 selected mobile store is determined based on inventory of spare parts as communicated by mobile store). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine this teaching with Ortega as modified by tracking available inventory and communicating that information to allow appropriate service to be provided. The motivation for the combination is improved maintenance process (paragraph 5).
Claim(s) 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ortega (US 20160307120 A1) in view of Karuppoor (US 20190091769 A1) and Taplan (US 20150379480 A1) as applied to claim 36 and further in view of Bryan (US 20150286981 A1).
Regarding claim 37, Ortega as modified discloses37. (New) The system of claim 39, where upon synchronizing the supplying mobile store to the technician or customer electronic communication device, [the supplying store] is communicated as being available via the technician or customer electronic communication device (paragraph 40-45 technician accepts appointment and it is put on the calendar).
Ortega fails to disclose and Bryan discloses: the supplying mobile store maintains control of one or more of payment options, distributor pricing, or delivery options, via the mobile store electronic communication device of the supplying mobile store (paragraph 65 direct payment is a control of a payment option). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine this teaching with Ortega as modified by providing for invoice payment through customer devices. The motivation for the combination is improved system for providing services (paragraph 9).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Cox (US 20150302414 A1) discloses a technician dispatch system. Cocanougher (US 20140278653 A1) discloses a technician scheduling system. Bansal (US 20070219842 A1) discloses dispatching/scheduling based on skills/inventory of technicians. Laube (US 4362329 A) discloses a mobile service vehicle that includes a store of spare parts.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 NATHAN A MITCHELL whose telephone number is (571)270-3117. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Ryan Zeender can be reached at 571-272-6790. 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.
/NATHAN A MITCHELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights