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 .
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.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-3, 6-18 and 20 are currently pending. Claims 1, 11, and 15 were amended in the reply filed June 1, 2026.
Response to Arguments
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. 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. 10-11). 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 the examples listed by Applicant are performed as part of the abstract idea of processing orders and delivering goods to a customer. Examiner further notes that features such as tracking the location of a customer (via a customer device) and using a drone to deliver items 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.
Applicant’s argument that the amended claims no longer recite a mental process is persuasive. However, the claims still recite an abstract idea under certain method of organizing human activity.
Step 2A – Prong 2
Applicant argues that the additional elements integrate any abstract idea into practical application. Specifically, that the claims recite the practical application of “dynamically locating a customer and delivering an order (e.g., coffee) via a drone without interrupting that customer’s current task (e.g. shopping)” (Remarks p. 14). Examiner respectfully disagrees. the claims recite generic computer systems (e.g., a server or a shop device, a customer device) performing generic functions (sending, receiving, and processing data, tracking user location), described at a high-level of detail to perform the abstract idea. 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)).
Furthermore, the drone and its functions are also recited at a very high-level of detail such that the drone appears to be a generic delivery drone. Examiner notes that, while the claims recite “the drone being controlled to follow the dynamically updated desired delivery path”, neither the claims nor the specification describe the control mechanism in any detail. The specification only states that “location information can be provided to software controlling the drone” (see paragraph 0049]). Similarly, neither the claims nor the specification describes how the drone performs the actual delivery to the customer. As such, the claims do not go beyond generally linking the abstract idea to the field of drone delivery (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
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 rejection made under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the cited references teach the amended claims as discussed in further detail below in the 103 rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3, 6-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1, 11, and 15 recite, “delivery to the customer from a shop in an environment having a floor plan in which the remote customer is beyond visual range of the shop” (emphasis added). This limitation is unclear. Specifically, the phrase “visual range” is indefinite. Applicant’s specification does not describe a visual range, nor would one having ordinary skill in the art know how to measure the visual range. For example, it is unclear whose visual range the claim refers to (e.g. a worker at the store or another customer) as well as where the range is measured from (e.g. from a point inside the store or somewhere outside the store). In light of paragraph [0072] of Applicant’s specification, the claims are interpreted to mean that the customer is in a remote location where the remote location is not on the premises of the store. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2, 3, 6-10, 12-14, 16-18, and 20 are rejected by virtue of dependency.
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, dynamically locating a moving remote customer for a delivery to the customer from a shop in an environment having a floor plan in which the remote customer is beyond visual range of the shop,
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;
continually generate updates of the current location of the customer;
determining a desired delivery path to the moving remote 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 two or more of: the generated current location of the 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.
Independent claim 11 recites, dynamically locating a moving remote customer for a delivery to the customer from a shop in an environment having a floor plan in which the remote customer is beyond visual range of the shop;
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 the floor plan of the environment;
continually generate 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 generated 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 two or more of the generated 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.
Independent claim 15 recites, processing an order for one or more goods to be delivered to a moving remote customer from a shop in an environment having a floor plan in which the remote customer is beyond visual range of the shop;
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;
continually generate 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 two or more of: the generated 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 recited above in claims 1, 11, and 15 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.
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.
Claims 1, 11, and 15 recite the additional element of wherein the customer device mirrors the current physical location of the remote customer. 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., tracking a customer location).
Furthermore, claims 1, 11, and 15 recite the additional element of a drone being controlled to follow the dynamically updated desired delivery path (claims 1, 11, and 15), and a drone configured for physical receipt of one or more goods (claim 11). 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, dynamically locating a moving remote customer for a delivery to the customer from a shop in an environment having a floor plan in which the remote customer is beyond visual range of the shop (“… Such systems could be used, for example, to schedule a local delivery of products to a customer or recipient using a mobile device while the customer is on the move, e.g., walking in a park, and have the delivery sent to the customer wherever the customer happens to be at the time of delivery …” [0010]);
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]);
wherein the customer device mirrors the current physical location of the remote customer (“… According to a predetermined schedule, the customer device 12 can receive the latest location data from a GPS receiver installed in the customer device 12, and optionally send such location data to the central server 14 …” [0030] Examiner notes that, Applicant’s specification does not explicitly define “mirrors”. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is interpreted to mean that the customer device indicates the physical location of the customer);
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]);
continually interrogating the customer device to generate updates of the current location of the customer 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 12) and to update the delivery person with the current location of the customer …” and “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 …” [0026 and 0029-0033]);
determining a desired delivery path to the moving remote 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] (“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 … 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; delivery of the order to the moving customer via the drone being controlled to follow the dynamically updated desired delivery path. 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]);
delivery of the order to the moving customer via the drone being controlled to follow the dynamically updated desired delivery path (“… Further, some order changes may comprise changes to delivery time or location and the UAV may determine a flight path to an updated delivery location, whether to add a holding pattern to the flight path based on an updated delivery time, and/or whether to return to the origin …” [0031-0033]).
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; delivery of the order to the moving customer via the drone being controlled to follow the dynamically updated desired delivery path. 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, dynamically locating a moving remote customer for a delivery to the customer from a shop in an environment having a floor plan in which the remote customer is beyond visual range of the shop (“… Such systems could be used, for example, to schedule a local delivery of products to a customer or recipient using a mobile device while the customer is on the move, e.g., walking in a park, and have the delivery sent to the customer wherever the customer happens to be at the time of delivery …” [0010]);
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]);
wherein the customer device mirrors the current physical location of the remote customer (“… According to a predetermined schedule, the customer device 12 can receive the latest location data from a GPS receiver installed in the customer device 12, and optionally send such location data to the central server 14 …” [0030]);
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]);
continually interrogating the customer device to generate updates of the current location of the customer 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 12) and to update the delivery person with the current location of the customer …” and “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 …” [0026 and 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 two or more of: the generated current location of the customer device, a current location of the [delivery entity] (“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 … 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 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 configured for physical receipt of one or more goods; delivery of the order to the moving customer via the drone being controlled to follow the dynamically updated desired delivery path. However, Mehta teaches, a drone configured for physical receipt of one or more goods (“… 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]).
delivery of the order to the moving customer via the drone being controlled to follow the dynamically updated desired delivery path (“… Further, some order changes may comprise changes to delivery time or location and the UAV may determine a flight path to an updated delivery location, whether to add a holding pattern to the flight path based on an updated delivery time, and/or whether to return to the origin …” [0031-0033]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, a drone configured for physical receipt of one or more goods; delivery of the order to the moving customer via the drone being controlled to follow the dynamically updated desired delivery path, 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 to a moving remote customer from a shop in an environment having a floor plan in which the remote customer is beyond visual range of the shop (“… Such systems could be used, for example, to schedule a local delivery of products to a customer or recipient using a mobile device while the customer is on the move, e.g., walking in a park, and have the delivery sent to the customer wherever the customer happens to be at the time of delivery …” and “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 …” [0010 and 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]);
wherein the customer device mirrors the current physical location of the remote customer (“… According to a predetermined schedule, the customer device 12 can receive the latest location data from a GPS receiver installed in the customer device 12, and optionally send such location data to the central server 14 …” [0030]);
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]);
continually interrogating the customer device to generate updates of the current location of the customer 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 12) and to update the delivery person with the current location of the customer …” and “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 …” [0026 and 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] (“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 … 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].
Siragusa does not teach, placing the one or more goods into a drone; delivery of the order to the customer via the drone being controlled to follow the dynamically updated desired delivery path. However, Mehta teaches, placing the one or more goods 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]);
delivery of the order to the customer via the drone being controlled to follow the dynamically updated desired delivery path (“… Further, some order changes may comprise changes to delivery time or location and the UAV may determine a flight path to an updated delivery location, whether to add a holding pattern to the flight path based on an updated delivery time, and/or whether to return to the origin …” [0031-0033]).
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 one or more goods into a drone; delivery of the order to the customer via the drone being controlled to follow the dynamically updated desired delivery path, 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 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
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 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
Prosecution Insights