DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submissions filed on November 6, 2025 and December 12, 2025 have been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-3, 6-18 and 20 are currently pending. Claims 1, 6, 11, and 15 were amended in the reply filed November 6, 2025 and claim 21 was added. Claims 1, 6, 11, 12, 15, and 16 were amended in the subsequent reply filed December 12, 2025 and claims 4, 5, and 21 were cancelled.
Priority
Application 18/675,606 was filed on May 28, 2024 and claims priority to US Provisional Application No. 63/533,441, filed August 18, 2023, and US Provisional Application No. 63/469,259, filed May 26, 2023.
Response to Arguments
Examiner notes that both the Applicant’s Arguments dated 11/06/2025 and 12/12/2025 have both been considered. Because the Arguments appear to be substantially identical, only the Arguments dated 12/12/2025 (i.e., “Remarks) are used for the citations below.
Objections:
Applicant's amendments overcome the objections made to the claims and they are withdrawn.
101:
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the rejection made under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner clarifies that, Step 2A – Prong 1 is used to determine if the claims recite an abstract idea. Step 2A – Prong 2 is used to determine if the recited judicial exception is integrated into practical application. If the judicial exception is integrated into practical application, then the claims are not directed to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A). As such, Examiner will address Applicant’s arguments under Step 2A – Prong 1 as meaning that the claims do not recite an abstract idea and arguments under Step 2A – Prong 2 as meaning that any judicial exception is integrated into practical application.
Step 2A – Prong 1
Applicant argues that the independent claims “are not included in the enumerated sub-groups of managing personal behavior or relationships” and “are not related to the examples included in the guidelines for managing personal behavior or relationships” (Remarks p. 11). Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the claims recite “certain methods of organizing human activity” as establishing business relationships and performing sales activities (i.e., commercial or legal interactions), which is a separate category (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) (II)).
Applicant further argues that the independent claims are directed towards “a system and process that performs steps beyond organizing human activity” (Remarks p. 11). Examiner notes that features such as the use of a device with geolocation capability and a drone are analyzed as additional elements in Step 2A – Prong 2. The use of additional elements is analyzed to determine if an abstract idea is integrated into practical application. It does not negate the presence of the abstract idea recited in the claims.
Lastly, Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to a mental process because the claims recite steps that cannot be performed in the human mind “as they are done in real-time and continuously, as well as using data that cannot be determined via the human mind” (Remarks p. 13). Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)). Furthermore, the recited steps can be performed in the human mind in real-time and continuously. For example, a human can observe a customer in a store (e.g. a barista behind a counter watching a customer browse merchandise) and track the customer’s location in real-time as the customer moves around the store. Similarly, a human can observe the position of a drone and its position relative to a customer and determine the best path for the drone to reach the customer. As noted above, the use of additional elements is analyzed in Step 2A – Prong 2 and does not negate the presence of the abstract idea recited in the claims.
Step 2A – Prong 2
Applicant argues that the additional elements integrate any abstract idea into practical application and go beyond “merely applying the abstract idea to a generic computer” and “impart meaningful aspects distinct from an abstract idea” (Remarks p. 14). Examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional elements such as “processor”, “server”, “shop device”, and “customer device having geolocation capability” appear to be generic computers, recited at a high-level of detail. As such, the additional elements amount to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) and are not more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
With respect to the use of a drone, Examiner notes that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims can be interpreted as merely sending information to the drone (see paragraph [0049] of Applicant’s specification stating that “location information can be provided to software controlling the drone”) where the drone itself is only described a high-level of detail. Furthermore, the claims do not connect the delivery of the order to the use of the drone (e.g. “delivering the order to the moving customer via the drone being controlled to follow the dynamically updated desired delivery path” or similar), which does not establish control over the drone sufficient to show an integration into practical application. As such, the use of a drone, as claimed, does not go beyond generally linking the abstract idea to drone delivery (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Applicant further argues that the claims provide a practical application by improving order delivery to a moving customer (Remarks p. 13-14). Examiner respectfully disagrees. The improvements listed by Applicant are not directed towards any computer functionality, which does not automatically make the claims ineligible. However, the claimed improvements are improvements to the abstract idea of processing orders and delivering goods to a customer. An improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology (See MPEP 2106.05(a)(II)).
Step 2B
Applicant argues that the claims amount to significantly more that an abstract idea. For the reasons described above and below, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Accordingly, the rejection is maintained.
103:
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the rejections made under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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 1-3, 6-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Independent Claims
MPEP 2106 Step 2A- Prong 1:
Independent claim 1 recites, processing an order for one or more goods to be delivered;
Identifying a current location of the customer, when the order is ready for the delivery;
mapping the identified current location of the customer to a floor plan of an environment;
performing continual updates of the current location of the customer;
determining a desired delivery path to the moving customer through the floor plan of the environment based on the current location of the customer and traffic patterns of the floor plan;
dynamically updating the desired delivery path, based on one or more of a current location of the customer, a current location of the drone, order information, or current traffic conditions of the floor plan, until the order is delivered to the moving customer;
communicating the mapped identified current location of the customer and the dynamically updated desired delivery path for the delivery of the order to the moving customer;
determining a proximity of the drone relative to the customer;
and delivering the order to the moving customer, based on the identified current location of the customer and the proximity of the drone relative to the customer device.
The limitations above are processes that under broadest reasonable interpretation cover “certain methods of organizing human activity” (including sales activities or behaviors, or business relations). Specifically, processing orders and delivering goods to a customer is establishing business relationships and performing sales activities.
Additionally, the limitations include mental processes (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion) because they can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper. Specifically, claims to process an order, identify a location of a customer, identify a delivery path, and identify a drone’s proximity relative to a customer, can all be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper.
Independent claim 11 recites, processing an order for one or more goods to be delivered;
communicating with a customer;
identifying a current location of the customer, when the order is ready for the delivery;
mapping the identified current location of the customer to a floor plan of an environment;
performing continual updates of the current location of the customer;
identifying a desired delivery path to the moving customer through the floor plan of the environment based on the current location of the customer and traffic patterns of the floor plan;
dynamically updating the desired delivery path until the order is delivered to the moving customer based on one or more of a current location of the customer, a current location of the drone, order information, or current traffic conditions of the floor plan;
communicating the mapped identified current location of the customer and the dynamically updated desired delivery path for the delivery of the order to the moving customer;
determining a proximity of the drone relative to the customer;
and indicating the delivery of the order to the moving customer, based on the identified current location of the customer and the proximity of the drone relative to the customer device.
The limitations above are processes that under broadest reasonable interpretation cover “certain methods of organizing human activity” (including sales activities or behaviors, or business relations). Specifically, processing orders and delivering goods to a customer is establishing business relationships and performing sales activities.
Additionally, the limitations include mental processes (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion) because they can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper. Specifically, claims to process an order, communicate with a customer, identify a delivery path, identify a drone’s proximity relative to a customer, and identify/indicate delivery of an order can all be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper.
Independent claim 15 recites, processing an order for one or more goods to be delivered;
identifying a current location of the customer, when the order is ready for the delivery;
mapping the identified current location of the customer to a floor plan of an environment;
performing continual updates of the current location of the customer;
identifying a desired delivery path to the moving customer through the floor plan of the environment based on the current location of the customer and traffic patterns of the floor plan;
dynamically updating the desired delivery path until the order is delivered to the moving customer based on one or more of a current location of the customer, a current location of the drone, order information, or current traffic conditions of the floor plan;
communicating the mapped identified current location of the customer and the dynamically updated desired delivery path for the delivery of the order to the customer;
determining a proximity of the drone relative to the customer;
and indicating the current location of the customer of the moving customer for delivering the order.
The limitations above are processes that under broadest reasonable interpretation cover “certain methods of organizing human activity” (including sales activities or behaviors, or business relations). Specifically, processing orders and delivering goods to a customer is establishing business relationships and performing sales activities.
Additionally, the limitations include mental processes (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion) because they can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper. Specifically, claims to process an order, identify a delivery path, identify a drone’s proximity relative to a customer, and identify/indicate a location for delivering an order can all be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A- Prong 2:
The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1, 11, and 15 as a whole amount to: merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, or “apply it”.
Independent claims 1, 11, and 15 recite the following additional elements to perform the above recited steps: a processor (claims 1, 11, and 15), a server or a shop device (claims 1, 11, and 15), a customer device having geolocation capability (claims 1, 11, and 15), network connectivity (claim 11), and a tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable media (claim 15). These additional elements are generic computer components performing generic computer functions at a high level of generality, and are recited at a high level of generality. These additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Furthermore, claims 1, 11, and 15 recite the additional element of a drone. This additional element is described at high level of generality such that, when viewed as a whole, the additional element does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., drone delivery).
Individually and as a whole, this additional element does not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application because the claims do not: improve the functioning of the computer itself or any other technology or technical field; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; add meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment to transform the judicial exception into patent-eligible subject matter; amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer.
MPEP 2106 Step 2B:
Independent claims 1, 11, and 15 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements are generic computer components performing generic computer functions at a high level of generality and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Alone or in combination, the additional elements do not contribute significantly more than the judicial exception and as a result, the claims are ineligible.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 6, 8, 10 and 20, recite additional details that merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations without reciting any additional elements. They are therefore, ineligible for the reasons as discussed above with respect to independent claims 1, 11, and 15. The additional elements in claims 2, 3, 7, 9, 12-14, and 16-18 are discussed below.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A- Prong 2:
Dependent claims 2, 7, 9, 12-14, and 16-18 recite additional details that merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea. Claims 2, 7, 12-14, and 16-18 also recite the additional elements of: a mobile communication device having a GPS (Global Positioning System) component (claims 2, 12 and 16), a first app (claims 2, 9, 12 and 16), a network-connectable computing device (claims 7, 12, and 17), a second app (claims 7, 12, and 17), a display module (claims 13 and 14), and a mobile device (claim 18). Each of these additional elements are recited at a high level of generality such that when viewed as a whole, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Dependent claim 3, recites additional details that merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea. Claim 3 also recites the additional element of a geofence. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality such that when viewed as a whole, the additional element does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., location tracking) (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
MPEP 2106 Step 2B:
With respect to claims 2, 7, 9, 12-14, and 16-18, as discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element amounts to no more than: a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., applying the exception using a generic computer component, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional elements of a mobile communication device having a GPS (Global Positioning System) component, a first app, a network-connectable computing device, a second app, a display module, and a mobile device, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, claims 2, 7, 9, 12-14, and 16-18 are also ineligible.
With respect to claim 3, as discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element amounts to no more than: generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., (i) generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional elements of a geofence, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, claim 3 is also ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103, which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 4-7, and 10-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0294266 to Siragusa (Siragusa) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0306355 to Mehta et al. (Mehta) and in further view of U.S. Patent No. 11,222,299 to Baalke et al. (Baalke).
As to claim 1, Siragusa teaches, processing, on a server or a shop device, an order for one or more goods to be delivered (“FIG. 1 shows a block diagram of a system 10 for placing/receiving an order for delivery according to one embodiment of the present invention …” [0020-0022]);
identifying, using communication with a customer device having geolocation capability, a current location of the customer device, when the order is ready for the delivery (“… If the customer selects the option of “deliver to my location,” the order information or message sent to the central server 14 indicates that the customer wishes to have the items delivered to his or her current location at the time of delivery. The message can also indicate whether the customer's mobile device 12 has the requisite ability to update the customer's position in real-time or near-real time …” [0023-0027]);
mapping the identified current location of the customer device to (“As shown in FIG. 4, the delivery person device 16 can be configured to include a map interface 18 to allow the the (sic) delivery person to view his or her own current location as well as the customer's last reported location (as retrieved by the delivery person device 16 from the server 14 or directly from the customer device 12) on the map 18 …” [0028]);
performing continual updates of the current location of the customer device (“FIG. 5 depicts communications between the customer device 12 and central server 14, and between the delivery person device 16 and the central server 14, for updating the locations of both the delivery person and the customer during delivery …” [0029-0033]);
determining a desired delivery path to the moving customer through the (“… The map 18 can further show routing instructions for the current route from the delivery person to the customer. Routing can be calculated dynamically based on the current location of the delivery person and the last known or reported location of the customer using known techniques …” [0028]);
dynamically updating the desired delivery path of the [delivery entity] (“…Based upon this information, the delivery person device 16 can determine whether to re-calculate the delivery route, update the screen or interface for the delivery person, determine a suitable time for receiving the next information update about the customer's location, and provide an update to the central server 14 or directly to the customer device 12 on the estimated time of arrival (ETA) …” [0029-0033]);
communicating the mapped identified current location of the customer device and the dynamically updated delivery path to the [delivery entity] (“… If so, the delivery person device 16 can calculate a new appropriate route to the customer from the current location of device 16 and can optionally show the route (or routes) on a map 18 of the delivery person device 16 and alert the delivery person of the new route …” [0026-0029]);
determining a proximity of the [delivery entity] (“Upon the delivery person device 16 detecting that the delivery person is within a predetermined distance from the customer device 12 (or upon the delivery person's request), the delivery person device 16 can prompt the delivery person to initiate a direct communication message with the customer …” [0032]);
and delivering the order to the moving customer, based on the identified current location of the customer device and the proximity of the [delivery entity] (“… At completion of the delivery, the delivery person device 16 can be used to confirm delivery, e.g., via scanning of the delivered items, tapping of the delivery person device with the customer device to exchange data confirming delivery, data entry and/or signature capture on the delivery person device 16, or any other suitable delivery confirmation means …” [0031-0033]).
While Siragusa teaches delivery via a delivery entity, Siragusa does not teach that the delivery entity is a drone. However, Mehta teaches, the delivery entity is a drone (“The systems described herein include a flight planner configured to update a flight plan of a UAV responsive to a change to an order while the UAV is executing the flight plan to deliver the order …” [0031-003300] Examiner notes that the delivery drone taught by Mehta is capable of performing the same functions as the delivery entity in Siragusa (i.e., delivering an item to a customer [0035-0037] and receiving updated information [0035, 0038])). Since each individual element and its function are shown in the art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself—that is in the substitution of the delivery drone of Mehta for the delivery entity of Siragusa. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Mehta that doing so would shorten delivery times, reduce human intervention in deliveries, and save costs [0030].
Siragusa does not teach, placing the order into a drone. However, Mehta teaches, placing the order into a drone (“… The UAV 102 may be implemented by various autonomous aircraft with payload capacity for delivering commercial items to consumers …” [0034-0037]);
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, placing the order into a drone, as taught by Mehta with the delivery method of Siragusa. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Mehta that doing so would shorten delivery times, reduce human intervention in deliveries, and save costs [0030].
While Siragusa in view of Mehta teaches mapping the identified current location of the customer device to an environment and identifying a desired delivery path to the moving customer through the environment, Siragusa in view of Mehta does not teach a floor plan of an environment. However, Baalke teaches, a floor plan of an environment (“A customized navigation map of the building 745 may be generated for the autonomous vehicle 750 based on floor plans or other layouts of traveling surfaces within the building 745 and the suites 749-1, 749-2, 749-3, 749-4 …” [col. 42, lines 3-29]). Since each individual element and its function are shown in the art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself—that is in the substitution of the floor plan of an environment of Baalke for the environment of Siragusa in view of Mehta. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Baalke that doing so would achieve a high level of convenience for the customer, as well as a high level of visibility of the autonomous vehicle [col. 3, lines 38-44].
Siragusa in view of Mehta does not teach, determining a desired delivery path based on traffic patterns of the floor plan. However, Baalke teaches, determining a desired delivery path based on traffic patterns of the floor plan (“As is shown in FIG. 1E, a set of data 124 regarding indoor transportation infrastructure of buildings (or structures) 145-1, 145-2, 145-3, 145-4 within the portion of the area or environment covered by the baseline map 105 is shown …” and “… In some embodiments, the autonomous vehicle 150 may be configured to capture information or data (e.g., imaging data) upon arriving at the building 145-2, e.g., by the imaging devices 162-1, 162-2, 162-3 or by any other sensor, and to automatically identify the access points 141-1, 141-2 based on the information or data captured therefrom, e.g., imaging data, by detecting doors or other entryways, flows of traffic including humans and/or machines, or any other attributes of access points, before selecting one of the access points 141-1, 141-2 for accessing the building 145-2 …” [col. 5, line 39 – col. 6, line 29 and col. 7, line 38 – col. 8, line 5]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, determining a desired delivery path based on traffic patterns of the floor plan, as taught by Baalke with the delivery method of Siragusa in view of Mehta. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Baalke that doing so would achieve a high level of convenience for the customer, as well as a high level of visibility of the autonomous vehicle [col. 3, lines 38-44].
As to claim 11, Siragusa teaches, a server or a shop device, having network connectivity and a processor (“The mobile devices 12, 16, and the central server 14, each include at least one processor connected to memory, the receiver and to networking hardware …” [0021]);
the processor of the server or shop device to perform: processing an order for one or more goods to be delivered (“FIG. 1 shows a block diagram of a system 10 for placing/receiving an order for delivery according to one embodiment of the present invention …” [0020-0022]);
communicating with a customer device having geolocation capability (“… The networking hardware permits the mobile devices 12, 16 to communicate with the central server 14 in a conventional manner as known in the art, and, in some embodiments, with each other …” [0021]);
identifying, using communication with the customer device, a current location of the customer device, when the order is ready for the delivery (“… If the customer selects the option of “deliver to my location,” the order information or message sent to the central server 14 indicates that the customer wishes to have the items delivered to his or her current location at the time of delivery. The message can also indicate whether the customer's mobile device 12 has the requisite ability to update the customer's position in real-time or near-real time …” [0023-0027]);
mapping the identified current location of the customer device to (“As shown in FIG. 4, the delivery person device 16 can be configured to include a map interface 18 to allow the the (sic) delivery person to view his or her own current location as well as the customer's last reported location (as retrieved by the delivery person device 16 from the server 14 or directly from the customer device 12) on the map 18 …” [0028]);
performing continual updates of the current location of the customer device (“FIG. 5 depicts communications between the customer device 12 and central server 14, and between the delivery person device 16 and the central server 14, for updating the locations of both the delivery person and the customer during delivery …” [0029-0033]);
identifying a desired delivery path to the moving customer through the (“… The map 18 can further show routing instructions for the current route from the delivery person to the customer. Routing can be calculated dynamically based on the current location of the delivery person and the last known or reported location of the customer using known techniques …” [0028]);
dynamically updating the desired delivery path until the order is delivered to the moving customer based on one or more of a current location of the customer, a current location of the drone, order information, or current traffic conditions of the floor plan (“… Based upon this information, the delivery person device 16 can determine whether to re-calculate the delivery route, update the screen or interface for the delivery person, determine a suitable time for receiving the next information update about the customer's location, and provide an update to the central server 14 or directly to the customer device 12 on the estimated time of arrival (ETA) …” [0029-0033]);
communicating the mapped identified current location of the customer device and the dynamically updated delivery path to the [delivery entity] the moving customer (“… If so, the delivery person device 16 can calculate a new appropriate route to the customer from the current location of device 16 and can optionally show the route (or routes) on a map 18 of the delivery person device 16 and alert the delivery person of the new route …” [0026-0029]);
determining a proximity of the [delivery entity] (“Upon the delivery person device 16 detecting that the delivery person is within a predetermined distance from the customer device 12 (or upon the delivery person's request), the delivery person device 16 can prompt the delivery person to initiate a direct communication message with the customer …” [0032]);
and indicating the delivery of the order to the moving customer, based on the identified current location of the customer device and the proximity of the [delivery entity] (“… At completion of the delivery, the delivery person device 16 can be used to confirm delivery, e.g., via scanning of the delivered items, tapping of the delivery person device with the customer device to exchange data confirming delivery, data entry and/or signature capture on the delivery person device 16, or any other suitable delivery confirmation means …” [0031-0033]).
While Siragusa teaches delivery via a delivery entity, Siragusa does not teach that the delivery entity is a drone. However, Mehta teaches, the delivery entity is a drone (“The systems described herein include a flight planner configured to update a flight plan of a UAV responsive to a change to an order while the UAV is executing the flight plan to deliver the order …” [0031-003300] Examiner notes that the delivery drone taught by Mehta is capable of performing the same functions as the delivery entity in Siragusa (i.e., delivering an item to a customer [0035-0037] and receiving updated information [0035, 0038])). Since each individual element and its function are shown in the art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself—that is in the substitution of the delivery drone of Mehta for the delivery entity of Siragusa. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Mehta that doing so would shorten delivery times, reduce human intervention in deliveries, and save costs [0030].
Siragusa does not teach, a drone; placing the order into a drone. However, Mehta teaches, a drone (“… The UAV 102 may be implemented by various autonomous aircraft with payload capacity for delivering commercial items to consumers …” [0035] Examiner notes that a UAV is the equivalent of a drone);
placing the order into a drone (“… The UAV 102 may travel from an origin 104 to a delivery area 106 to deliver a payload (e.g., an order) to a location within or near the delivery area 106 …” [0034-0037]);
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, placing the order into a drone, as taught by Mehta with the delivery method of Siragusa. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Mehta that doing so would shorten delivery times, reduce human intervention in deliveries, and save costs [0030].
While Siragusa in view of Mehta teaches mapping the identified current location of the customer device to an environment and identifying a desired delivery path to the moving customer through the environment, Siragusa in view of Mehta does not teach a floor plan of an environment. However, Baalke teaches, a floor plan of an environment (“A customized navigation map of the building 745 may be generated for the autonomous vehicle 750 based on floor plans or other layouts of traveling surfaces within the building 745 and the suites 749-1, 749-2, 749-3, 749-4 …” [col. 42, lines 3-29]). Since each individual element and its function are shown in the art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself—that is in the substitution of the floor plan of an environment of Baalke for the environment of Siragusa in view of Mehta. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Baalke that doing so would achieve a high level of convenience for the customer, as well as a high level of visibility of the autonomous vehicle [col. 3, lines 38-44].
Siragusa in view of Mehta does not teach, determining a desired delivery path based on traffic patterns of the floor plan. However, Baalke teaches, determining a desired delivery path based on traffic patterns of the floor plan (“As is shown in FIG. 1E, a set of data 124 regarding indoor transportation infrastructure of buildings (or structures) 145-1, 145-2, 145-3, 145-4 within the portion of the area or environment covered by the baseline map 105 is shown …” and “… In some embodiments, the autonomous vehicle 150 may be configured to capture information or data (e.g., imaging data) upon arriving at the building 145-2, e.g., by the imaging devices 162-1, 162-2, 162-3 or by any other sensor, and to automatically identify the access points 141-1, 141-2 based on the information or data captured therefrom, e.g., imaging data, by detecting doors or other entryways, flows of traffic including humans and/or machines, or any other attributes of access points, before selecting one of the access points 141-1, 141-2 for accessing the building 145-2 …” [col. 5, line 39 – col. 6, line 29 and col. 7, line 38 – col. 8, line 5]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, determining a desired delivery path based on traffic patterns of the floor plan, as taught by Baalke with the delivery method of Siragusa in view of Mehta. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Baalke that doing so would achieve a high level of convenience for the customer, as well as a high level of visibility of the autonomous vehicle [col. 3, lines 38-44].
As to claim 15, Siragusa teaches, a tangible, non-transitory, computer-readable media having instructions thereupon which, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform a method comprising (“a non-ephemeral computer-readable media storing program code executable by a processor to cause the processor to perform steps comprising …” [claim 21]):
processing, on a server or a shop device, an order for one or more goods to be delivered (“FIG. 1 shows a block diagram of a system 10 for placing/receiving an order for delivery according to one embodiment of the present invention …” [0020-0022]);
identifying, using communication with a customer device having geolocation capability, a current location of the customer device, when the order is ready for the delivery (“… If the customer selects the option of “deliver to my location,” the order information or message sent to the central server 14 indicates that the customer wishes to have the items delivered to his or her current location at the time of delivery. The message can also indicate whether the customer's mobile device 12 has the requisite ability to update the customer's position in real-time or near-real time …” [0023-0027]);
mapping the identified current location of the customer device to (“As shown in FIG. 4, the delivery person device 16 can be configured to include a map interface 18 to allow the the (sic) delivery person to view his or her own current location as well as the customer's last reported location (as retrieved by the delivery person device 16 from the server 14 or directly from the customer device 12) on the map 18 …” [0028]);
performing continual updates of the current location of the customer device (“FIG. 5 depicts communications between the customer device 12 and central server 14, and between the delivery person device 16 and the central server 14, for updating the locations of both the delivery person and the customer during delivery …” [0029-0033]);
identifying a desired delivery path for a [delivery entity] (“… The map 18 can further show routing instructions for the current route from the delivery person to the customer. Routing can be calculated dynamically based on the current location of the delivery person and the last known or reported location of the customer using known techniques …” [0028]);
dynamically updating the desired delivery path of the [delivery entity] (“…Based upon this information, the delivery person device 16 can determine whether to re-calculate the delivery route, update the screen or interface for the delivery person, determine a suitable time for receiving the next information update about the customer's location, and provide an update to the central server 14 or directly to the customer device 12 on the estimated time of arrival (ETA) …” [0029-0033]);
communicating the mapped identified current location of the customer device and the dynamically updated delivery path to the [delivery entity] (“… If so, the delivery person device 16 can calculate a new appropriate route to the customer from the current location of device 16 and can optionally show the route (or routes) on a map 18 of the delivery person device 16 and alert the delivery person of the new route …” [0026-0029]);
determining a proximity of the [delivery entity] (“Upon the delivery person device 16 detecting that the delivery person is within a predetermined distance from the customer device 12 (or upon the delivery person's request), the delivery person device 16 can prompt the delivery person to initiate a direct communication message with the customer …” [0032]);
indicating the current location of the customer device of the moving customer for delivering the order (“… At completion of the delivery, the delivery person device 16 can be used to confirm delivery, e.g., via scanning of the delivered items, tapping of the delivery person device with the customer device to exchange data confirming delivery, data entry and/or signature capture on the delivery person device 16, or any other suitable delivery confirmation means …” [0031-0033]).
While Siragusa teaches delivery via a delivery entity, Siragusa does not teach that the delivery entity is a drone. However, Mehta teaches, the delivery entity is a drone (“The systems described herein include a flight planner configured to update a flight plan of a UAV responsive to a change to an order while the UAV is executing the flight plan to deliver the order …” [0031-003300] Examiner notes that the delivery drone taught by Mehta is capable of performing the same functions as the delivery entity in Siragusa (i.e., delivering an item to a customer [0035-0037] and receiving updated information [0035, 0038])). Since each individual element and its function are shown in the art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself—that is in the substitution of the delivery drone of Mehta for the delivery entity of Siragusa. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Mehta that doing so would shorten delivery times, reduce human intervention in deliveries, and save costs [0030].
While Siragusa in view of Mehta teaches mapping the identified current location of the customer device to an environment and identifying a desired delivery path to the moving customer through the environment, Siragusa in view of Mehta does not teach a floor plan of an environment. However, Baalke teaches, a floor plan of an environment (“A customized navigation map of the building 745 may be generated for the autonomous vehicle 750 based on floor plans or other layouts of traveling surfaces within the building 745 and the suites 749-1, 749-2, 749-3, 749-4 …” [col. 42, lines 3-29]). Since each individual element and its function are shown in the art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself—that is in the substitution of the floor plan of an environment of Baalke for the environment of Siragusa in view of Mehta. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Baalke that doing so would achieve a high level of convenience for the customer, as well as a high level of visibility of the autonomous vehicle [col. 3, lines 38-44].
Siragusa in view of Mehta does not teach, determining a desired delivery path based on traffic patterns of the floor plan. However, Baalke teaches, determining a desired delivery path based on traffic patterns of the floor plan (“As is shown in FIG. 1E, a set of data 124 regarding indoor transportation infrastructure of buildings (or structures) 145-1, 145-2, 145-3, 145-4 within the portion of the area or environment covered by the baseline map 105 is shown …” and “… In some embodiments, the autonomous vehicle 150 may be configured to capture information or data (e.g., imaging data) upon arriving at the building 145-2, e.g., by the imaging devices 162-1, 162-2, 162-3 or by any other sensor, and to automatically identify the access points 141-1, 141-2 based on the information or data captured therefrom, e.g., imaging data, by detecting doors or other entryways, flows of traffic including humans and/or machines, or any other attributes of access points, before selecting one of the access points 141-1, 141-2 for accessing the building 145-2 …” [col. 5, line 39 – col. 6, line 29 and col. 7, line 38 – col. 8, line 5]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, determining a desired delivery path based on traffic patterns of the floor plan, as taught by Baalke with the delivery method of Siragusa in view of Mehta. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Baalke that doing so would achieve a high level of convenience for the customer, as well as a high level of visibility of the autonomous vehicle [col. 3, lines 38-44].
As to claims 2 and 12, Siragusa in view of Mehta and in further view of Baalke teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 11 as discussed above. Siragusa further teaches, the customer device having geolocation capability comprises a mobile communication device having a GPS (Global Positioning System) component and a first app configured to identify the current location of the customer and to communicate the current location of the customer device to the server or shop device (“Upon sending the order information to the server 14, a software component on the customer's mobile device 12 can be activated to periodically obtain the current location of the customer (e.g., based on the coordinates information received from a GPS receiver of the customer device …” [0026-0028]).
As to claim 6, Siragusa in view of Mehta and in further view of Baalke teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Siragusa further teaches, communicating the determined proximity to the server or the drone (“FIG. 5 depicts communications between the customer device 12 and central server 14, and between the delivery person device 16 and the central server 14, for updating the locations of both the delivery person and the customer during delivery, according to one embodiment of the invention …” [0029-0033]).
As to claim 7, Siragusa in view of Mehta and in further view of Baalke teaches all of the limitations of claim 6 as discussed above. Siragusa further teaches, wherein the server or shop device comprises a network-connectable computing device having a second app configured to process the order and to receive communication identifying a current location of the moving customer from the identified current location of the customer device (“… The order information can be sent to central server 14 (e.g., a computer web server or cloud server), which may or may not be the server that hosts the vendor website via a data connection (e.g., mobile networks or wireless networks) …” and “Upon sending the order information to the server 14, a software component on the customer's mobile device 12 can be activated to periodically obtain the current location of the customer (e.g., based on the coordinates information received from a GPS receiver of the customer device 12) and to update the delivery person with the current location of the customer, e.g., by reporting the current customer location to the central server …” [0022 and 0026]).
As to claim 13, Siragusa in view of Mehta and in further view of Baalke teaches all of the limitations of claim 11 as discussed above. Siragusa further teaches, an item with a display module; the display module being configured to receive and display, from the server or shop device, information relating to the delivery of the order to the moving customer (“FIG. 3 shows a sample schematic screenshot of a display of a delivery person device 16 upon receiving an assigned order from the central server 14 according to an embodiment of the invention …” [0027] Examiner notes that under the broadest reasonable interpretation and per paragraph [0088] of Applicant’s specification, an “item” is interpreted to include any object (including a device) worn or carried by a delivery person).
As to claim 14, Siragusa in view of Mehta and in further view of Baalke teaches all of the limitations of claim 13 as discussed above. Siragusa further teaches, the server or shop device being configured to communicate to the display module the determined proximity (“… If so, the delivery person device 16 can calculate a new appropriate route to the customer from the current location of device 16 and can optionally show the route (or routes) on a map 18 of the delivery person device 16 and alert the delivery person of the new route … Upon the delivery person device 16 detecting that the delivery person is within a predetermined distance from the customer device 12 (or upon the delivery person's request), the delivery person device 16 can prompt the delivery person to initiate a direct communication message with the customer …” [0031-0032]).
As to claim 16, Siragusa in view of Mehta and in further view of Baalke teaches all of the limitations of claim 15 as discussed above. Siragusa further teaches, a first app installable on a mobile communication device having a GPS (Global Positioning System) component as the customer device having geolocation capability, the first app configured to identify the current location of the customer device and to communicate the current location of the customer device to the server or drone (“Upon sending the order information to the server 14, a software component on the customer's mobile device 12 can be activated to periodically obtain the current location of the customer (e.g., based on the coordinates information received from a GPS receiver of the customer device …” [0026-0028]).
As to claim 17, Siragusa in view of Mehta and in further view of Baalke teaches all of the limitations of claim 15 as discussed above. Siragusa further teaches, a second app installable on the server or shop device, which comprises a network-connectable computing device, the second app configured to process the order and to receive communication identifying a current location of the moving customer from the identified current location of the customer device (“… The order information can be sent to central server 14 (e.g., a computer web server or cloud server), which may or may not be the server that hosts the vendor website via a data connection (e.g., mobile networks or wireless networks) …” and “Upon sending the order information to the server 14, a software component on the customer's mobile device 12 can be activated to periodically obtain the current location of the customer (e.g., based on the coordinates information received from a GPS receiver of the customer device 12) and to update the delivery person with the current location of the customer, e.g., by reporting the current customer location to the central server …” [0022 and 0026]).
As to claim 18, Siragusa in view of Mehta and in further view of Baalke teaches all of the limitations of claim 15 as discussed above. Siragusa further teaches, communicating the updated mapped identified current location of the customer device (“As shown in FIG. 4, the delivery person device 16 can be configured to include a map interface 18 to allow the the delivery person to view his or her own current location as well as the customer's last reported location (as retrieved by the delivery person device 16 from the server 14 or directly from the customer device 12) on the map 18 …” [0028]).
and updating location of the customer and so communicating with updated mapped location (“FIG. 7 depicts a flowchart of a process performed by the delivery person device 16. Upon notification that a product has been assigned to the delivery person, the delivery person device 16 can first receive the latest location data from a GPS receiver installed in the device 16, and optionally send such location data to the central server 14 … Upon confirmation of the order delivery, the processes illustrated in FIGS. 4-6 can be terminated with regard to the subject delivery” [0031-0033] Examiner notes that claim 5 is interpreted to mean that the mapped location is updated relative to the floor plan and that the floor plan itself does not necessarily update or change).
While Siragusa teaches using a map of an environment to help identify a delivery location, Siragusa does not teach, using a floor plan to help identify a delivery location. However, Baalke teaches, using a floor plan to help identify a delivery location (“A customized navigation map of the building 745 may be generated for the autonomous vehicle 750 based on floor plans or other layouts of traveling surfaces within the building 745 and the suites 749-1, 749-2, 749-3, 749-4 …” [col. 42, lines 3-29]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a floor plan, as taught by Baalke, with the delivery method of Siragusa. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Baalke that doing so would achieve a high level of convenience for the customer, as well as a high level of visibility of the autonomous vehicle [col. 3, lines 38-44].
Claims 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0294266 to Siragusa (Siragusa) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0306355 to Mehta et al. (Mehta) in further view of U.S. Patent No. 11,222,299 to Baalke et al. (Baalke), as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0222555 to Somani (Somani).
As to claim 3, Siragusa in view of Mehta and in further view of Baalke teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Siragusa in view of Mehta and in further view of Baalke does not teach, establishing a geofence for order placing; and identifying, using communication with the customer device having the geolocation capability, the current location of the customer device, when the customer attempts to place the order, wherein the processing the order is conditioned on the current location of the customer device for the order placing being within the geofence. However, Somani further teaches, establishing a geofence for order placing (“… The parameter determination subsystem 114 determines geofence delivery area …” [0040-0042]);
and identifying, using communication with the customer device having the geolocation capability, the current location of the customer device, when the customer attempts to place the order (“In step 708, a current location information for the registered one or more customers associated with the received request is determined based on real-time location tracking model …” [0072-0075]),
wherein the processing the order is conditioned on the current location of the customer device for the order placing being within the geofence (“… Moreover, the seller B 204 and the seller C 206 may deliver the product order to delivery address Z 216 of the customer X 208. FIG. 2 shows that seller A 202 does not deliver at delivery address Z 216 of the customer X 208” and “… In such embodiment, for delivering the product order to each of the registered one or more customers, the method 700 includes delivery through seller delivery within the determined delivery area and customer pick up within the determined product pickup area.” [0058-0060 and 0078-0080]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, establishing a geofence for order placing; and identifying, using communication with the customer device having the geolocation capability, the current location of the customer device, when the customer attempts to place the order, wherein the processing the order is conditioned on the current location of the customer device for the order placing being within the geofence, as taught by Somani with the delivery method of Siragusa in view of Mehta and in further view of Baalke. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Somani that doing so would improve management of a local area shopping network [0005].
Claims 8, 9, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0294266 to Siragusa (Siragusa) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0306355 to Mehta et al. (Mehta) in further view of U.S. Patent No. 11,222,299 to Baalke et al. (Baalke), as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2014/0324725 to Edmonds et al. (Edmonds).
As to claims 8 and 20, Siragusa in view of Mehta and in further view of Baalke teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 15 as discussed above. Siragusa in view of Mehta and in further view of Baalke does not teach, estimating, on the server or shop device, a location of the customer for completion of the delivery, based on the identified current location of the customer device, using the communication with the customer device having geolocation capability. However, Edmonds teaches, estimating, on the server or shop device, a location of the customer for completion of the delivery, based on the identified current location of the customer device, using the communication with the customer device having geolocation capability (“In another example embodiment, the system may attempt to anticipate a change in delivery location 1602 when it detects that the user has changed locations from when the item was purchased … For example, the application may periodically query a GPS module on the mobile device for the user's current information, and this information may then be uploaded to the system (e.g., a server machine within the system) for real-time tracking of user location” [0098-0099]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, estimating, on the server or shop device, a location of the customer for completion of the delivery, based on the identified current location of the customer device, using the communication with the customer device having geolocation capability, as taught by Edmonds with the delivery method of Siragusa in view of Mehta and in further view of Baalke. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Edmonds that doing so would provide fast delivery to users on the go [0003].
As to claim 9, Siragusa in view of Mehta and in further view of Baalke teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Siragusa in view of Mehta and in further view of Baalke does not teach, responsive to the processing the order, determining, on the server or shop device, whether a first app for the geolocation capability is active on the customer device; and responsive to determining the first app for the geolocation capability is inactive on the customer device, pushing a notification to the customer device to activate the first app. However, Edmonds teaches, responsive to the processing the order, determining, on the server or shop device, whether a first app for the geolocation capability is active on the customer device (“… Then, at 306, it may be determined if location services have been enabled/allowed …” [0054-0058]);
and responsive to determining the first app for the geolocation capability is inactive on the customer device, pushing a notification to the customer device to activate the first app (“… If not, then a location services message 308 may be displayed …” [0054-0058]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, responsive to the processing the order, determining, on the server or shop device, whether a first app for the geolocation capability is active on the customer device; and responsive to determining the first app for the geolocation capability is inactive on the customer device, pushing a notification to the customer device to activate the first app, as taught by Edmonds with the delivery method of in view of Mehta and in further view of Baalke. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Edmonds that doing so would provide fast delivery to users on the go [0003].
Claims 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0294266 to Siragusa (Siragusa) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0306355 to Mehta et al. (Mehta) in further view of U.S. Patent No. 11,222,299 to Baalke et al. (Baalke), as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0061371 to Haverinen (Haverinen).
As to claim 10, Siragusa in view of Mehta and in further view of Baalke teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Siragusa in view of Mehta and in further view of Baalke does not teach, scheduling, on the server or shop device, a fulfillment time for the order based on the identified current location of the customer device, using the communication with the customer device having geolocation capability. However, Haverinen teaches, scheduling, on the server or shop device, a fulfillment time for the order based on the identified current location of the customer device, using the communication with the customer device having geolocation capability ( “ … In an example embodiment, the mobile apparatus 160/170 comprises a GNSS (Global Navigation Satellite System) receiver 200, which generates the location data on the basis of signals received from Earth-orbiting satellites” and “… With this example embodiment, the consumer is given a chance to estimate whether the time of the delivery suits his/her schedule, and then either confirm the order or cancel it” [0040-0041 and 0081-0083]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, scheduling, on the server or shop device, a fulfillment time for the order based on the identified current location of the customer device, using the communication with the customer device having geolocation capability, as taught by Haverinen with the delivery method of in view of Mehta and in further view of Baalke. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Haverinen that doing so would provide further sophistication to the services offered by retail outlets [0002].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANIE S WALLICK whose telephone number is (703)756-1081. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571) 272-5587. 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.
/S.S.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/RUPANGINI SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628