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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Priority
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s claiming priority as continuation to parent application 17/214,281, filed on 3/26/2021, now U.S. Patent No. 12,056,750.
Claim Objections
Regarding Claims 6 and 14, with Claim 6 as representative: Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claims, but would be free of the prior art if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claims and any intervening claims.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 6-9, and 14-17 are rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 10, 12, and 27 of U.S. Patent No. 12,056,750.
Regarding Claims 1, 9, and 17, with Claim 1 as representative: Claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,056,750 discloses a method comprising:
receiving, via a user device, a query; Claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,056,750 discloses “receive a query request for an item for sale…”.
detecting, via a beacon or a tag, that a device within a retailer location, of a plurality of retailer locations, is within a signal strength threshold to the user device; Claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,056,750 discloses “detect, at a first time and via at least one beacon or a tag, that a device is within at least one of the plurality of physical retailer locations is within a signal strength threshold to the user device”.
based on the detecting, partially executing the query by ranking the retailer location among the plurality of retailer locations; Claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,056,750 discloses “in response to the detecting that the user device within at least one of the plurality of physical retailer locations is within the signal strength threshold, partially execute the query by ranking the at least one of the plurality of physical retailer locations”.
subsequent to the partially executing the query, detecting, via the beacon or the tag, that the device within the retailer location is outside of the signal strength threshold to the user device; Claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,056,750 discloses “detect, at a second time subsequent to the first time and via the at least one of the beacon or the tag, that the device within the at least one of the plurality of physical retailer locations is outside of the signal strength threshold to the user device”.
based on the detecting that the device within the retailer location is outside of the signal strength threshold to the user device, modifying the ranking of the retailer location; Claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,056,750 discloses “based at least in part on the detecting, at the second time subsequent to the first time, that the device within the at least one of the plurality of physical retailer locations is outside of the signal strength threshold to the user device, modify the ranking of the at least one of the plurality of physical retailer locations”.
based on the modifying of the ranking of the retailer location, causing presentation at the user device, of a user interface element. Claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,056,750 discloses “based at least in part on the modifying of the ranking of the at least one of the plurality of physical retailer locations and the ranking of the plurality of item listings, causing generation, at a page of the electronic marketplace, of first user interface elements and second user interface elements, the first user interface elements indicate the modified ranking of the at least one of the plurality of physical retailer locations”.
Regarding Claims 6 and 14, with Claim 6 as representative: Claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,056,750 discloses partially executing the query by ranking a plurality of item listings and causing presentation, at the user device, of a second user interface element representing the ranked plurality of item listings, wherein a user interface includes the first user interface element representing the plurality of retailer locations that have been ranked and the second user interface element representing the ranked plurality of item listings; Claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,056,750 discloses “cause generation, at a page of the electronic marketplace, of first user interface elements and second user interface elements, the first user interface elements indicate the modified ranking of the at least one of the plurality of physical retailer locations, and the second user interface elements indicate the ranking of the item listings”.
Regarding Claims 7 and 15, with Claim 7 as representative: Claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,056,750 discloses wherein the query is for an item, and wherein the computer-implemented method further comprising:
determining that a set of delivery services, of a plurality of delivery services, are available to deliver the item from at least one of the plurality of retailer locations to a location of a user of the user device; Claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,056,750 discloses “in response to the receiving of the query request for the item for sale…, determine that a set of delivery services, of a plurality of delivery services, are available to deliver the item from the one or more of the plurality of physical retailer locations to a location of the user”.
based on the determining, causing presentation of indicators representing the set of delivery services at the user device. of U.S. Patent No. 12,056,750 discloses “based on the determining, causing display, at the page, of the set of delivery services”.
Regarding Claims 8 and 16, with Claim 8 as representative: Claim 27 of U.S. Patent No. 12,056,750 discloses the method further comprising:
detecting, in near real-time, geo-coordinates of the user device; Claim 27 of U.S. Patent No. 12,056,750 discloses “…receiving the geocoded indicator…”.
based on the detecting of the geo-coordinates and the detecting, via the beacon or a tag, that the device within a retailer location is within the signal strength threshold to the user device, determine that the retailer location is within a threshold distance of the geo-coordinates. Claim 27 of U.S. Patent No. 12,056,750 discloses “determining that the plurality of physical retailer locations are within distance to the user device or user based at least in part on receiving the geocoded indicator transmitted by the user device… and responsively determining which inventory facilities offer the item for sale that is within the threshold distance from the geocoded indicator”.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 8-11, 13, 16-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Mourya (US 20130030918 A1) in view of Benkreira (US 10,839,453 B1).
Regarding Claim 1: Mourya discloses a method comprising:
detecting, via a beacon or a tag, that a device within a retailer location, of a plurality of retailer locations, is within a signal strength threshold to the user device; Mourya discloses sensing signal strengths are within range (threshold) of the user device (Mourya: [0042]; [0032]; see also: [0017]; [0033]; [0067]).
based on the detecting, ranking the retailer location among the plurality of retailer locations; Mourya discloses emphasizing/deemphasizing the retailers on the list based on the signal strength (Mourya: [0042]; see also: [0017]; [0034]).
detecting, via the beacon or the tag, that the device within the retailer location is outside of the signal strength threshold to the user device; Mourya discloses the user moving, and various signals for retailers strengthening and weakening (which would include retailers coming in and out of range) (Mourya: [0042]; see also: [0017]; [0037-0038]; [0068]).
based on the detecting that the device within the retailer location is outside of the signal strength threshold to the user device, modifying the ranking of the retailer location; Mourya discloses emphasizing and deemphasizing retailers on the list of retailers as the user moves and the signal strengths change (Mourya: [0042]; see also: [0018]; [0034]; [0037-0038]; [0068]).
based on the modifying of the ranking of the retailer location, causing presentation, at the user device, of a user interface element. Mourya discloses displaying the list of the retailers and their order to the use (Mourya: [0042]; see also: [0018]; [0034]; [0038]; [0068]).
Mourya does not explicitly teach receiving, via user device, a query; Notably, Mourya does disclose the devices searching additional information about the retailer advertisement (Mourya: [0026]).
To that accord, Benkreira does teach receiving, via user device, a query; Benkreira teaches the user inputting text for a search for a product, including determining retailers within a predetermined distance that have the product in stock (Benkreira: col. 8, ln. 11-17; col. 11, ln. 27-31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the invention of Mourya disclosing the system for detecting and ranking nearby retailers to the user by signal strength with the receiving of a query from a user device as taught by Benkreira. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to allow shoppers to purchase a specific product immediately from a local merchant (Benkreira: col. 1, ln. 35-44).
Regarding Claim 2: Mourya in view of Benkreira discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Mourya further discloses wherein the ranking of the retailer location causes the retailer location to be ranked higher relative to a second retailer location, and wherein modifying of the ranking of the retailer location causes the retailer location to be ranked lower relative to the second retailer location. Mourya discloses emphasizing and deemphasizing the retailers on the list based on their signal strength, such that the retailer with the stronger signal is above the weaker signal retailer on the list (Mourya: [0042]; see also: [0018]; [0034]; [0068]).
Regarding Claim 3: Mourya in view of Benkreira discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Mourya further discloses wherein the user interface element includes a list of indicators that each represent a respective ranked retailer location of the plurality of retailer locations. Mourya discloses the list in order of the retailers with the strongest signal strength (Mourya: [0042]; [0034]; [0037-0038]). Other indicators may be used, including adjusting a transparency of the retailer image based on the proximity (Mourya: [0043]).
Regarding Claim 5: Mourya in view of Benkreira discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Mourya further discloses wherein the device includes the beacon or tag and wherein the device is a part of an indoor positioning system attached to the retailer location. Mourya discloses Vid transmitters that are installed in the location of the participating advertisers (retailers) (Mourya: [0024]).
Regarding Claim 8: Mourya in view of Benkreira discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Mourya further disloses:
detecting, in near real-time, geo-coordinates of the user device;
based on the detecting of the geo-coordinates and the detecting, via the beacon or a tag, that the device within a retailer location is within the signal strength threshold to the user device, determine that the retailer location is within a threshold distance of the geo-coordinates. Mourya discloses a GPS location of the user device, and detecting the signal strength of retailers within the detection range to determine the retailers within range of the user (Mourya: [0045]; [0032]; see also: [0067]).
Regarding Claims 9 and 17: Claims 9 and 17 recite substantially similar limitations as claim 1. Therefore, claims 9 and 17 are rejected under the same rationale as claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 10: Claim 10 is recites substantially similar limitations as claim 2. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 2 above.
Regarding Claims 11 and 18: Claims 11 and 18 recite substantially similar limitations as claim 3. Therefore, claims 11 and 18 are rejected under the same rationale as claim 3 above.
Regarding Claims 13 and 20: Claims 13 and 20 recite substantially similar limitations as claim 5. Therefore, claims 13 and 20 are rejected under the same rationale as claim 5 above.
Regarding Claim 16: Claim 16 is recites substantially similar limitations as claim 8. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 8 above.
Claims 4, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by the combination of Mourya (US 20130030918 A1) and Benkreira (US 10,839,453 B1), in view of Adel (US 20160284014 A1).
Regarding Claim 4: The combination of Mourya and Benkreira discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
The combination does not explicitly teach wherein the query is for an item and wherein the item includes the tag or beacon. Notably, however, Mourya does disclose Vid transmitters that are installed in the location of the participating advertisers (retailers) (Mourya: [0024]), and Benkreira does teach the user inputting text for a search for a product, including determining retailers within a predetermined distance that have the product in stock (Benkreira: col. 8, ln. 11-17; col. 11, ln. 27-31).
To that accord, Adel does teach wherein the query is for an item and wherein the item includes the tag or beacon. Adel teaches a search for the item, and a tag signal from a tag device associated with the product (Adel: [0067]; see also: abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the invention of the combination of Mourya and Benkreira disclosing the system for detecting and ranking nearby retailers to the user by signal strength with the item including the tag or beacon as taught by Adel. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to assist a user locate a product without assistance from a worker (Adel: [0009]).
Regarding Claims 12 and 19: Claims 12 and 19 recite substantially similar limitations as claim 4. Therefore, claims 12 and 19 are rejected under the same rationale as claim 4 above.
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by the combination of Mourya (US 20130030918 A1) and Benkreira (US 10,839,453 B1), in view of Kim (US 11,010,707 B1).
Regarding Claim 6: The combination of Mourya and Benkreira discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
The combination does not explicitly teach further comprising:
determining that a set of delivery services, of a plurality of delivery services, are available to deliver the item from at least one of the plurality of retailer locations to a location of a user of the user device;
based on the determining, causing presentation of indicators representing the set of delivery services at the user device.
Notably, however, Mourya does disclose a GPS location of the user device (Mourya: [0045]).
To that accord, Kim does teach further comprising:
determining that a set of delivery services, of a plurality of delivery services, are available to deliver the item from at least one of the plurality of retailer locations to a location of a user of the user device; Kim teaches identifying and requesting item delivery provider devices for the order (Kim: col. 14, ln. 7-18; col. 19, ln. 65-col. 20, ln. 3; see also: col. 15, ln. 3-10; Fig. 4A, #418).
based on the determining, causing presentation of indicators representing the set of delivery services at the user device. Kim teaches identifying and requesting item delivery provider devices for the order and displaying the delivery task as it updates for the user (Kim: col. 14, ln. 7-18; col. 19, ln. 65-col. 20, ln. 3; see also: col. 15, ln. 3-10; Fig. 4A, #418).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the invention of the combination of Mourya and Benkreira disclosing the system for detecting and ranking nearby retailers to the user by signal strength with the determining of delivery services of the item from the retailers and presenting them to the user as taught by Kim. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to reduce time delays incurred by merchants and delivery personnel (Kim: col. 1, ln. 40-53).
Regarding Claim 15: Claim 15 is recites substantially similar limitations as claim 7. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 7 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. PTO-892 Reference U discloses providing location information for a user within a retailer location based on RSSs from Wi-Fi access points.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY J KANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8069. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 7:30 - 5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kelly Campen can be reached at 571-272-6740. 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.
/TIMOTHY J KANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3688