DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Amendments filed on 10/01/2025.
Claims 3-4 and 14 have been cancelled.
Claims 21-22 are newly added.
Claims 1-2, 5-13, 15-22 have been examined and are currently pending.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment, filed 10/01/2025, has been entered. Claims 1, 13, 19 and 20 have been amended.
Double Patenting
The double patenting rejections have been maintained as Applicant’s filing of a terminal disclaimer was disapproved on 10/09/2025 as the person who signed the Terminal Disclaimer was not under the customer number at the time of submission. Resubmission of a Terminal Disclaimer is required.
Priority
The current Application has a foreign priority date of 09/27/2022 from foreign application JP2022-153896. Therefore, the claims receive the filing date of 09/27/2022.
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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 3 of copending Application No. 18/467,491 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, and 12-13 of U.S. Patent No. 18/467,491 in view of Lauka et al. (US 2018/0174212 A1), hereinafter Lauka.
Claim 1 of the current Application
Claims 1, 3, and 12-13 of Application No. 18/467,491
An order processing system configured to be able to, regarding an order of one or more items to be delivered by a movable body, collectively receive the respective orders of a plurality of users, the order processing system comprising:
at least one memory configured to store program code; and
at least one processor configured to access the program code and operate as instructed by the program code, the program code including:
first reception code configured to cause the at least one processor to receive designation of the number of the users related to the order;
second reception code configured to cause the at least one processor to receive selection of the items related to the order; and
processing code configured to cause the at least one processor to sort and display the selected items for each of as many users as the designated number of the users
wherein the processing code is further configured to cause the at least one processor to:
display, separately for each of the users, at least one of an upper limit value of a weight and an upper limit value of a volume of one or more items orderable per person, the upper limit value being based on a loading capacity of the movable body and the designated number of the users; and
determination code configured to cause the at least one processor to control and select the movable body from a plurality of movable bodies to determine a delivery plan and set at least a scheduled delivery start time and a scheduled delivery end time of the selected movable body
An order processing system configured to be able to, regarding an order of one or more items to be delivered by a movable body, collectively receive the respective orders of a plurality of users, the order processing system comprising:
at least one memory configured to store program code; and
at least one processor configured to access the program code and operate as instructed by the program code, the program code including:
first reception code configured to cause the at least one processor to receive designation of the number of the users related to the order;
second reception code configured to cause the at least one processor to receive selection of the items related to the order; and
processing code configured to cause the at least one processor to, for each of as many users as the designated number of the users, sort the selected items and perform settlement for the sorted items
3. The order processing system according to claim 1, wherein the processing code is further configured to cause the at least one processor to display a screen for placing an order of the one or more items sorted for each of the users, the screen being displayed as many times as the designated number of the users, as many times as the designated number of the users, the program code further including fourth reception code configured to cause the at least one processor to receive the order on each of the screens, wherein the processing code is further configured to cause the at least one processor to, for each of the received orders, perform settlement for the one or more items sorted for each of the users
13. The order processing system according to claim 1, wherein the processing code is further configured to cause the at least one processor to display, separately for each of the users, at least one of an upper limit value of a weight and an upper limit value of a volume of one or more items orderable per person.
12. The order processing system according to claim 11, wherein the determination code is further configured to cause the at least one processor to determine the delivery plan by selecting the movable body from a plurality of movable bodies and setting at least a scheduled delivery start time and a scheduled delivery end time of the selected movable body
Patent No. 18/467,491 does not explicitly disclose the upper limit value being based on a loading capacity of the movable body and the designated number of the users.
Lauka, however, teaches providing item information via a network page (i.e. abstract), including the known technique of displaying at least one of an upper limit value of a weight and an upper limit value of a volume of one or more items orderable per person, the upper limit value being based on a loading capacity of the movable body and the designated number of the users (Lauka, see at least: “the user may be presented with a network page that displays the contents of his shopping cart. Within the same network page, a subtotal (e.g., a price, a quantity, a weight, a temperature, a volume, etc.) for his purchase may be provided. Additionally, or alternatively, an indication (e.g., a remainder value) can be provided of the condition [i.e. display at least one of an upper limit value of a weight and an upper limit value of a volume of one or more items orderable per person], and of any remaining shortage that must be met in order to meet the condition before the user's transaction may be completed” [0016] and “Examples of a threshold condition may include, but are not limited to, a minimum total purchase amount, a minimum/maximum quantity of total items, a minimum/maximum quantity of a particular item, a temperature requirement (e.g., items must remain refrigerated/cooled/frozen/heated/etc.), a minimum/maximum combined weight (under/over 50 lbs.), a minimum/maximum combined volume (e.g., less than a total volume capacity of a shipping container) [i.e. display at least one of an upper limit value of a weight and an upper limit value of a volume of one or more items orderable per person], or the like” [0073] Examiner notes that the designated number of users is one [i.e. the upper limit value being based on the designated number of the users). This known technique is applicable to the order processing system of Patent No. 18/467,491 as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to providing item information via a network page.
It would have been recognized that applying the known technique of the upper limit value being based on a loading capacity of the movable body and the designated number of the users, as taught by Lauka, to the teachings of Patent No. 18/467,491 would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such references into similar order processing systems. Further, adding the modification of the upper limit value being based on a loading capacity of the movable body and the designated number of the users, as taught by Lauka, into the order processing system of Patent No. 18/467,491 would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved order processing system that would provide condition information to a user (Lauka, [0027]).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 19 recites limitations directed towards an order processing method. The limitations recited in claim 19 are parallel in nature to those addressed above for claim 1, and are therefore rejected for those same reasons set forth above in claim 1.
Claim 20 recites limitations directed towards order reception terminal. The limitations recited in claim 20 are parallel in nature to those addressed above for claim 1, and are therefore rejected for those same reasons set forth above in claim 1.
Claim 2 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of copending Application No. 18/467,491 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claim 2 of the current Application
Claims 2 and 3 of Application No. 18/467,491
the program code further including third reception code configured to cause the at least one processor to receive an instruction for sorting the items related to the order, wherein the processing code is further configured to cause the at least one processor to sort and display the selected items instructed for sorting for each of as many users as the designated number of the users
the program code further including third reception code configured to cause the at least one processor to receive an instruction for sorting the items related to the order, wherein the processing code is further configured to cause the at least one processor to, for each of as many users as the designated number of the users, sort the selected items instructed for sorting and perform settlement for the sorted items
3. The order processing system according to claim 1, wherein the processing code is further configured to cause the at least one processor to display a screen for placing an order of the one or more items sorted for each of the users, the screen being displayed as many times as the designated number of the users, as many times as the designated number of the users, the program code further including fourth reception code configured to cause the at least one processor to receive the order on each of the screens, wherein the processing code is further configured to cause the at least one processor to, for each of the received orders, perform settlement for the one or more items sorted for each of the users
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 5 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of copending Application No. 18/467,491 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claim 5 of the current Application
Claim 16 of Application No. 18/467,491
wherein, in a case where a total value obtained by summing each total weight of the one or more items sorted for each of the users exceeds an upper limit value of a weight of one or more items that can be mounted on the movable body per delivery, the processing code is further configured to cause the at least one processor to display an alert to a user having a highest total weight of the one or more items sorted for each of the users among the plurality of users
wherein, in a case where a total value obtained by summing each total weight of the one or more items sorted for each of the users exceeds an upper limit value of a weight of one or more items that can be mounted on the movable body per delivery, the processing code is further configured to cause the at least one processor to display an alert to a user having a highest total weight of the one or more items sorted for each of the users among the plurality of users
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 6 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 17 of copending Application No. 18/467,491 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claim 6 of the current Application
Claim 17 of Application No. 18/467,491
the program code further including fourth reception code configured to cause the at least one processor to receive a cancellation instruction of selection of one or more items sorted for the user who is a target of the alert, wherein the processing code is further configured to cause the at least one processor to cancel the selection of the one or more items on the basis of the cancellation instruction
the program code further including seventh reception code configured to cause the at least one processor to receive a cancellation instruction of selection of one or more items sorted for the user who is a target of the alert, wherein the processing code is further configured to cause the at least one processor to cancel the selection of the one or more items on the basis of the cancellation instruction
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 7 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 18/467,491 in view of James et al. (US 2016/0267448 A1), hereinafter James.
Claim 7 of the current Application
Claim 3-4 of Application No. 18/467,491
wherein the processing code is further configured to cause the at least one processor to display, separately for each of the users, a payment amount related to the order of the one or more items sorted for each of the users
wherein the processing code is further configured to cause the at least one processor to perform settlement for the one or more items sorted for each of the users on the basis of a payment amount related to the order of the one or more items sorted for each of the users
Patent No. 18/467,491 does not explicitly disclose cause the at least one processor to display, separately for each of the users, a payment amount related to the order of the one or more items sorted for each of the users.
James, however, teaches an e-commerce web site (i.e. abstract), including the known technique of the processing code is further configured to cause the at least one processor to display, separately for each of the users, a payment amount related to the order of the one or more items sorted for each of the users (James, see at least: “one of the friends may press a “Pay Now” icon displayed on user interface 306. In another example, one of the checks may be selected by touching user interface 306 where the selected check is displayed. In either case, in response, processor 300 may cause user interface 306 to display a check summary screen, in one embodiment, showing each of the three checks [i.e. display, separately for each of the users]” [0088] and “Processor 200 provides general operation of any of the servers by executing processor-executable instructions stored in memory 202, for example, executable code [i.e. wherein the processing code is further configured to cause the at least one processor to]” [0052] and Fig. 21 shows that the displayed three checks each include a price total for the items in each individual user’s check [i.e. a payment amount related to the order of the one or more items sorted for each of the users]). This known technique is applicable to the order processing system of Patent No. 18/467,491 as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to an e-commerce web site.
It would have been recognized that applying the known technique of the processing code is further configured to cause the at least one processor to display, separately for each of the users, a payment amount related to the order of the one or more items sorted for each of the users, as taught by James, to the teachings of Patent No. 18/467,491 would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such references into similar order processing systems. Further, adding the modification of the processing code is further configured to cause the at least one processor to display, separately for each of the users, a payment amount related to the order of the one or more items sorted for each of the users, as taught by James, into the order processing system of Patent No. 18/467,491 would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved order processing system that would enable consumers to purchase a group of items all at once (James, abstract).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 8 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of copending Application No. 18/467,491 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claim 8 of the current Application
Claim 5 of Application No. 18/467,491
wherein the payment amount includes a price of the one or more items sorted for each of the users and a delivery fee allocated to each of the users
wherein the payment amount includes a price of the one or more items sorted for each of the users and a delivery fee allocated to each of the users
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 9 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of copending Application No. 18/467,491 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claim 9 of the current Application
Claim 6 of Application No. 18/467,491
the program code further including allocation code configured to cause the at least one processor to allocate different delivery fees for the plurality of users to the respective users on the basis of order contents of the respective users
the program code further including allocation code configured to cause the at least one processor to allocate different delivery fees for the plurality of users to the respective users on the basis of order contents of the respective users
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 10 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of copending Application No. 18/467,491 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claim 10 of the current Application
Claim 7 of Application No. 18/467,491
wherein the allocation code is further configured to cause the at least one processor to allocate a higher delivery fee to a user with a higher total price of the one or more items related to the order
wherein the allocation code is further configured to cause the at least one processor to allocate a higher delivery fee to a user with a higher total price of the one or more items related to the order
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 11 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of copending Application No. 18/467,491 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claim 11 of the current Application
Claim 8 of Application No. 18/467,491
wherein the allocation code is further configured to cause the at least one processor to allocate a higher delivery fee to a user with a larger quantity of the one or more items related to the order
wherein the allocation code is further configured to cause the at least one processor to allocate a higher delivery fee to a user with a larger quantity of the one or more items related to the order
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 12 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of copending Application No. 18/467,491 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claim 12 of the current Application
Claim 9 of Application No. 18/467,491
the program code further including, in a case where a first user in which a total weight of the one or more items sorted for each of the users does not exceed an upper limit value of a weight of one or more items orderable per person and a second user in which a total weight of the one or more items sorted for each of the users exceeds the upper limit value are included in the plurality of users, allocation code configured to cause the at least one processor to allocate a first delivery fee that is a part of a delivery fee required for each delivery to the first user and allocate a second delivery fee that is a part of the delivery fee required for each delivery and higher than the first delivery fee to the second user
the program code further including, in a case where a first user in which a total weight of the one or more items sorted for each of the users does not exceed an upper limit value of a weight of one or more items orderable per person and a second user in which a total weight of the one or more items sorted for each of the users exceeds the upper limit value are included in the plurality of users, allocation code configured to cause the at least one processor to allocate a first delivery fee that is a part of a delivery fee required for each delivery to the first user and allocate a second delivery fee that is a part of the delivery fee required for each delivery and higher than the first delivery fee to the second user
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 13 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of copending Application No. 18/467,491 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claim 13 of the current Application
Claim 11 of Application No. 18/467,491
wherein the order processing system includes a server connected to a communication network, and
wherein the server comprises the at least one memory and the at least one processor, the program code including:
fifth reception code configured to cause the at least one processor to receive, from a first terminal used for the designation of the number of the users and the selection of the one or more items, via the communication network, a first order with a place where the first terminal is installed or a neighborhood thereof as a delivery destination of the one or more items,
sixth reception code configured to cause the at least one processor to receive, from a second terminal used for the selection of the one or more items by a user other than the plurality of users, via the communication network, a second order with a delivery destination designated on the second terminal, and
wherein the determination code is further configured to cause the at least one processor to determine a delivery plan of the one or more items related to the first order such that the delivery plan is implemented in preference to a delivery plan of the one or more items related to the second order
wherein the order processing system includes a server connected to a communication network, and
wherein the server comprises the at least one memory and the at least one processor, the program code including:
fifth reception code configured to cause the at least one processor to receive, from a first terminal used for the designation of the number of the users and the selection of the one or more items, via the communication network, a first order with a place where the first terminal is installed or a neighborhood thereof as a delivery destination of the one or more items,
sixth reception code configured to cause the at least one processor to receive, from a second terminal used for the selection of the one or more items by a user other than the plurality of users, via the communication network, a second order with a delivery destination designated on the second terminal, and
determination code configured to cause the at least one processor to determine a delivery plan of the one or more items related to the first order such that the delivery plan is implemented in preference to a delivery plan of the one or more items related to the second order
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 15 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of copending Application No. 18/467,491 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claim 15 of the current Application
Claim 3 of Application No. 18/467,491
wherein the processing code is further configured to cause the at least one processor to display a screen for each of the users to select the one or more items, the screen being displayed as many times as the designated number of the users
wherein the processing code is further configured to cause the at least one processor to display a screen for placing an order of the one or more items sorted for each of the users, the screen being displayed as many times as the designated number of the users, as many times as the designated number of the users,
the program code further including fourth reception code configured to cause the at least one processor to receive the order on each of the screens, wherein the processing code is further configured to cause the at least one processor to, for each of the received orders, perform settlement for the one or more items sorted for each of the users
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 16 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of copending Application No. 18/467,491 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claim 16 of the current Application
Claim 3 of Application No. 18/467,491
wherein the processing code is further configured to cause the at least one processor to display a screen for placing an order of the one or more items sorted for each of the users, the screen being displayed as many times as the designated number of the users,
the program code further including seventh reception code configured to cause the at least one processor to receive the order on each of the screens
wherein the processing code is further configured to cause the at least one processor to display a screen for placing an order of the one or more items sorted for each of the users, the screen being displayed as many times as the designated number of the users, as many times as the designated number of the users,
the program code further including fourth reception code configured to cause the at least one processor to receive the order on each of the screens,
wherein the processing code is further configured to cause the at least one processor to, for each of the received orders, perform settlement for the one or more items sorted for each of the users
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 17 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 18 of copending Application No. 18/467,491 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claims 17 is of the current Application
Claim 18 of Application No. 18/467,491
wherein the items are a set item in which a plurality of items are put together, and wherein the second reception code is further configured to cause the at least one processor to receive selection of one or more items in the set item as selection of a first user among the plurality of users, and receive selection of the other remaining one or more items in the set item as selection of a second user among the plurality of users
wherein the items are a set item in which a plurality of items are put together, and wherein the second reception code is further configured to cause the at least one processor to receive selection of one or more items in the set item as selection of a first user among the plurality of users, and receive selection of the other remaining one or more items in the set item as selection of a second user among the plurality of users
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 18 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/467,491 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claims 18 is of the current Application
Claim 1 of Application No. 18/467,491
wherein the processing code is further configured to cause the at least one processor to perform settlement for the one or more items sorted for each of the users
An order processing system configured to be able to, regarding an order of one or more items to be delivered by a movable body, collectively receive the respective orders of a plurality of users, the order processing system comprising:
…
processing code configured to cause the at least one processor to, for each of as many users as the designated number of the users, sort the selected items and perform settlement for the sorted items
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Examiner Note: Claims 21-22 are distinct enough from the invention claimed in copending Application No. 18/467,491.
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 1-2, 5-13, 15-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes, the claims must be directed to one of the four statutory categories (see MPEP 2106.03). All the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (YES).
Under Step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a judicially recognized exception (see MPEP 2106.04). Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry.
Under Prong 1, it is determined whether the claim recites a judicial exception (YES). Taking Claim 1 as representative, the claim recites limitations that fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity groupings of abstract ideas, including:
-at least one memory configured to store program code; and
-at least one processor configured to access the program code and operate as instructed by the program code, the program code including:
-first reception code configured to cause the at least one processor to receive designation of the number of the users related to the order;
-second reception code configured to cause the at least one processor to receive selection of the items related to the order; and
-processing code configured to cause the at least one processor to sort and display the selected items for each of as many users as the designated number of the users
-wherein the processing code is further configured to cause the at least one processor to:
-display, separately for each of the users, at least one of an upper limit value of a weight and an upper limit value of a volume of one or more items orderable per person, the upper limit value being based on a loading capacity of the movable body and the designated number of the users; and
-determination code configured to cause the at least one processor to control and select the movable body from a plurality of movable bodies to determine a delivery plan and set at least a scheduled delivery start time and a scheduled delivery end time of the selected movable body
The above limitations recite the concept of sorting items selected for order by a number of users, providing either an upper wight limit or an upper volume limit of one or more items based on the number of users, and scheduling a delivery. The above limitations fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” groupings of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a).
Certain methods of organizing human activity include:
fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, and mitigating risk)
commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; and business relations)
managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
The limitation of display, separately for each of the users, at least one of an upper limit value of a weight and an upper limit value of a volume of one or more items orderable per person, the upper limit value being based on a loading capacity of the movable body and the designated number of the users, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a commercial interaction. For example, “display” in the context of this claim encompass advertising, and marketing or sales activities.
Similarly, the limitations of first reception code configured to cause the at least one processor to receive designation of the number of the users related to the order; second reception code configured to cause the at least one processor to receive selection of the items related to the order; and processing code configured to cause the at least one processor to sort and display the selected items for each of as many users as the designated number of the users; and determination code configured to cause the at least one processor to control and select the movable body from a plurality of movable bodies to determine a delivery plan and set at least a scheduled delivery start time and a scheduled delivery end time of the selected movable body are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a commercial interaction. That is, other than reciting that the receiving of the designation is done by the at least one processor configured by first reception code, that the receiving of a selection is done by the at least one processor configured by second reception code, that the sorting and displaying is done by the at least one processor configured by processing code, and that the controlling and selecting is done by the at least one processor configured by determination code, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed by people. For example, but for the “first reception code configured to cause the at least one processor,” “second reception code configured to cause the at least one processor,” “processing code configured to cause the at least one processor,” and “determination code configured to cause the at least one processor” language, “receive,” “receive,” “sort and display,” and “control and select” in the context of this claim encompasses advertising, and marketing or sales activities.
Under Prong 2, it is determined whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (NO).
-at least one memory configured to store program code; and
-at least one processor configured to access the program code and operate as instructed by the program code, the program code including:
-first reception code configured to cause the at least one processor to receive designation of the number of the users related to the order;
-second reception code configured to cause the at least one processor to receive selection of the items related to the order; and
-processing code configured to cause the at least one processor to sort and display the selected items for each of as many users as the designated number of the users
-wherein the processing code is further configured to cause the at least one processor to:
-display, separately for each of the users, at least one of an upper limit value of a weight and an upper limit value of a volume of one or more items orderable per person, the upper limit value being based on a loading capacity of the movable body and the designated number of the users; and
-determination code configured to cause the at least one processor to control and select the movable body from a plurality of movable bodies to determine a delivery plan and set at least a scheduled delivery start time and a scheduled delivery end time of the selected movable body
The additional elements of claim 1 are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on a generic computing hardware (or, merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea) as supported by paragraph [0061] of Applicant’s specification – “The control unit 14 includes at least one CPU (Central Processing Unit), a ROM (Read Only Memory), a RAM (Random Access Memory), and the like. The CPU (an example of processor) is configured to access the program code stored in the ROM or the storage unit 13 and operate as instructed by the program code.” Specifically, the additional elements of at least one memory, program code, at least one processor, first reception code, second reception code, processing code, determination code are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing the generic computer functions of receiving data, sorting data, displaying data, controlling data, and selecting data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as computers or computing networks). Employing well-known computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
Additionally, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim fails to i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, ii) apply the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or iv) apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, it is determined whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims of the present application do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (NO).
In the case of claim 1, taken individually or as a whole, the additional elements of claim 9 do not provide an inventive concept. As discussed above under step 2A (prong 2) with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed functions amount to no more than a general link to a technological environment.
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements do not add anything significantly more than when considered individually.
Claim 19 is an order processing method reciting similar functions as claim 1. Examiner notes that claim 19 recites the additional element of a computer, however, claim 19 does not qualify as eligible subject matter for similar reasons as claim 1 indicated above.
Claim 20 is an order reception terminal reciting similar functions as claim 1. Examiner notes that claim 1 recites the additional element of at least one memory, program code, at least one processor, first reception code, second reception code, processing code, and determination code, however, claim 20 does not qualify as eligible subject matter for similar reasons as claim 1 indicated above.
Therefore, claims 1, 19, and 20 do not provide an inventive concept and do not qualify as eligible subject matter.
Dependent claims 2, 5-13, 15-18, and 21-22, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because they do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea. More specifically, dependent claims 2, 5-13, 15-18, and 21-22 further fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas in that they recite commercial interactions. Dependent claim 8 does not recite any farther additional elements, and as such are not indicative of integration into a practical application for at least similar reasons discussed above. Dependent claims 2, 5-7, 9-13, 15-18, and 21-22 recite the additional elements of the program code, third reception code, the at least one processor, the processing code, fourth reception code, allocation code, a server, a communication network, the at least one memory, fifth reception code, a first terminal, sixth reception code, a second terminal, the determination code, a screen, seventh reception code, each of the screens, and the second reception code, but similar to the analysis under prong two of Step 2A these additional elements are used as a tool to perform the abstract idea. As such, under prong two of Step 2A, claims 2-18 are not indicative of integration into a practical application for at least similar reasons as discussed above. Thus, dependent claims 2, 5-13, 15-18, and 21-22 are “directed to” an abstract idea. Next, under Step 2B, similar to the analysis of claims 1, 19, and 20, dependent claims 2, 5-13, 15-18, and 21-22 when analyzed individually and as an ordered combination, merely further define the commonplace business method (i.e. sorting items selected for order by a number of users, providing either an upper wight limit or an upper volume limit of one or more items based on the number of users, and scheduling a delivery) being applied on a general-purpose computer and, therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 7, 13, 15-20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over James et al. (US 2016/0267448 A1), hereinafter James, in view of Lauka et al. (US 2018/0174212 A1), hereinafter Lauka, in further view of Luckay et al. (US 2020/0286021 A1), hereinafter Luckay.
Regarding claim 1, James discloses an order processing system configured to be able to, regarding an order of one or more items to be delivered by a movable body, collectively receive the respective orders of a plurality of users (James, see at least: “When orders are received by POS server 104, local server 110 or remote server 114, an indication of each order may be provided to kitchen interface 106 and/or to waitperson terminal 108 so that their orders may be prepared by kitchen personnel and drinks and other incidentals delivered by an assigned waitperson” [0066]), the order processing system comprising:
-at least one memory configured to store program code (James, see at least: “Processor 200 provides general operation of any of the servers by executing processor-executable instructions stored in memory 202, for example, executable code” [0052]); and
-at least one processor configured to access the program code and operate as instructed by the program code (James, see at least: “Processor 200 provides general operation of any of the servers by executing processor-executable instructions stored in memory 202, for example, executable code” [0052]), the program code including:
-first reception code configured to cause the at least one processor to receive designation of the number of the users related to the order (James, see at least: “processor 300 causes user interface 306 to display another query regarding how many individual checks to create, i.e., how many people desire a separate check. In this example, each of the friends intends to pay for their food and beverage purchases separately. One of the friends enters “3” into his or her customer device 102 [i.e. receive designation of the number of the users related to the order] using user interface 306, as shown in FIG. 7” [0074] and “Processor 200 provides general operation of any of the servers by executing processor-executable instructions stored in memory 202, for example, executable code [i.e. first reception code configured to cause the at least one processor to]” [0052] and Fig. 7);
-second reception code configured to cause the at least one processor to receive selection of the items related to the order (James, see at least: “processor 300 receives an indication of the item assignment as one of the friends assigns a menu item from the combined accounting to one of the simulated checks. In response, processor 300 may transmit a signal to local server 110 or remote server 114 indicative of the assignment so that local server 110 or remote server 114 may update the other two customer devices of the change … Processor 300 also causes user interface 306 to alter the single accounting and one of the three simulated checks in accordance with the user's assignment [i.e. to receive selection of the items related to the order]. FIG. 10 shows the display of user interface 306 after the Smokey Burger has been assigned to Guest 2. The Guest 2 simulated check now displays the price of the Smokey Burger plus tax. In another embodiment, the name of the item is also displayed. On the right side of the display, the consolidated accounting has been modified to reflect that the Smokey Burger has been assigned to one of the checks on the right. In this example, the quantity has been reduced by 1 to now display zero, and the total cost has been changed from $8.95 to zero. The subtotal, tax, and remaining balance has also been adjusted to reflect assignment of the Smokey Burger” [0079] and “Processor 200 provides general operation of any of the servers by executing processor-executable instructions stored in memory 202, for example, executable code [i.e. second reception code configured to cause the at least one processor]” [0052] and Figs. 9-10);
-processing code configured to cause the at least one processor to sort and display the selected items for each of as many users as the designated number of the users (James, see at least: “one of the friends may press a “Pay Now” icon displayed on user interface 306. In another example, one of the checks may be selected by touching user interface 306 where the selected check is displayed. In either case, in response, processor 300 may cause user interface 306 to display a check summary screen, in one embodiment, showing each of the three checks [i.e. sort and display the selected items for each of as many users as the designated number of the users]” [0088] and “Processor 200 provides general operation of any of the servers by executing processor-executable instructions stored in memory 202, for example, executable code [i.e. processing code configured to cause the at least one processor to]” [0052] and Fig. 21),
-wherein the processing code is further configured to cause the at least one processor to:
-display, data separately for each of the users (James, see at least: “one of the friends may press a “Pay Now” icon displayed on user interface 306. In another example, one of the checks may be selected by touching user interface 306 where the selected check is displayed. In either case, in response, processor 300 may cause user interface 306 to display a check summary screen, in one embodiment, showing each of the three checks [i.e. display, separately for each of the users]” [0088] and “Processor 200 provides general operation of any of the servers by executing processor-executable instructions stored in memory 202, for example, executable code [i.e. wherein the processing code is further configured to cause the at least one processor to]” [0052] and Fig. 21).
James does not explicitly disclose displaying at least one of an upper limit value of a weight and an upper limit value of a volume of one or more items orderable per person, the upper limit value being based on a loading capacity of the movable body and the designated number of the users.
Lauka, however, teaches providing item information via a network page (i.e. abstract), including the known technique of displaying at least one of an upper limit value of a weight and an upper limit value of a volume of one or more items orderable per person, the upper limit value being based on a loading capacity of the movable body and the designated number of the users (Lauka, see at least: “the user may be presented with a network page that displays the contents of his shopping cart. Within the same network page, a subtotal (e.g., a price, a quantity, a weight, a temperature, a volume, etc.) for his purchase may be provided. Additionally, or alternatively, an indication (e.g., a remainder value) can be provided of the condition [i.e. display at least one of an upper limit value of a weight and an upper limit value of a volume of one or more items orderable per person], and of any remaining shortage that must be met in order to meet the condition before the user's transaction may be completed” [0016] and “Examples of a threshold condition may include, but are not limited to, a minimum total purchase amount, a minimum/maximum quantity of total items, a minimum/maximum quantity of a particular item, a temperature requirement (e.g., items must remain refrigerated/cooled/frozen/heated/etc.), a minimum/maximum combined weight (under/over 50 lbs.), a minimum/maximum combined volume (e.g., less than a total volume capacity of a shipping container) [i.e. display at least one of an upper limit value of a weight and an upper limit value of a volume of one or more items orderable per person], or the like” [0073] Examiner notes that the designated number of users is one [i.e. the upper limit value being based on the designated number of the users). This known technique is applicable to the order processing system of James as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to providing item information via a network page.
It would have been recognized that applying the known technique of displaying at least one of an upper limit value of a weight and an upper limit value of a volume of one or more items orderable per person, the upper limit value being based on a loading capacity of the movable body and the designated number of the users, as taught by Lauka, to the teachings of James would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such references into similar order processing systems. Further, adding the modification of displaying at least one of an upper limit value of a weight and an upper limit value of a volume of one or more items orderable per person, the upper limit value being based on a loading capacity of the movable body and the designated number of the users, as taught by Lauka, into the order processing system of James would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved order processing system that would provide condition information to a user (Lauka, [0027]).
James in view of Lauka does not teach determination code configured to cause the at least one processor to control and select the movable body from a plurality of movable bodies to determine a delivery plan and set at least a scheduled delivery start time and a scheduled delivery end time of the selected movable body.
Luckay, however, teaches purchasing goods and services online (i.e. [0038]), including the known technique of determination code configured to cause the at least one processor to control and select the movable body from a plurality of movable bodies to determine a delivery plan and set at least a scheduled delivery start time and a scheduled delivery end time of the selected movable body (Luckay, see at least: “At block 1025, the vehicle having the route that is the most efficient or requires the least change to transport the item is selected. In some embodiments, the selection of the vehicle from the subset is performed by the request servicing component 205. In some embodiments, the vehicle route control component 230 may select the vehicle from the subset [i.e. determination code configured to cause the at least one processor to control and select the movable body from a plurality of movable bodies]. In some embodiments, the selection of the vehicle from the subset may also consider the item details and related constraints. After the vehicle is selected, the delivery system 100 may transmit the request to the vehicle if the vehicle is a third-party vehicle or update the vehicle route [i.e. to determine a delivery plan] if the vehicle is a first-party vehicle [i.e. to control]” [0128] and “the timing constraints may include details regarding when the item can be picked up and/or when it can be delivered. In some embodiments, the timing constraints may include details regarding when the item must be picked up by and/or when it must be delivered by. In some embodiments, the timing constraints may include a maximum duration for which the item can be transported. In some embodiments, the user request may include limitations on ratings for the vehicle, such that vehicles with a rating below that requested by the user cannot be identified or selected for transportation of the item per the user request. In some embodiments, the limitations on ratings for the vehicles may include identifying a rating below a threshold established by the transporter or defined by others such as government standards or regulations, etc. In some embodiments, the user request may include limitations on methods or modes of delivery. For example, in some embodiments, the user restricts the transport of the item via motorcycle, bicycle, or drone, [i.e. select the movable body from a plurality of movable bodies to determine a delivery plan] instead requesting that the item only be transported within an enclosed vehicle” [0121] and “The coordinated pickup and/or delivery may include one or more of a pick-up of the item or good from a first location (such as a location of the customer 150) and delivery of the item or good to a second location. In some embodiments, the coordinated pickup and/or delivery does not involve the customer location 150. The coordinated pickup and delivery may include customer preferences and/or specific time constraints, geography constraints, vehicle size constraints, transportation constraints, and the like. For example, the customer 140 may request pickup and/or delivery by a certain time of day [i.e. and set at least a scheduled delivery start time and a scheduled delivery end time of the selected movable body], transportation along a certain route, transportation by a particular transportation mode, or method, transportation of a perishable item, or transportation of a large or irregularly shaped item which cannot fit in every vehicle 110a-b” [0040]). This known technique is applicable to the order processing system of James in view of Lauka as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to purchasing goods and services online.
It would have been recognized that applying the known technique of determination code configured to cause the at least one processor to control and select the movable body from a plurality of movable bodies to determine a delivery plan and set at least a scheduled delivery start time and a scheduled delivery end time of the selected movable body, as taught by Luckay, to the teachings of James in view of Lauka would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such references into similar order processing systems. Further, adding the modification of determination code configured to cause the at least one processor to control and select the movable body from a plurality of movable bodies to determine a delivery plan and set at least a scheduled delivery start time and a scheduled delivery end time of the selected movable body, as taught by Luckay, into the order processing system of James in view of Lauka would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved order processing system that would may efficiently and effectively satisfy the request of the customer (Luckay, [0041]).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of James/Lauka/Luckay teaches the order processing system according to claim 1. James further discloses:
-the program code further including third reception code configured to cause the at least one processor to receive an instruction for sorting the items related to the order, wherein the processing code is further configured to cause the at least one processor to sort and display the selected items instructed for sorting for each of as many users as the designated number of the users (James, see at least: “one of the friends may press a “Pay Now” icon displayed on user interface 306. In another example, one of the checks may be selected by touching user interface 306 where the selected check is displayed. In either case, in response, processor 300 may cause user interface 306 to display a check summary screen, in one embodiment, showing each of the three checks [i.e. for sorting the items related to the order, wherein the processing code is further configured to cause the at least one processor to sort and display the selected items instructed for sorting for each of as many users as the designated number of the users]” [0088] and “Processor 200 provides general operation of any of the servers by executing processor-executable instructions stored in memory 202, for example, executable code [i.e. the program code further including third reception code configured to cause the at least one processor to receive an instruction]” [0052] and Fig. 21).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of James/Lauka/Luckay teaches the order processing system according to claim 1. James further discloses:
-wherein the processing code is further configured to cause the at least one processor to display, separately for each of the users, a payment amount related to the order of the one or more items sorted for each of the users (James, see at least: “one of the friends may press a “Pay Now” icon displayed on user interface 306. In another example, one of the checks may be selected by touching user interface 306 where the selected check is displayed. In either case, in response, processor 300 may cause user interface 306 to display a check summary screen, in one embodiment, showing each of the three checks [i.e. display, separately for each of the users]” [0088] and “Processor 200 provides general operation of any of the servers by executing processor-executable instructions stored in memory 202, for example, executable code [i.e. wherein the processing code is further configured to cause the at least one processor to]” [0052] and Fig. 21 shows that the displayed three checks each include a price total for the items in each individual user’s check [i.e. a payment amount related to the order of the one or more items sorted for each of the users]).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of James/Lauka/Luckay teaches the order processing system according to claim 1. James further discloses:
-wherein the order processing system includes a server connected to a communication network (James, see at least: “Communication interface 204 is electronically coupled to processor 200 and comprises electronic circuitry necessary for any of the servers to communicate with other servers and/or to gateway 116. Gateway 116 is typically a wireless router/modem, used to enable communications among customer devices 102 and remote server 114 via wide-area network 112 (such as the Internet) [i.e. wherein the order processing system includes a server connected to a communication network], and for remote server 114 to communicate with customer devices 102 and other servers” [0054]), and
-wherein the server comprises the at least one memory and the at least one processor, the program code (James, see at least: “Processor 200 provides general operation of any of the servers by executing processor-executable instructions stored in memory 202, for example, executable code” [0052]) including:
-fifth reception code configured to cause the at least one processor to receive, from a first terminal used for the designation of the number of the users and the selection of the one or more items, via the communication network, a first order (James, see at least: “processor 300 causes user interface 306 to display another query regarding how many individual checks to create, i.e., how many people desire a separate check. In this example, each of the friends intends to pay for their food and beverage purchases separately. One of the friends enters “3” into his or her customer device 102 [i.e. receive, from a first terminal used for the designation of the number of the users and the selection of the one or more items, via the communication network] using user interface 306, as shown in FIG. 7” [0074] and “processor 300 receives the payment information [i.e. receive a first order] from the payment device [i.e. from a first terminal used for the designation of the number of the users and the selection of the one or more items, via the communication network] and provides the payment information to local server 110 or remote server 114” [0094] and “Processor 200 provides general operation of any of the servers by executing processor-executable instructions stored in memory 202, for example, executable code [i.e. fifth reception code configured to cause the at least one processor to]” [0052] and Fig. 7).
James in view of Lauka does not explicitly teach receive, from a first terminal, via the communication network, a first order with a place where the first terminal is installed or a neighborhood thereof as a delivery destination of the one or more items; sixth reception code configured to cause the at least one processor to receive, from a second terminal used for the selection of the one or more items by a user other than the plurality of users, via the communication network, a second order with a delivery destination designated on the second terminal, and determination code being further configured to cause the at least one processor to determine a delivery plan of the one or more items related to the first order such that the delivery plan is implemented in preference to a delivery plan of the one or more items related to the second order.
Luckay, however, teaches purchasing goods and services online (i.e. [0038]), including the known technique of the order processing system including a server connected to a communication network, and wherein the server comprises the at least one memory and the at least one processor (Luckay, see at least: “The electronic hardware processor may execute the instructions, which configure the processor to perform the functions of method 400 discussed below” [0074] and “the processes set forth in the following material may be performed on a computer network. The computer network having a central server, the central server having a processor, data storage, such as databases and memories, and communications features to allow wired or wireless communication with various parts of the networks, including terminals and any other desired network access point or means” [0167]), the program code including:
the known technique of receive, from a first terminal, via the communication network, a first order with a place where the first terminal is installed or a neighborhood thereof as a delivery destination of the one or more items (Luckay, see at least: “the request servicing component 205 may receive the user request and identify relevant information in the user request (for example, the location information, item details, timing information, and so forth) [i.e. receive, from a first terminal, via the communication network, a first order with a place where the first terminal is installed or a neighborhood thereof as a delivery destination of the one or more items]” [0122] and “The geographic location can be stored in the stop location column 336 as an address, or as location coordinates, such as GPS coordinates [i.e. where the first terminal is installed or a neighborhood thereof as a delivery destination of the one or more items]” [0072]),
the known technique of sixth reception code configured to cause the at least one processor to receive, from a second terminal used for the selection of the one or more items by a user other than the plurality of users, via the communication network, a second order with a delivery destination designated on the second terminal (Luckay, see at least: “The delivery system 100 includes a request servicing component 205, comprising one or more of a networked computer system, a server, or similar system configured to receive requests from customers and process those requests electronically [i.e. sixth reception code configured to cause the at least one processor to receive, from a second terminal used for the selection of the one or more items by a user other than the plurality of users, via the communication network, a second order]” [0043] and “the vehicle route control component 230 may monitor routes for all first-party vehicles 110a and all third-party vehicles 110b that are transporting items according to user requests … when added as waypoints or intermediate destinations, the pickup and/or delivery location(s) are added as one or more stops along the existing vehicle route of the first-party vehicle 110a to its original destination. When added as the continuing destinations, the pickup and/or delivery location(s) may be added as one or more stops to be traveled to after the existing vehicle route of the first-party vehicle 110a to its original destination is complete [i.e. rom a second terminal used for the selection of the one or more items by a user other than the plurality of users]” [0053] and “the request servicing component 205 may receive the user request and identify relevant information in the user request (for example, the location information [i.e. a second order with a delivery destination designated on the second terminal], item details, timing information, and so forth)” [0122]), and
the known technique of determination code being further configured to cause the at least one processor to determine a delivery plan of the one or more items related to the first order such that the delivery plan is implemented in preference to a delivery plan of the one or more items related to the second order (Luckay, see at least: “In block 620, a next stop for the vehicle 110 is identified. In other words, the vehicle 110 determined in block 615 may be currently performing its planned route. The vehicle 110 may be performing stops, including picking up packages or delivering inventory items or packages as necessary. Thus, it may be necessary to determine whether the vehicle 110 has yet to perform the stop of block 605. If the vehicle 110 has already performed the stop, the vehicle 110 may not be a good choice for performing a request, at least based on the inclusion of the stop of block 605 on its route (determined in block 610) [i.e. determination code configured to cause the at least one processor to determine a delivery plan of the one or more items related to the first order such that the delivery plan is implemented in preference to a delivery plan of the one or more items related to the second order]” [0094] and “identifying the delivery vehicle is further based on filtering the plurality of delivery vehicles according to at least one of the urgency or priority of the item [i.e. determination code configured to cause the at least one processor to determine a delivery plan of the one or more items related to the first order such that the delivery plan is implemented in preference to a delivery plan of the one or more items related to the second order], the requested delivery time for the item, the transportation constraints for the item, and the value of the item” [0007]). These known techniques are applicable to the order processing system of James in view of Lauka as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to purchasing goods and services online.
It would have been recognized that applying the known techniques of the order processing system including a server connected to a communication network, and wherein the server comprises the at least one memory and the at least one processor, the program code including: receive, from a first terminal, via the communication network, a first order with a place where the first terminal is installed or a neighborhood thereof as a delivery destination of the one or more items, sixth reception code configured to cause the at least one processor to receive, from a second terminal used for the selection of the one or more items by a user other than the plurality of users, via the communication network, a second order with a delivery destination designated on the second terminal, and determination code being further configured to cause the at least one processor to determine a delivery plan of the one or more items related to the first order such that the delivery plan is implemented in preference to a delivery plan of the one or more items related to the second order, as taught by Luckay, to the teachings of James in view of Lauka would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such references into similar order processing systems. Further, adding the modifications of the order processing system including a server connected to a communication network, and wherein the server comprises the at least one memory and the at least one processor, the program code including: receive, from a first terminal, via the communication network, a first order with a place where the first terminal is installed or a neighborhood thereof as a delivery destination of the one or more items, sixth reception code configured to cause the at least one processor to receive, from a second terminal used for the selection of the one or more items by a user other than the plurality of users, via the communication network, a second order with a delivery destination designated on the second terminal, and determination code being further configured to cause the at least one processor to determine a delivery plan of the one or more items related to the first order such that the delivery plan is implemented in preference to a delivery plan of the one or more items related to the second order, as taught by Luckay, into the order processing system of James in view of Lauka would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved order processing system that would may efficiently and effectively satisfy the request of the customer (Luckay, [0041]).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of James/Lauka/Luckay teaches the order processing system according to claim 1. James further discloses:
-wherein the processing code is further configured to cause the at least one processor to display a screen for each of the users to select the one or more items, the screen being displayed as many times as the designated number of the users (James, see at least: “Fig. 9 illustrates moving a menu item from the final combined accounting on the right to one of the blank checks on the left in FIG. 8, using a “drag and drop” technique” [0020] and “processor 300 receives an indication of the item assignment as one of the friends assigns a menu item from the combined accounting to one of the simulated checks. In response, processor 300 may transmit a signal to local server 110 or remote server 114 indicative of the assignment so that local server 110 or remote server 114 may update the other two customer devices of the change. Either one of the servers receives the signal and with it, the identification code that associates the three customer devices together. Then, one of the servers updates the other two customer devices with the assignment information from the first customer device using the identification code to identify which customer devices should receive the updated information. Processor 300 also causes user interface 306 to alter the single accounting and one of the three simulated checks in accordance with the user's assignment. FIG. 10 shows the display of user interface 306 after the Smokey Burger has been assigned to Guest 2 [i.e. display a screen for each of the users to select the one or more items, the screen being displayed as many times as the designated number of the users]” [0079] and “Processor 200 provides general operation of any of the servers by executing processor-executable instructions stored in memory 202, for example, executable code [i.e. wherein the processing code is further configured to cause the at least one processor to]” [0052]).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of James/Lauka/Luckay teaches the order processing system according to claim 1. James further discloses:
-wherein the processing code is further configured to cause the at least one processor to display a screen for placing an order of the one or more items sorted for each of the users, the screen being displayed as many times as the designated number of the users (James, see at least: “one of the friends selects one of the checks displayed by user interface 306 by touching user interface 306 where the selected check is shown, or by some other means. An indication of the selection is provided from user interface 306 to processor 300” [0089] and “processor 300 causes user interface 306 to display a payment screen [i.e. display a screen for placing an order of the one or more items sorted for each of the users] for the friend to make payment using, in one embodiment, payment device 308” [0093] and “one of the remaining friends may choose to pay their check [i.e. the screen being displayed as many times as the designated number of the users] using cash, credit card, debit card, etc. by providing payment directly to the waitperson” [0099] and “Processor 200 provides general operation of any of the servers by executing processor-executable instructions stored in memory 202, for example, executable code [i.e. wherein the processing code is further configured to cause the at least one processor to]” [0052] and Figs. 21-25),
-the program code further including seventh reception code configured to cause the at least one processor to receive the order on each of the screens (James, see at least: “processor 300 receives the payment information [i.e. receive the order on each of the screens] from the payment device and provides the payment information to local server 110 or remote server 114” [0094] and “Processor 200 provides general operation of any of the servers by executing processor-executable instructions stored in memory 202, for example, executable code [i.e. the program code further including seventh reception code configured to cause the at least one processor to]” [0052] and Figs. 21-25).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of James/Lauka/Luckay teaches the order processing system according to claim 1. James further discloses:
-wherein the items are a set item in which a plurality of items are put together, and wherein the second reception code is further configured to cause the at least one processor to receive selection of one or more items in the set item as selection of a first user among the plurality of users, and receive selection of the other remaining one or more items in the set item as selection of a second user among the plurality of users (James, see at least: “ one or more of the friends may apportion, assign, or attribute purchased menu items from the final combined accounting to the blank, simulated checks displayed on user interface 306. In the embodiment shown in FIGS. 8, 9, and 10, one or more of the friends use a “drag and drop” technique to assign food and beverage items from the final combined accounting on the right to the blank, simulated checks on the left. FIG. 8 shows the three blank checks on the left and the consolidated accounting from POS server 104 on the right. The checks are labeled “Guest 1”, “Guest 2”, and “Guest 3” and each assigned a particular identifier [i.e. receive selection of one or more items in the set item as selection of a first user among the plurality of users, and receive selection of the other remaining one or more items in the set item as selection of a second user among the plurality of users]: Guest 1 is assigned a red identifier 900, Guest 2 a green identifier 902, and Guest 3 a blue identifier 904. The final combined accounting shows each item that was ordered, the quantity of items that were ordered, each item's unit price, and a total price” [0077] and “Processor 200 provides general operation of any of the servers by executing processor-executable instructions stored in memory 202, for example, executable code [i.e. wherein the second reception code is further configured to cause the at least one processor to]” [0052] and Figs. 9-10).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of James/Lauka/Luckay teaches the order processing system according to claim 1. James further discloses:
-wherein the processing code is further configured to cause the at least one processor to perform settlement for the one or more items sorted for each of the users (James, see at least: “processor 200 receives the payment information from the customer device and provides it to POS server 104 or to payment server 118, depending on whether POS server 104 is configured to process payments, contractual relationships, etc. POS server 104 or payment server 118, in turn, contacts a financial institution associated with the payment (e.g., bank, credit card company) and debits an account associated with the payment information, for example, a credit card account, bank account, Paypal account, etc. [i.e. perform settlement for the one or more items]” [0095] and “one of the remaining friends may choose to pay their check [i.e. sorted for each of the users] using cash, credit card, debit card, etc. by providing payment directly to the waitperson” [0099] and “Processor 200 provides general operation of any of the servers by executing processor-executable instructions stored in memory 202, for example, executable code [i.e. wherein the processing code is further configured to cause the at least one processor to]” [0052] and Figs. 21-25).
Claim 19 recites limitations directed towards an order processing method (i.e. abstract) executed by a computer. The limitations recited in claim 19 are parallel in nature to those addressed above for claim 1, and are therefore rejected for those same reasons set forth above in claim 1.
Claim 20 recites limitations directed towards order reception terminal configured to be able to, regarding an order of one or more items to be delivered by a movable body, collectively receive the respective orders of a plurality of users (James, see at least: “When orders are received by POS server 104, local server 110 or remote server 114, an indication of each order may be provided to kitchen interface 106 and/or to waitperson terminal 108 so that their orders may be prepared by kitchen personnel and drinks and other incidentals delivered by an assigned waitperson” [0066]), the order reception terminal comprising: at least one memory configured to store program code; and at least one processor configured to access the program code and operate as instructed by the program code (James, see at least: “Processor 200 provides general operation of any of the servers by executing processor-executable instructions stored in memory 202, for example, executable code” [0052]). The limitations recited in claim 20 are parallel in nature to those addressed above for claim 1, and are therefore rejected for those same reasons set forth above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 22, the combination of James/Lauka/Luckay teaches the order processing system according to claim 1.
James does not explicitly disclose the processing code being further configured to cause the at least one processor to: calculate a remaining orderable weight obtained by subtracting a total weight of the selected one or more items from an upper limit value of a weight of one or more items that can be mounted on the movable body per delivery, wherein the upper limit value corresponds to a weight enabling the movable body to fly or travel with the one or more items housed in a housing box provided in the movable body, update display of the remaining orderable weight each time an item is selected, calculate a total order weight value obtained by summing each total weight of the one or more items sorted for each of the users.
Lauka further teaches providing item information via a network page (i.e. abstract), including the known technique of the processing code is further configured to cause the at least one processor to: calculate a remaining orderable weight obtained by subtracting a total weight of the selected one or more items from an upper limit value of a weight of one or more items that can be mounted on the movable body per delivery, wherein the upper limit value corresponds to a weight enabling the movable body to fly or travel with the one or more items housed in a housing box provided in the movable body (Lauka, see at least: “the condition management module 812 may be configured to calculate a remainder value, that is a difference between a current state of the shopping cart (e.g., a subtotal amount, a quantity of items of the cart, a quantity of a particular item, a temperature requirement for the combined items of the shopping cart, a current combined weight of the shopping cart, a current combined volume of the shopping cart, etc.) and a threshold condition (e.g., a minimum and/or maximum total purchase amount, a minimum and/or maximum quantity of items, a minimum and/or maximum quantity of a particular item, a temperature/temperature range requirement, a minimum and/or maximum weight, a geographical requirement, a minimum and/or maximum volume requirement) [i.e. calculate a remaining orderable weight obtained by subtracting a total weight of the selected one or more items from an upper limit value of a weight of one or more items]. The condition management module 812 may be configured to cause the output manager 818 to provide the remainder value and/or additional text and/or graphical elements to inform the user of the condition and/or of a status with respect to the condition” [0074] and “Examples of a threshold condition may include, but are not limited to, a minimum total purchase amount, a minimum/maximum quantity of total items, a minimum/maximum quantity of a particular item, a temperature requirement (e.g., items must remain refrigerated/cooled/frozen/heated/etc.), a minimum/maximum combined weight (under/over 50 lbs.), a minimum/maximum combined volume (e.g., less than a total volume capacity of a shipping container) [i.e. that can be mounted on the movable body per delivery, wherein the upper limit value corresponds to a weight enabling the movable body to fly or travel with the one or more items housed in a housing box provided in the movable body], or the like” [0073]),
the known technique of update display of the remaining orderable weight each time an item is selected (Lauka, see at least: “the condition management module 812 may be configured to calculate a remainder value, that is a difference between a current state of the shopping cart (e.g., a subtotal amount, a quantity of items of the cart, a quantity of a particular item, a temperature requirement for the combined items of the shopping cart, a current combined weight of the shopping cart [i.e. update display of the remaining orderable weight each time an item is selected], a current combined volume of the shopping cart, etc.) and a threshold condition (e.g., a minimum and/or maximum total purchase amount, a minimum and/or maximum quantity of items, a minimum and/or maximum quantity of a particular item, a temperature/temperature range requirement, a minimum and/or maximum weight, a geographical requirement, a minimum and/or maximum volume requirement). The condition management module 812 may be configured to cause the output manager 818 to provide the remainder value [i.e. update display of the remaining orderable weight each time an item is selected] and/or additional text and/or graphical elements to inform the user of the condition and/or of a status with respect to the condition” [0074]), and
the known technique of calculate a total order weight value obtained by summing each total weight of the one or more items sorted for each of the users (Lauka, see at least: “the condition management module 812 may be configured to calculate a remainder value, that is a difference between a current state of the shopping cart (e.g., a subtotal amount, a quantity of items of the cart, a quantity of a particular item, a temperature requirement for the combined items of the shopping cart, a current combined weight of the shopping cart [i.e. calculate a total order weight value obtained by summing each total weight of the one or more items sorted], a current combined volume of the shopping cart, etc.) and a threshold condition (e.g., a minimum and/or maximum total purchase amount, a minimum and/or maximum quantity of items, a minimum and/or maximum quantity of a particular item, a temperature/temperature range requirement, a minimum and/or maximum weight, a geographical requirement, a minimum and/or maximum volume requirement). The condition management module 812 may be configured to cause the output manager 818 to provide the remainder value and/or additional text and/or graphical elements to inform the user of the condition and/or of a status with respect to the condition” [0074] Examiner notes that the designated number of users is one [i.e. for each of the users]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine James with Lauka for the reasons identified above with respect to claim 1.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over James in view of Lauka, in further view of Luckay, in further view of Malloy et al. (US 2022/0383238 A1), hereinafter Malloy.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of James/Lauka/Luckay teaches the order processing system according to claim 1. James further discloses:
-the processing code is further configured to cause the at least one processor to display to a user a total price of the one or more items sorted for each of the users among the plurality of users (James, see at least: Fig. 21 displays a total of the cost of each of the items in each of the user’s respective checks [i.e. e processing code is further configured to cause the at least one processor to display to a user a total price of the one or more items sorted for each of the users among the plurality of users]).
The combination of James/Lauka/Luckay does not explicitly disclose, in a case where a total value obtained by summing each total weight of the one or more items sorted for each of the users exceeds an upper limit value of a weight of one or more items that can be mounted on the movable body per delivery, the processing code is further configured to cause the at least one processor to display an alert to a user having a highest total weight of the one or more items.
Malloy, however teaches selecting items in a graphical user interface (i.e. abstract), including the known technique of, in a case where a total value obtained by summing each total weight of the one or more items sorted for each of the users exceeds an upper limit value of a weight of one or more items that can be mounted on the movable body per delivery, the processing code is further configured to cause the at least one processor to display an alert to a user having a highest total weight of the one or more items (Malloy, see at least: “The analytics server may retrieve a set of delivery criteria associated with the delivery method identified in step 404. Different delivery methods may have their corresponding criteria and constraints. The criteria may refer to a set of limits, lists, and/or rules with which the products singularly or as combined for a delivery must comply. For instance, a delivery method (e.g., drone delivery) may be limited by a total weight, volume, and shape of the products to be shipped/delivered [i.e. wherein, in a case where a total value obtained by summing each total weight of the one or more items sorted for each of the users exceeds an upper limit value of a weight of one or more items that can be mounted on the movable body per delivery]” [0101] and “The at least one delivery criteria may comprise at least one of a weight limit for the delivery method, a volume limit for the delivery method, or a size limit for the delivery method” [0144] and Fig. 8 shows an alert indicating that an item cannot be delivered via drone [i.e. the processing code is further configured to cause the at least one processor to display an alert to a user having a highest total weight of the one or more items]). This known technique is applicable to the order processing system of the combination of James/Lauka/Luckay as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to selecting items in a graphical user interface.
It would have been recognized that applying the known technique of, in a case where a total value obtained by summing each total weight of the one or more items sorted for each of the users exceeds an upper limit value of a weight of one or more items that can be mounted on the movable body per delivery, the processing code is further configured to cause the at least one processor to display an alert to a user having a highest total weight of the one or more items, as taught by Malloy, to the teachings of the combination of James/Lauka/Luckay would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such references into similar order processing systems. Further, adding the modification of, in a case where a total value obtained by summing each total weight of the one or more items sorted for each of the users exceeds an upper limit value of a weight of one or more items that can be mounted on the movable body per delivery, the processing code is further configured to cause the at least one processor to display an alert to a user having a highest total weight of the one or more items, as taught by Malloy, into the order processing system of the combination of James/Lauka/Luckay would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved order processing system that would inform a user of their delivery options based on a particular order (Malloy, [0129]).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of James/Lauka/Luckay/Malloy teaches the order processing system according to claim 5. James further discloses:
-the program code further including fourth reception code configured to cause the at least one processor to receive a cancellation instruction of selection of one or more items sorted for the user, wherein the processing code is further configured to cause the at least one processor to cancel the selection of the one or more items on the basis of the cancellation instruction (James, see at least: “one of the checks may be deleted by any one of the friends, as shown in FIGS. 19-21, which show a different number of simulated checks and a different consolidated accounting than previously discussed, with pricing omitted, for illustrative purposes. For example, one of the friends may claim that he forgot his wallet. In this case, one of the friends may select a check for deletion on the left side of the display, then touch a “Delete Check” icon [i.e. receive a cancellation instruction of selection of one or more items sorted for the user, wherein the processing code is further configured to cause the at least one processor to cancel the selection of the one or more items on the basis of the cancellation instruction] displayed on the display” [0087] and “Processor 200 provides general operation of any of the servers by executing processor-executable instructions stored in memory 202, for example, executable code [i.e. the program code further including fourth reception code configured to cause the at least one processor to]” [0052]).
The combination of James/Lauka/Luckay does not explicitly teach receive a cancellation instruction of selection of one or more items sorted for the user who is a target of the alert.
Malloy, however teaches selecting items in a graphical user interface (i.e. abstract), including the known technique of receiving a cancellation instruction of selection of one or more items sorted for the user who is a target of the alert (Malloy, see at least: “The analytics server may display the graphical component 900 to provide more delivery options for the customer. For instance, when the customer clicks on “No” (notification 812), the analytics server displays various products (e.g., drinks) that can be selected instead of the food item 804 [i.e. receive a cancellation instruction of selection of one or more items sorted for the user who is a target of the alert]. The analytics server may query a database to identify food items that comply with drone delivery criteria” [0130] and Fig. 8 shows an alert indicating that an item cannot be delivered via drone along with an option to no longer proceed with purchasing the item [i.e. for the user who is a target of the alert]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the combination of James/Lauka/Luckay with Malloy for the reasons identified above with respect to claim 5.
Claims 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over James in view of Lauka, in further view of Luckay, in further view of Lesser et al. (US 2017/0372259 A1), hereinafter Lesser.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of James/Lauka/Luckay teaches the order processing system according to claim 7. James further discloses:
-wherein the payment amount includes a price of the one or more items sorted for each of the users and a fee allocated to each of the users (James, see at least: Fig. 21 shows that the displayed three checks each include a price total for the items in each individual user’s check, the prices of each of the items included in each individual user’s check [i.e. wherein the payment amount includes a price of the one or more items sorted for each of the users], as well as, a tax amount for check [i.e. a fee allocated to each of the users]).
The combination of James/Lauka/Luckay does not explicitly disclose the fee being a delivery fee.
Lesser, however, teaches a graphic interface to allow a user to order items (i.e. abstract), including the known technique of a delivery fee (Lesser, see at least: “FIG. 6E, an example interface 650 is shown for placing a UAV delivery request. Interface 650 may include a price field 652, a payment field 654, and a destination field 656. The price field 652 may display a total price of the UAV delivery request, which may be itemized to display a cost of the ordered items, a tax, and any delivery fees [i.e. a delivery fee] or other fees” [0148]). This known technique is applicable to the order processing system of the combination of James/Lauka/Luckay as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to a graphic interface to allow a user to order items.
It would have been recognized that applying the known technique of the fee being a delivery fee, as taught by Lesser, to the teachings of the combination of James/Lauka/Luckay would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such references into similar order processing systems. Further, adding the modification of the fee being a delivery fee, as taught by Lesser, into the order processing system of the combination of James/Lauka/Luckay would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved order processing system that would provide users with an option to approve a higher fee delivery or modify the order to reduce the total order weight (Lesser, [0116]).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of James/Lauka/Luckay/Lesser teaches the order processing system according to claim 8. James further discloses:
-the program code further including allocation code configured to cause the at least one processor to allocate different fees for the plurality of users to the respective users on the basis of order contents of the respective users (James, see at least: “Processor 200 provides general operation of any of the servers by executing processor-executable instructions stored in memory 202, for example, executable code [i.e. the program code further including allocation code configured to cause the at least one processor to]” [0052] and Fig. 21 shows that the displayed three checks each including a different tax amount for check; the tax fee for the subtotal of $20.90 is $1.45 and the tax fee for the subtotal of $13.85 is $0.96 [i.e. allocate different fees for the plurality of users to the respective users on the basis of order contents of the respective users]).
The combination of James/Lauka/Luckay does not explicitly teach the fees being a delivery fees.
Lesser, however, teaches a graphic interface to allow a user to order items (i.e. abstract), including the known technique of allocating different delivery fees on the basis of order contents (Lesser, see at least: “FIG. 6E, an example interface 650 is shown for placing a UAV delivery request. Interface 650 may include a price field 652, a payment field 654, and a destination field 656. The price field 652 may display a total price of the UAV delivery request, which may be itemized to display a cost of the ordered items, a tax, and any delivery fees [i.e. delivery fees] or other fees” [0148] and “in response to detecting that the user has selected various items having a total weight that exceeds a weight limit of a single UAV, interface 410 may indicate that delivery will require multiple UAVs. This may result in greater fees [i.e. allocate different delivery fees on the basis of order contents] and/or increased delivery times, so interface 410 may provide the user with an option to approve the multi-UAV delivery or modify the order to reduce the total order weight below the weight limit of a single UAV” [0116]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the combination of James/Lauka/Luckay with Lesser for the reasons identified above with respect to claim 8.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of James/Lauka/Luckay/Lesser teaches the order processing system according to claim 9. James further discloses:
-wherein the allocation code is further configured to cause the at least one processor to allocate a higher fee to a user with a higher total price of the one or more items related to the order (James, see at least: “Processor 200 provides general operation of any of the servers by executing processor-executable instructions stored in memory 202, for example, executable code [i.e. wherein the allocation code is further configured to cause the at least one processor to]” [0052] and Fig. 21 shows that the displayed three checks each including a different tax amount for check; the tax fee for the subtotal of $20.90 is $1.45 and the tax fee for the subtotal of $13.85 is $0.96 [i.e. allocate a higher fee to a user with a higher total price of the one or more items related to the order]).
The combination of James/Lauka/Luckay does not explicitly teach the higher fee being a higher delivery fee.
Lesser, however, teaches a graphic interface to allow a user to order items (i.e. abstract), including the known technique of a higher delivery fee (Lesser, see at least: “FIG. 6E, an example interface 650 is shown for placing a UAV delivery request. Interface 650 may include a price field 652, a payment field 654, and a destination field 656. The price field 652 may display a total price of the UAV delivery request, which may be itemized to display a cost of the ordered items, a tax, and any delivery fees [i.e. delivery fee] or other fees” [0148] and “in response to detecting that the user has selected various items having a total weight that exceeds a weight limit of a single UAV, interface 410 may indicate that delivery will require multiple UAVs. This may result in greater fees [i.e. a higher delivery fee] and/or increased delivery times, so interface 410 may provide the user with an option to approve the multi-UAV delivery or modify the order to reduce the total order weight below the weight limit of a single UAV” [0116]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the combination of James/Lauka/Luckay with Lesser for the reasons identified above with respect to claim 8.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of James/Lauka/Luckay/Lesser teaches the order processing system according to claim 9.
The combination of James/Lauka/Luckay does not explicitly teach the allocation code being further configured to cause the at least one processor to allocate a higher delivery fee to a user with a larger quantity of the one or more items related to the order.
Lesser, however, teaches a graphic interface to allow a user to order items (i.e. abstract), including the known technique of the allocation code being further configured to cause the at least one processor to allocate a higher delivery fee to a user with a larger quantity of the one or more items related to the order (Lesser, see at least: “in response to detecting that the user has selected various items having a total weight that exceeds a weight limit of a single UAV, interface 410 may indicate that delivery will require multiple UAVs. This may result in greater fees [i.e. allocate a higher delivery fee to a user with a larger quantity of the one or more items related to the order] and/or increased delivery times, so interface 410 may provide the user with an option to approve the multi-UAV delivery or modify the order to reduce the total order weight below the weight limit of a single UAV” [0116] and “each block of the flow chart may represent a module, a segment, or a portion of program code, which includes one or more instructions executable by a processor for implementing specific logical functions or steps in the process [i.e. wherein the allocation code is further configured to cause the at least one processor to]. The program code may be stored on any type of computer readable medium, for example, such as a storage device including a disk or hard drive. In addition, each block may represent circuitry that is wired to perform the specific logical functions in the process” [0118]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the combination of James/Lauka/Luckay with Lesser for the reasons identified above with respect to claim 8.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of James/Lauka/Luckay/Lesser teaches the order processing system according to claim 8. James further discloses:
-the one or more items sorted for each of the users (James, see at least: “one of the friends may press a “Pay Now” icon displayed on user interface 306. In another example, one of the checks may be selected by touching user interface 306 where the selected check is displayed. In either case, in response, processor 300 may cause user interface 306 to display a check summary screen, in one embodiment, showing each of the three checks [i.e. the one or more items sorted for each of the users]” and Fig. 21).
The combination of James/Lauka/Luckay does not explicitly teach the program code further including, in a case where a first user in which a total weight of the one or more items sorted for each of the users does not exceed an upper limit value of a weight of one or more items orderable per person and a second user in which a total weight of the one or more items exceeds the upper limit value are included in the plurality of users, allocation code configured to cause the at least one processor to allocate a first delivery fee that is a part of a delivery fee required for each delivery to the first user and allocate a second delivery fee that is a part of the delivery fee required for each delivery and higher than the first delivery fee to the second user.
Lesser, however, teaches a graphic interface to allow a user to order items (i.e. abstract), including the known technique of the program code further including, in a case where a first user in which a total weight of the one or more items sorted for each of the users does not exceed an upper limit value of a weight of one or more items orderable per person and a second user in which a total weight of the one or more items exceeds the upper limit value are included in the plurality of users, allocation code configured to cause the at least one processor to allocate a first delivery fee that is a part of a delivery fee required for each delivery to the first user and allocate a second delivery fee that is a part of the delivery fee required for each delivery and higher than the first delivery fee to the second user (Lesser, see at least: “The user may then de-select one or more items until the device determines that the size and/or weight thresholds are not exceeded [i.e. in a case where a first user in which a total weight of the one or more items sorted for each of the users does not exceed an upper limit value of a weight of one or more items orderable per person]. In some examples, interface 410 may indicate a weight associated with each food item as well as the maximum threshold weight in order to help the user determine which food items to select or not select” [0115] and “in response to detecting that the user has selected various items having a total weight that exceeds a weight limit [i.e. and a second user in which a total weight of the one or more items exceeds the upper limit value are included in the plurality of users] of a single UAV, interface 410 may indicate that delivery will require multiple UAVs. This may result in greater fees [i.e. allocation code configured to cause the at least one processor to allocate a first delivery fee that is a part of a delivery fee required for each delivery to the first user and allocate a second delivery fee that is a part of the delivery fee required for each delivery and higher than the first delivery fee to the second user] and/or increased delivery times, so interface 410 may provide the user with an option to approve the multi-UAV delivery or modify the order to reduce the total order weight below the weight limit of a single UAV” [0116] and “each block of the flow chart may represent a module, a segment, or a portion of program code, which includes one or more instructions executable by a processor for implementing specific logical functions or steps in the process [i.e. the program code and allocation code configured to cause the at least one processor to]. The program code may be stored on any type of computer readable medium, for example, such as a storage device including a disk or hard drive. In addition, each block may represent circuitry that is wired to perform the specific logical functions in the process” [0118]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the combination of James/Lauka/Luckay with Lesser for the reasons identified above with respect to claim 8.
Subject Matter Allowable Over the Art
Dependent Claim 21
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance over 35 U.S.C. §103:
In the present application, dependent claim 21 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection set forth in this Office action. The following is the Examiner's statement of reasons of allowance over the prior art:
Regarding 35 U.S.C. §103, upon review of the evidence at hand, it is hereby concluded that the totality of the evidence, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, nor renders obvious the below noted features of the applicant’s invention.
Dependent claim 21 is allowable over 35 USC § 103 as follows:
The most relevant prior art made of record includes James et al. (US 2016/0267448 A1), Lauka et al. (US 2018/0174212 A1), Luckay et al. (US 2020/0286021 A1), and newly cited Bruns et al. (US 2004/0107151 A1).
The combination of James/Lauka/Luckay teaches the system of claim 1.
As written, dependent claim 21 requires wherein the processing code is further configured to cause the at least one processor to: calculate at least one of an upper limit value of a weight of one or more items orderable per person by equally dividing a mountable weight upper limit value for the movable body by the designated number of the users, or an upper limit value of a volume of one or more items orderable per person by equally dividing a mountable volume upper limit value for the movable body by the designated number of the users, wherein the sorting and displaying of the selected items is performed based on the designated number of the users to enable the respective users to grasp the items to be ordered before completion of the order.
Regarding James, James teaches wherein the sorting and displaying of the selected items is performed based on the designated number of the users to enable the respective users to grasp the items to be ordered before completion of the order (James, see at least: [0088], [0052] and Fig. 21).
Though disclosing these features, James does not disclose or render obvious the features discussed above.
Regarding Lauka, Lauka teaches calculating at least one of an upper limit value of a weight of one or more items orderable per person or an upper limit value of a volume of one or more items orderable per person (Lauka, see at least: [0016] and [0073]).
Though disclosing these features, Lauka does not disclose or render obvious the features discussed above.
Regarding Bruns, Bruns teaches equally dividing a mountable weight upper limit value for the movable body or equally dividing a mountable volume upper limit value for the movable body (Bruns, see at least: [0020] and [0022]).
Though disclosing these features, Bruns does not disclose or render obvious the features discussed above.
Ultimately, the particular combination of limitations as claimed in dependent claim 21, is not anticipated nor rendered obvious in view of James, Lauka, Luckay, and Bruns, and the totality of the prior art. While certain references may disclose more general concepts and parts of the claim, the prior art available does not specifically disclose the particular combination of these limitations.
James, Lauka, Luckay, and Bruns, however, do not teach or suggest, alone or in combination the claimed invention. Examiner emphasizes that the prior art/additional art would only be combined and deemed obvious based on knowledge gleaned from the applicant’s disclosure. Such a reconstruction is improper (i.e. hindsight reasoning). See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Cited NPL McDougall (reference U cited 01/09/2026 in PTO-892) teaches assigning and dispatching unmanned aerial vehicles for order delivery, but does not teach or suggest the recited claims.
The Examiner further emphasizes the claims as a whole and hereby asserts that the totality of the evidence fails to set forth, either explicitly or implicitly, an appropriate rationale for further modification of the evidence at hand to arrive at the claimed invention. The combination of features as claimed would not be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as combining various references from the totality of evidence to reach the combination of features as claimed would be a substantial reconstruction of Applicant’s claimed invention relying on improper hindsight bias.
It is thereby asserted by Examiner that, in light of the above and further deliberation over all of the evidence at hand, that the claims are allowable as the evidence at hand does not anticipate the claims and does not render obvious any further modification of the references to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101
Applicant argues that claim 1 as amended recites "processing code configured to cause the at least one processor to display, separately for each of the users, at least one of an upper limit value of a weight and an upper limit value of a volume of one or more items orderable per person, the upper limit value being based on a loading capacity of the movable body and the designated number of the users." This limitation establishes a direct technical relationship between user interface operations and physical delivery vehicle (Remarks, pages 11-12).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The amended claims fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” groupings of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a). For instance, displaying data related to the delivery of one or more items encompass advertising, and marketing or sales activities. Additionally, displaying data associated with a delivery vehicle is still merely displaying data and has no technical link to the physical vehicle itself. Additionally, the details of how the data is displayed separately (e.g. is it displayed on an interface? How is it displayed on the interface?). Accordingly, the amended claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Applicant further argues that claim 1 recites "determination code configured to cause the at least one processor to control and select the movable body from a plurality of movable bodies to determine a delivery plan and set at least a scheduled delivery start time and a scheduled delivery end time of the selected movable body." This limitation demonstrates active technical control of physical delivery systems, not mere business process automation. As explained in paragraph [0025] of the specification, "the determination code is further configured to cause the at least one processor to determine the delivery plan by selecting the movable body from a plurality of movable bodies and setting at least a scheduled delivery start time and a scheduled delivery end time of the selected movable body" (Remarks, page 12).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. This amended limitation fails to recite the technical elements of how the at least one processor controls the movable body (e.g. does some selection from a user device trigger the engine or motor of the movable body to activate?). The recited additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on a generic computing hardware (or, merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). Additionally, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim fails to i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, ii) apply the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or iv) apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, the amended claims are not integrated into a practical application.
Applicant further argues that the claims as amended demonstrate integration through specific technical operations that address real-world delivery constraints. The specification explains in paragraph [0071] that "the 'weight of one or more items that can be mounted on the delivery vehicle' means, for example, a weight enabling the UA V or UGV to fly or travel with the one or more items housed in a housing box provided in the UAV or the UGV." This establishes that the claimed "upper limit value" and "loading capacity" are not abstract concepts but specific technical parameters that directly control physical delivery vehicle operations. The claimed "control and select the movable body from a plurality of movable bodies" operation represents technical management of delivery resources. As described in paragraph [0127], this technical selection process demonstrates automated coordination of physical delivery systems based on real-time operational constraints (Remarks, page 13).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The recited "upper limit value" and "loading capacity" are merely data that is displayed to a user and displaying data related to the delivery of one or more items encompass advertising, and marketing or sales activities. Additionally, addressing address real-world delivery constraints, management of delivery resources, and coordination of physical delivery systems based on real-time operational constraints are not technical solution as they do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field. The recited claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, the amended claims are not integrated into a practical application.
Applicant further argues that the claims as amended recite specific technical solutions to the problem of coordinating multiple user orders with physical delivery vehicle constraints. The specification identifies in paragraph [0004] the technical problem that "in a delivery vehicle whose loading capacity is highly restricted having a large restriction on a loading capacity as represented by drone delivery, it is desirable to load items ordered by a plurality of persons together onto one delivery vehicle and deliver the items for the purpose of, for example, increasing delivery efficiency per delivery." The claimed solution addresses this technical problem through automated capacity management and vehicle selection. The claimed "upper limit value being based on a loading capacity of the movable body and the designated number of the users" establishes a technical calculation that prevents physical overloading of delivery vehicles. This is not a generic computer operation but a specific technical mechanism for managing physical delivery constraints. The claimed solution addresses this technical problem through automated capacity management and vehicle selection. The claimed "upper limit value being based on a loading capacity of the movable body and the designated number of the users" establishes a technical calculation that prevents physical overloading of delivery vehicles. This is not a generic computer operation but a specific technical mechanism for managing physical delivery constraints (Remarks, pages 13-14).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Coordinating multiple user orders with physical delivery vehicle constraints and a calculation that prevents physical overloading of delivery vehicles are not technical solutions, they are business solutions as they fails to reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field. Merely utilizing generic computer components such as a processor does not improve the technology itself. Additionally, the claims do not describe any “specific technical mechanism,” rather, they are merely implemented by generic computer components such as a processor. Accordingly, the amended claims are not integrated into a practical application.
Applicant further argues the claims as amended recite technical features that amount to significantly more than any alleged abstract idea. The combination of capacity-based limit calculations with automated vehicle selection and delivery planning creates a technical system for coordinating digital ordering with physical delivery operations. The claimed "determination code configured to cause the at least one processor to control and select the movable body" represents active technical control rather than passive data processing. This technical control operation coordinates user capacity requirements with available delivery resources through automated selection algorithms. As explained in paragraph [0128], the system performs technical scheduling operations by selecting delivery vehicles based on operational parameters and "setting at least the scheduled delivery start time and the scheduled delivery end time" (Remarks, page 14).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Capacity-based limit calculations with automated vehicle selection and delivery planning are not additional elements, rather, they fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” groupings of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a). Additionally, the recited limitations do not recite the technical elements of how the at least one processor controls the movable body (e.g. does some selection from a user device trigger the engine or motor of the movable body to activate?). The recited additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on a generic computing hardware (or, merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). Accordingly, the recited claims do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §102/103
Applicant argues that the applied art fails to anticipate or render obvious amended claim 1. Notably absent from James is any disclosure of weight limits, volume limits, or any concept of "loading capacity of the movable body." James operates entirely within a restaurant dining context with no delivery vehicles, transportation constraints, or physical capacity limitations. The amended claim recites "the upper limit value being based on a loading capacity of the movable body and the designated number of the users," which requires a mathematical relationship where vehicle capacity is divided among users to establish per-person limits. James contains no such calculation or concept. The reference discusses apportioning restaurant bill amounts among diners, not allocating physical delivery capacity among multiple users. James provides no teaching regarding "movable body" or "loading capacity" as these concepts are entirely outside the scope of a restaurant billing system. The amended claim specifically recites "upper limit value" which establishes maximum permissible amounts, fundamentally different from Lauka's disclosure of current cart totals. Lauka's thresholds are merchant requirements for minimum purchase amounts or maximum shipping weights, established by business policies rather than calculated from vehicle capacity divided among multiple users. The amended claim requires displaying limits "separately for each of the users," contemplating multiple designated users sharing delivery capacity. Lauka provides no teaching for multiple users or shared resource allocation. The amended limitation requires that "the upper limit value being based on a loading capacity of the movable body and the designated number of the users." This language establishes a specific relationship where vehicle loading capacity is mathematically divided among designated users to determine individual per-person limits. Neither James nor Lauka, individually or in combination, discloses this essential feature. James operates in a restaurant context with no "movable body" or "loading capacity" concepts. Lauka discusses individual e-commerce transactions with merchant-imposed thresholds, not capacity-based calculations derived from delivery vehicles. The combination lacks any teaching for calculating per-person limits based on dividing vehicle capacity among multiple users (Remarks, pages 15-18).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. James discloses that the three check of three different users are displayed separately [i.e. displaying data separately for each user] (see James, [0088] and Fig. 21). Lauka modifies the displaying of James. Lauka teaches that the network page that displays the contents of the shopping cart also displays a remainder value of a threshold condition such as a minimum/maximum combined weight or a minimum/maximum combined volume [i.e. display at least one of an upper limit value of a weight and an upper limit value of a volume of one or more items orderable per person] (see Lauka, [0016] and [0073]). Additionally, in Lauka the number of designated users is one, thus, the upper limit value is based on the designated number of the users. Furthermore, this limitation does not recite that the loading capacity is mathematically divided among designated users to determine individual per-person limits as purported by Applicant. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Accordingly, James and Lauka teaches these argued features.
Applicant further argues that the amended claim requires "the upper limit value being based on a loading capacity of the movable body and the designated number of the users," which contemplates calculating per-person limits by dividing total vehicle capacity among multiple users. Molly contains no such calculation or multi-user allocation concept. Molly also fails to disclose "display, separately for each of the users" as required by the amended claim (Remarks, pages 18-19).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Initially, Examiner interprets “Molly” as the Malloy reference as “Molly” isn’t a reference of record in this Application. Malloy isn’t cited to teach these argued features. As, detailed in the response to arguments above, James and Lauka teach these argued features.
Applicant further argues that Lesser's interface displays total capacity information to individual customers building single orders. Lesser contains no disclosure of separately displaying capacity information for each of multiple users based on shared loading capacity (Remarks, page 19).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Lesser isn’t cited to teach these argued features. As, detailed in the response to arguments above, James and Lauka teach these argued features.
Applicant further argues that Luckay focuses on individual delivery coordination where single users request transport services, without any suggestion of displaying per-user limits derived from shared vehicle capacity (Remarks, page 19).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Luckay isn’t cited to teach the argued features. As, detailed in the response to arguments above, James and Lauka teach the argued features.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
-Garcia-Brosa et al. (US 2022/0309420 A1) teaches splitting payments of users.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARIELLE E WEINER whose telephone number is (571)272-9007. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Maria-Teresa (Marissa) Thein can be reached at 571-272-6764. 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.
/ARIELLE E WEINER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689