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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on 08/15/2024.
Claims 1-18 are currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on application JP2022-025918 filed in Japan on 02/22/2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the application as required by 37 CFR 1.55. Examiner notes that the retrieval request made by the Office to obtain the Japanese Application failed on 10/11/2024 (See 10/11/2024 “Document Indicating Retrieval Request was Unsuccessful”).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because, in Fig. 4, element 306 recites “Special Rane” and element 307 recites “General Parging Area” when it appears these elements should recite “Special Lane” and “General Parking Area”, respectively, to correct apparent typographical errors. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The following title is suggested:
INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD, INFORMATION PROCESSING DEVICE, AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER READABLE RECORDING MEDIUM FOR FACILITATING THE PICKUP OF ONLINE ORDERS
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [0071] recites “…the desired receipt time indicates 14:00 on Monday on November 1st” when it appears it should recite “…the desired receipt time indicates 14:50 on Monday on November 1st” to match the desired receipt time depicted in the first row of Fig. 2
Paragraph [0094] recites “In detail, in step S3, the acquisition part 121 acquires…” when it appears it should it recite “In detail, in step S4, the acquisition part 121 acquires…” to match the step being discussed in the rest of paragraph [0094]
Paragraph [0141] recites “In the example in Fig. 12, the route…” when it appears it should recite “In the example in Fig. 14, the route…” as the routes being discussed in paragraph [0141] are depicted in Fig. 14 instead of Fig. 12
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 recites the limitation "the camera" in line 4 of the claim when it appears it should recite “a camera” to introduce a camera into the claim. In the interest of compact prosecution, Examiner is interpreting “the camera” as “a camera” in the rejections below.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Per MPEP 2111.04 II., “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met.” Claim 2 recites the limitation of “in the determining, it is determined on the basis of a commodity information list held in the memory and showing each of the commodities in the store whether the ordered commodity includes a specific commodity, and location information about the first area is determined as the parking location information when the ordered commodity is determined to include the specific commodity”. As claim 2 is a method claim, the limitation of “location information about the first area is determined as the parking location information when the ordered commodity is determined to include the specific commodity” is not required under the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 2 because the limitation is contingent on the ordered commodity including a specific commodity. If the ordered commodity did not include a specific commodity, the limitation of “location information about the first area is determined as the parking location information” would not need to be performed in the method.
Regarding claim 4, claim 4 recites “in the determining, when the specific commodity is determined to be included, it is determined on the basis of the vacant information and the location information about the first area whether the first area includes the vacant space, and the location information about the first area is determined as the parking location information when the first area is determined to include the vacant space”. Examiner notes that this recited limitation of claim 4 is contingent on the determination in claim 2 as to whether or not the ordered commodity includes a specific commodity. If the ordered commodity does not include a specific commodity, none of the limitations cited above of claim 4 would need to be performed, and these limitations are thus not required under the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 4. Additionally, Examiner further notes that the above cited limitations from claim 4 recite a second contingency. Namely, “the location information about the first area is determined as the parking location information” is contingent on both the ordered commodity including the specific commodity and whether the first area includes the vacant space. For this limitation to be required under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the method claim, both contingencies would need to be removed.
Claim 5 recites “wherein the parking location information includes location information about the vacant space in the first area”. However, this claim limitation is contingent on the first area including a vacant space as discussed above regarding claim 4. If the first area does not include a vacant space in claim 4, the limitation of claim 5 is not required. Accordingly, the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 5 is the same as that of claim 4 because the limitations of claim 5 are not required under the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 5.
Examiner notes that, despite the above claim limitations not being required under the broadest reasonable interpretation of claims 2 and 4, prior art has been applied to the claim limitations below in the interest of compact prosecution.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
“an acquisition part” in claim 17
“a determination part” in claim 17
“an output part” in claim 17
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
For the corresponding physical structure of the three parts, the structure can be found in at least [0057]-[0058]. For the algorithm for the three parts, the algorithm can be found in at least [0059]-[0066].
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 10, the term “a large commodity” in claim 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “large commodity” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Specifically, while Applicant’s disclosure provides individual examples of “large commodity” in [0079] (furniture, refrigerator, washing machine, television), the claims and the disclosure do not provide a standard to reasonably convey the bounds of “large commodity”. The examples provided in the disclosure are all furniture and household appliances, but it is unclear whether “large commodities” are confined to these categories or if other items could potentially fall within “large commodities” as well. Further, there is no size standard for what commodities are “large”. Accordingly, the scope of claim 10 is indefinite.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite organizing online order pickups at a store.
As an initial matter, claims 1-16 fall into at least the process category of statutory subject matter. Claim 17 falls into at least the machine category of statutory subject matter. Finally, claim 18 falls into at least the manufacture category of statutory subject matter. Therefore, all claims fall into at least one of the statutory categories. Eligibility analysis proceeds to Step 2A.
In claim 1, the limitation of “An information processing method for providing information about delivery of commodities at a store, the information processing method comprising: by a computer, acquiring entry information indicating an entry of a user into an administrative region of the store and including a user ID, and ordered commodity information indicating an ordered commodity associated with the user ID”, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “by a computer,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. Similarly, the limitations of “determining location information about a parking location for the user to park a vehicle as parking location information on the basis of parking information including location information about parking locations in a parking place in the administrative region and the ordered commodity information, the parking information and the commodity information being held in a memory; and outputting output information including the parking location information”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Additionally, claim 1 recites the concept of organizing online order pickups at a store which is a certain method of organizing human activity including commercial interactions. An information processing method for providing information about delivery of commodities at a store, the information processing method comprising: acquiring entry information indicating an entry of a user into an administrative region of the store and including a user ID, and ordered commodity information indicating an ordered commodity associated with the user ID; determining location information about a parking location for the user to park a vehicle as parking location information on the basis of parking information including location information about parking locations in a parking place in the administrative region and the ordered commodity information, the parking information and the commodity information being held; and outputting output information including the parking location information all, as a whole, fall under the category of commercial interactions. The claim falls into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Mere recitation of generic computer components does not remove the claim from this grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a computer and a memory. The recited additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The combination of these additional elements is also no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a computer and a memory amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The combination of these additional elements is also no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-10 further limit the abstract idea of claim 1 without adding any new additional elements. Therefore, by the analysis of claim 1 above these claims, individually and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 11 further limits the abstract idea of claim 1 while introducing the additional element of a display screen image. The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the element of a display screen image is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Adding this new additional element into the additional elements from claim 1 still amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The claim also does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 12 further limits the abstract idea of claim 1 while introducing the additional element of a display screen image. The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the element of a display screen image is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Adding this new additional element into the additional elements from claim 1 still amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The claim also does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 13 further limits the abstract idea of claim 1 while introducing the additional element of a display screen image. The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the element of a display screen image is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Adding this new additional element into the additional elements from claim 1 still amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The claim also does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 14 further limits the abstract idea of claim 1 while introducing the additional element of a display screen image. The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the element of a display screen image is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Adding this new additional element into the additional elements from claim 1 still amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The claim also does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 15 further limits the abstract idea of claim 1 while introducing the additional elements of a user terminal and a store terminal. The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the elements of a user terminal and a store terminal are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Adding these new additional elements into the additional elements from claim 1 still amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The claim also does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 16 further limits the abstract idea of claim 1 while introducing the additional element of a camera. The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the element of a camera is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Adding this new additional element into the additional elements from claim 1 still amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The claim also does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
In claim 17, the limitation of “An information processing device that provides information about delivery of commodities at a store, the information processing device comprising: an acquisition part that acquires entry information indicating an entry of a user into an administrative region of the store and including a user ID, and ordered commodity information indicating an ordered commodity associated with the user ID”, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “an information processing device” and “an acquisition part,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. Similarly, the limitations of “a determination part that determines location information about a parking location for the user to park a vehicle as parking location information on the basis of parking information including location information about parking locations in a parking place in the administrative region and the ordered commodity information, the parking information and the commodity information being held in a memory; and an output part that outputs output information including the parking location information”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Additionally, claim 17 recites the concept of organizing online order pickups at a store which is a certain method of organizing human activity including commercial interactions. Provides information about delivery of commodities at a store, comprising: acquires entry information indicating an entry of a user into an administrative region of the store and including a user ID, and ordered commodity information indicating an ordered commodity associated with the user ID; determines location information about a parking location for the user to park a vehicle as parking location information on the basis of parking information including location information about parking locations in a parking place in the administrative region and the ordered commodity information, the parking information and the commodity information being held; and outputs output information including the parking location information all, as a whole, fall under the category of commercial interactions. The claim falls into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Mere recitation of generic computer components does not remove the claim from this grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of an information processing device, an acquisition part, a determination part, a memory, and an output part. The recited additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The combination of these additional elements is also no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of an information processing device, an acquisition part, a determination part, a memory, and an output part amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The combination of these additional elements is also no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
In claim 18, the limitation of “A non-transitory computer readable recording medium storing an information processing program for providing information about delivery of commodities at a store, the information processing program comprising: causing a computer to execute: acquiring entry information indicating an entry of a user into an administrative region of the store and including a user ID, and ordered commodity information indicating an ordered commodity associated with the user ID”, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a non-transitory computer readable recording medium storing an information processing program” and “a computer,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. Similarly, the limitations of “determining location information about a parking location for the user to park a vehicle as parking location information on the basis of parking information including location information about parking locations in a parking place in the administrative region and the ordered commodity information, the parking information and the commodity information being held in a memory; and outputting output information including the parking location information”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Additionally, claim 18 recites the concept of organizing online order pickups at a store which is a certain method of organizing human activity including commercial interactions. Providing information about delivery of commodities at a store, comprising: causing to execute: acquiring entry information indicating an entry of a user into an administrative region of the store and including a user ID, and ordered commodity information indicating an ordered commodity associated with the user ID; determining location information about a parking location for the user to park a vehicle as parking location information on the basis of parking information including location information about parking locations in a parking place in the administrative region and the ordered commodity information, the parking information and the commodity information being held; and outputting output information including the parking location information all, as a whole, fall under the category of commercial interactions. The claim falls into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Mere recitation of generic computer components does not remove the claim from this grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a non-transitory computer readable recording medium storing an information processing program, a computer, and a memory. The recited additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The combination of these additional elements is also no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a non-transitory computer readable recording medium storing an information processing program, a computer, and a memory amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The combination of these additional elements is also no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 11, 13, 15, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Liguori et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2023/0169612, hereafter known as Liguori).
Regarding claim 1, Liguori teaches:
An information processing method for providing information about delivery of commodities at a store, the information processing method comprising: by a computer, (see Fig. 6 and [0064]-[0075] for the overall method. See [0048] "The edge core 204 may include one or more edge computing device or core computing devices that operate in conjunction with the server/management 206 to support order pickup, customer assignment to waiting locations, customer interaction, and the like. For example, the edge core 204 may include devices or correspond to operations performed by customer interface devices, mobile devices, client devices, other edge devices" and [0064] "the operations of the method 600 may be stored as instructions that, when executed by one or more processors (e.g., the one or more processors of a computing device or a server), cause the one or more processors to perform the operations of the method 600")
acquiring entry information indicating an entry of a user into an administrative region of the store and including a user ID, and ordered commodity information indicating an ordered commodity associated with the user ID (see [0031] "Upon arrival at the site, the customer may interact with the customer interface device 150. For example, the customer interface device 150 may be a kiosk located in a building of the organization, a kiosk in a parking lot or other designated area outside a building, or a drive-up terminal, as non-limiting examples. The customer may interact with the customer interface device 150 to provide an order identifier (ID)", [0058]-[0059] "the GUIs 400 and 420 may be displayed by a kiosk, a drive-up touchscreen device, a drive-up terminal, or the like, such as the customer interface device 150 of FIG. 1...Selection of any of the options 402-406 by the customer may enable input of an order ID (and/or a customer ID)" and [0065] for acquiring entry information of a customer ID as a customer enters on site of a store. See [0032] "After receiving the order ID data 170, the server 102 may obtain order information 110 based on the order ID data 170...The order information 110 may include information related to the customer, the customer's order, or the like. For example, the order information 110 may include one or more items ordered by the customer, prices associated with the one or more items, an estimated ready time, the order ID, stored customer vehicle identification, payment information, other information associated with the one or items (e.g., storage locations, preparation instructions, etc.), or a combination thereof" for acquiring ordered commodity information based on the customer and order ID)
determining location information about a parking location for the user to park a vehicle as parking location information on the basis of parking information including location information about parking locations in a parking place in the administrative region and the ordered commodity information (see [0035] "the server 102 may select a waiting location (e.g., the selected location 114) to assign to the customer based at least in part on the order information 110. For example, the location assignment engine 132 may select the selected location 114 from a plurality of waiting locations based on the order information 110 and information associated with the site...To illustrate waiting location selection, the location assignment engine 132 may assign the customer to a...to closer parking spot based on the order information 110 including a large number of items" and [0039] "selection of the selected location 114 is performed by providing the order information 110 and other information (e.g., waiting location fulfillment rates, customer arrival times, waiting location staffing, etc.), and optionally the profile data 118 and/or the capacity data 120, as input data to the ML models 134" and [0038] for determining parking location for a vehicle to park at based on the ordered commodity information and location information about the parking locations at the site in the region of the store)
the parking information and the commodity information being held in a memory (see [0038] for the image capture and determination of capacity data used to select a parking location, capacity data being stored in memory per [0022]. See [0022] "the memory 106 may be configured to store data and information, such as order information 110" for the order information comprising ordered commodity information being stored in memory)
and outputting output information including the parking location information (see [0035] "After selecting the selected location 114, the location assignment engine 132 may generate assignment data 178 that indicates the assignment of the customer vehicle to the selected location 114. The server 102 may provide the assignment data 178 to the customer interface device 150 for display to customer" and [0041] "the server 102 may provide the order fulfillment data 176 to a store (or other single location), particularly to a client device of an available or otherwise selected employee, for preparation of the order and curbside delivery to the customer at a particular parking spot (the selected location 114" for outputting information including the parking location)
Regarding claim 11, Liguori teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Liguori further teaches:
wherein the output information includes display data of a display screen image showing the parking location which is in the administrative region and is indicated by the parking location information (see [0035] "After selecting the selected location 114, the location assignment engine 132 may generate assignment data 178 that indicates the assignment of the customer vehicle to the selected location 114. The server 102 may provide the assignment data 178 to the customer interface device 150 for display to customer")
Regarding claim 13, Liguori teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Liguori further teaches:
wherein the output information includes display data of a display screen image showing a treatment of the store for the ordered commodity from the entry of the user into the administrative region to a delivery of the ordered commodity to the user (see [0040] "the server 102 may estimate a waiting time at the selected location (e.g., an estimated waiting time 180). The estimated waiting time 180 may be estimated based on queue length at selected location 114, order details (e.g., quantity of items in an order, types of items in an order), measured or estimated fulfillment rates at the selected location 114, staff at the selected location 114, other information, or a combination thereof. The server 102 may send the estimated waiting time 180 to the customer interface device 150 for display to the customer" for a displaying a waiting time for the user from entering into the site to when the order will be delivered to the user at the selected waiting spot. Examiner is interpreting the waiting time as "a treatment" based on the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of Applicant spec paragraph [0103]))
Regarding claim 15, Liguori teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Liguori further teaches:
wherein the output information is output to a user terminal carried by the user and a store terminal carried by a clerk of the store (see [0069] "the method 600 may also include sending the order information, the estimated waiting time, the assignment data, or a combination thereof, to a mobile device associated with the customer. For example, the mobile device may include or correspond to the mobile device 156 of FIG. 1. Additionally or alternatively, outputting the order fulfillment data may include sending the order fulfillment data to a client device at the selected waiting location to cause one or more ordered items to be provided to the customer vehicle" and [0041] "the server 102 may provide the order fulfillment data 176 to a store (or other single location), particularly to a client device of an available or otherwise selected employee, for preparation of the order and curbside delivery to the customer at a particular parking spot (the selected location 114)" and [0057] "the server may send order fulfillment data to a client device associated with an employee that is assigned deliveries to the first parking spot 336, a client device associated with a first available employee, a client device within a store, restaurant, or other order fulfillment structure, or any other client device associated with providing curbside deliveries")
Regarding claim 17, Liguori teaches:
An information processing device that provides information about delivery of commodities at a store, the information processing device comprising (see [0064] "the operations of the method 600 may be stored as instructions that, when executed by one or more processors (e.g., the one or more processors of a computing device or a server), cause the one or more processors to perform the operations of the method 600")
an acquisition part that acquires entry information indicating an entry of a user into an administrative region of the store and including a user ID, and ordered commodity information indicating an ordered commodity associated with the user ID (see [0031] "Upon arrival at the site, the customer may interact with the customer interface device 150. For example, the customer interface device 150 may be a kiosk located in a building of the organization, a kiosk in a parking lot or other designated area outside a building, or a drive-up terminal, as non-limiting examples. The customer may interact with the customer interface device 150 to provide an order identifier (ID)", [0058]-[0059] "the GUIs 400 and 420 may be displayed by a kiosk, a drive-up touchscreen device, a drive-up terminal, or the like, such as the customer interface device 150 of FIG. 1...Selection of any of the options 402-406 by the customer may enable input of an order ID (and/or a customer ID)" and [0065] for acquiring entry information of a customer ID as a customer enters on site of a store. See [0032] "After receiving the order ID data 170, the server 102 may obtain order information 110 based on the order ID data 170...The order information 110 may include information related to the customer, the customer's order, or the like. For example, the order information 110 may include one or more items ordered by the customer, prices associated with the one or more items, an estimated ready time, the order ID, stored customer vehicle identification, payment information, other information associated with the one or items (e.g., storage locations, preparation instructions, etc.), or a combination thereof" for acquiring ordered commodity information based on the customer and order ID. See processor 104 and [0022] for the structure of the ”acquisition part”)
a determination part that determines location information about a parking location for the user to park a vehicle as parking location information on the basis of parking information including location information about parking locations in a parking place in the administrative region and the ordered commodity information (see [0035] "the server 102 may select a waiting location (e.g., the selected location 114) to assign to the customer based at least in part on the order information 110. For example, the location assignment engine 132 may select the selected location 114 from a plurality of waiting locations based on the order information 110 and information associated with the site...To illustrate waiting location selection, the location assignment engine 132 may assign the customer to a...to closer parking spot based on the order information 110 including a large number of items" and [0039] "selection of the selected location 114 is performed by providing the order information 110 and other information (e.g., waiting location fulfillment rates, customer arrival times, waiting location staffing, etc.), and optionally the profile data 118 and/or the capacity data 120, as input data to the ML models 134" and [0038] for determining parking location for a vehicle to park at based on the ordered commodity information and location information about the parking locations at the site in the region of the store. See processor 104 and [0022] for the structure of the ”determination part”)
the parking information and the commodity information being held in a memory (see [0038] for the image capture and determination of capacity data used to select a parking location, capacity data being stored in memory per [0022]. See [0022] "the memory 106 may be configured to store data and information, such as order information 110" for the order information comprising ordered commodity information being stored in memory)
and an output part that outputs output information including the parking location information (see [0035] "After selecting the selected location 114, the location assignment engine 132 may generate assignment data 178 that indicates the assignment of the customer vehicle to the selected location 114. The server 102 may provide the assignment data 178 to the customer interface device 150 for display to customer" and [0041] "the server 102 may provide the order fulfillment data 176 to a store (or other single location), particularly to a client device of an available or otherwise selected employee, for preparation of the order and curbside delivery to the customer at a particular parking spot (the selected location 114" for outputting information including the parking location. See processor 104 and [0022] for the structure of the ”output part”)
Regarding claim 18, Liguori teaches:
A non-transitory computer readable recording medium storing an information processing program for providing information about delivery of commodities at a store, the information processing program comprising (see [0082] "the functions may be stored on or transmitted over as one or more instructions or code on a computer-readable medium. The processes of a method or algorithm disclosed herein may be implemented in a processor-executable software module which may reside on a computer-readable medium" and the remainder of [0082] for examples of non-transitory media)
Regarding the remaining limitations of claim 18, see the rejection of claim 1 above.
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 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liguori in view of Takeyama et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2019/0221124, hereafter known as Takeyama).
Regarding claim 2, Liguori teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Liguori further teaches:
and, in the determining, it is determined on the basis of a commodity information list held in the memory and showing each of the commodities in the store whether the ordered commodity includes a specific commodity (see [0043] "The inventory data 124 may indicate available quantities (e.g., one or more supply inventories) of one or more items for use in fulfilling orders, such as particular food items or ingredients, beverages, containers, retail goods, other items, or the like...the server 102 may update the inventory data 124 to decrease supply inventories for items that are included in the order information 110" for determining the available inventory for the items in the order from an inventory list of each commodity at the store. See [0032] for the items also having associated storage locations. See [0035] for certain types of commodities being fulfilled at different waiting areas. See [0022] for the inventory data and order information data being stored in memory)
and location information about the first area is determined as the parking location information when the ordered commodity is determined to include the specific commodity (see [0035] "the server 102 may select a waiting location (e.g., the selected location 114) to assign to the customer based at least in part on the order information 110...the location assignment engine 132 may assign the customer to a drive through lane that provides a certain type of orders or items based on the order information 110")
While Liguori also considers assigning closer parking spots to orders with a large number of items (see [0035] "the location assignment engine 132 may assign the customer...to closer parking spot based on the order information 110 including a large number of items"), Liguori does not explicitly teach the first area of the parking place being an area that is within a predetermined distance from the store. Takeyama teaches:
wherein the parking place includes a first area which is within a first predetermined distance from the store (see Fig. 5 and [0050] "In the parking lot illustrated in FIG. 5, parking spaces A1 to A30, parking spaces B1 to B30, and parking spaces C1 to C30 exist. Among the aforementioned parking spaces, it is assumed that the parking spaces A1 to A14 are parking spaces located close to the doorway of the store...the information regarding the attribute of the parking space in the parking lot in FIG. 5 includes information indicating the parking spaces A1 to A14 are parking spaces located close to the doorway of the store...determination of which parking space has what kind of attribute (such as ranges of parking spaces located close to the doorway of the store and the gateway of the parking lot) may be made by the manager of the parking lot, and the result of the determination may be included in the parking lot information" for a first parking lot area that is within a predetermined distance of the doorway of the store, with the predetermined distance chosen by a store manager)
Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior 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 close parking spaces being those within predetermined distance from a storefront of Takeyama for the broad categorization of parking spots “close” to a storefront of Liguori.
In other words, the more detailed definition of “close parking space” of Takeyama is being substituted in for Liguori’s more general consideration of whether a space is “close” to the store. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Liguori and Takeyama teaches all of the limitations of claim 2 above. As discussed above, Liguori does not explicitly teach the first area of the parking place being an area that is within a predetermined distance from the store. Accordingly, Liguori also does not explicitly teach the first area being within a predetermined distance from a doorway of the store. However, Takeyama further teaches:
wherein the first area is a parking area which is within the first predetermined distance from a doorway of the store (see Fig. 5 and [0050] "In the parking lot illustrated in FIG. 5, parking spaces A1 to A30, parking spaces B1 to B30, and parking spaces C1 to C30 exist. Among the aforementioned parking spaces, it is assumed that the parking spaces A1 to A14 are parking spaces located close to the doorway of the store...the information regarding the attribute of the parking space in the parking lot in FIG. 5 includes information indicating the parking spaces A1 to A14 are parking spaces located close to the doorway of the store...determination of which parking space has what kind of attribute (such as ranges of parking spaces located close to the doorway of the store and the gateway of the parking lot) may be made by the manager of the parking lot, and the result of the determination may be included in the parking lot information" for a first parking lot area that is within a predetermined distance of the doorway of the store, with the predetermined distance chosen by a store manager)
Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior 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 close parking spaces being those within predetermined distance from a storefront of Takeyama for the broad categorization of parking spots “close” to a storefront of Liguori.
In other words, the more detailed definition of “close parking space” of Takeyama is being substituted in for Liguori’s more general consideration of whether a space is “close” to the store. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Liguori and Takeyama teaches all of the limitations of claim 2 above. Liguori further teaches:
wherein, in the acquiring, vacant information indicating a vacant space which is vacant without being occupied by a vehicle in the parking place is acquired (see Fig. 5 portions 508 and 510 as well as [0063] "additional information may be overlaid or displayed adjacent to the drive through feed 508. The additional information may include counts of vehicles (e.g., queue lengths) for the drive through lanes, threshold or maximum capacities of each drive through lane, a total count of vehicles in all of the drive through lanes, and a maximum capacity of all of the drive through lanes...additional information may be overlaid or displayed adjacent to the parking lot feed 510. The additional information may include counts of vehicles in each row (or other subset) of the parking lot, threshold or maximum capacities of each row, a total count of vehicles in the parking lot, and a maximum capacity of the parking lot" for acquiring parking location video feed information showing vacant spaces and displaying additional information indicating vacancies in rows of spaces of spaces in lanes. Also see parking/DT 266 in [0050])
and, in the determining, when the specific commodity is determined to be included, it is determined on the basis of the vacant information and the location information about the first area whether the first area includes the vacant space (see [0035] "the location assignment engine 132 may select the selected location 114 from a plurality of waiting locations based on the order information 110 and information associated with the site, such as...available waiting locations...the location assignment engine 132 may assign the customer to a drive through lane that provides a certain type of orders or items based on the order information 110" and [0071] "selecting the selected waiting location includes providing the order information and the capacity data as input to one or more ML models to determine the selected waiting location. The one or more ML models are trained to assign customers to the plurality of waiting locations based on types of orders, capacities of the plurality of waiting locations, priorities of the customers or orders, other factors, or a combination thereof" for selecting the waiting location based on waiting location availability and the type of content in the order. In combination with Takeyama, the capacity/availability of parking spaces that are designated as close to a store doorway is considered)
and the location information about the first area is determined as the parking location information when the first area is determined to include the vacant space (see [0038] "Another example, the location assignment engine 132 may assign high priority customers to drive through lanes with queue lengths that do not exceed a threshold" and the citations to [0035] and [0071] above for the parking location being assigned to a special area based on order content that is under the threshold vehicle capacity, or has vacant spaces)
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Liguori and Takeyama teaches all of the limitations of claim 4 above. Liguori further teaches:
wherein the parking location information includes location information about the vacant space in the first area (see [0060] "The informational items may include an order number 422, assigned waiting location information 424 and 426, and an estimated waiting time 428. In the specific example shown in FIG. 4B, the assigned waiting location information 424 and 426 includes available parking spots and a pick-up station assigned to the customer" for the parking location information including the number of vacant spaces in the designated area for pickup)
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liguori in view of Takeyama and Herz et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2018/0164817, hereafter known as Herz).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Liguori and Takeyama teaches all of the limitations of claim 2 above. Liguori further teaches:
in the acquiring, commodity location information indicating respective locations of the commodities in the store (see [0032] "the order information 110 may include one or more items ordered by the customer...other information associated with the one or items (e.g., storage locations"))
in the determining, a location of the ordered commodity is specified on the basis of the commodity location information and the ordered commodity information, (see [0032] "the order information 110 may include one or more items ordered by the customer...other information associated with the one or items (e.g., storage locations") for order information determining specified storage locations for ordered commodities)
As discussed above, Liguori does not explicitly teach the first area being a parking area within a predetermined distance from a doorway. Liguori also does not explicitly teach the store having multiple doorways, acquiring doorway information indicating locations of doorways, or that a first doorway is determined that is a shortest distance from the specified location of the ordered commodity based on the doorway location. Takeyama further teaches:
and the first area is a parking area which is within the first predetermined distance from the (see Fig. 5 and [0050] "In the parking lot illustrated in FIG. 5, parking spaces A1 to A30, parking spaces B1 to B30, and parking spaces C1 to C30 exist. Among the aforementioned parking spaces, it is assumed that the parking spaces A1 to A14 are parking spaces located close to the doorway of the store...the information regarding the attribute of the parking space in the parking lot in FIG. 5 includes information indicating the parking spaces A1 to A14 are parking spaces located close to the doorway of the store...determination of which parking space has what kind of attribute (such as ranges of parking spaces located close to the doorway of the store and the gateway of the parking lot) may be made by the manager of the parking lot, and the result of the determination may be included in the parking lot information" for a first parking lot area that is within a predetermined distance of the doorway of the store, with the predetermined distance chosen by a store manager)
Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior 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 close parking spaces being those within predetermined distance from a storefront of Takeyama for the broad categorization of parking spots “close” to a storefront of Liguori.
In other words, the more detailed definition of “close parking space” of Takeyama is being substituted in for Liguori’s more general consideration of whether a space is “close” to the store. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
The combination of Liguori and Takeyama still does not explicitly teach the store having multiple doorways, acquiring doorway information indicating locations of doorways, or that a first doorway is determined that is a shortest distance from the specified location of the ordered commodity based on the doorway location. Herz teaches:
wherein the store has a plurality of doorways (see [0034] "The LargeRetailStore1 building 210 has several entry/exit points: a main entrance 208, a second entrance 212 for gardening supplies, and a third entrance 214 for picking up large items such as appliances" and Fig. 2)
doorway information indicating respective locations of the doorways is acquired (see [0034] "The LargeRetailStore1 building 210 has several entry/exit points: a main entrance 208, a second entrance 212 for gardening supplies, and a third entrance 214 for picking up large items such as appliances" and [0025] "if a large retail store has a main entrance, a separate gardening supplies entrance, and another separate entrance for picking up large appliances, and the authorized occupant of the vehicle indicates an intent to purchase gardening supplies, a parking space near the gardening entrance may be more appropriate than a parking space near one of the other entrances" and [0045] for a display representing the store and parking lot environment for the acquiring of doorway locations of the store)
a first doorway which is at a shortest distance from the specified location of the ordered commodity among the doorways is specified on the basis of the doorway information (see [0034] "if the individual indicates an intent to pick up an appliance, parking space 220A near entrance 214 may be selected as a stopping point for vehicle 270, and path 280A may be taken to reach parking space 220A. If the individual indicates an intent to buy gardening supplies, parking space 220B near entrance 212 may be selected and path 280B may be taken. If the individual indicates an intent to use the main entrance 208, available parking space 220D may be selected, and path 280C may be taken" and [0025] "if a large retail store has a main entrance, a separate gardening supplies entrance, and another separate entrance for picking up large appliances, and the authorized occupant of the vehicle indicates an intent to purchase gardening supplies, a parking space near the gardening entrance may be more appropriate than a parking space near one of the other entrances" for the separate entrance for gardening supplies being selected based on gardening supplies being ordered by the customer)
and the first area is a parking area which is within the first predetermined distance from the first doorway (see [0025] "if a large retail store has a main entrance, a separate gardening supplies entrance, and another separate entrance for picking up large appliances, and the authorized occupant of the vehicle indicates an intent to purchase gardening supplies, a parking space near the gardening entrance may be more appropriate than a parking space near one of the other entrances". In combination with Takeyama, the first doorway is chosen as the doorway from which to base the choice of parking spots within a predetermined distance)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the determination of parking spot near a doorway that is the shortest distance from the storage location of the ordered commodity of Herz into the combination of Liguori and Takeyama. As Herz states in [0024] “if the destination is a large retail store…there may be several different entrances, of which only a few may be appropriate for the vehicle's occupants given their objectives and the current state of the parking or traffic nearby” and [0025] “the authorized occupant of the vehicle indicates an intent to purchase gardening supplies, a parking space near the gardening entrance may be more appropriate than a parking space near one of the other entrances”. Accordingly, by incorporating the teachings of Herz into the combination of Liguori and Takeyama, the resulting combination would be able to be applied to large stores with multiple entrances, as the resulting combination would consider which entrance would be the most appropriate for the customer based on the items in their order.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liguori in view of Takeyama, Herz, Jin et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0188910, hereafter known as Jin), and Goulart (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2014/0108193, hereafter known as Goulart).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Liguori and Takeyama teaches all of the limitations of claim 2 above. Liguori further teaches:
the ordered commodity information indicates a plurality of the ordered commodities (see [0035] "the location assignment engine 132 may assign the customer to... closer parking spot based on the order information 110 including a large number of items" for a plurality of items in the order)
in the acquiring, l (see [0032] "the order information 110 may include one or more items ordered by the customer...other information associated with the one or items (e.g., storage locations"))
As discussed above, Liguori does not explicitly teach the first area being a parking area within a predetermined distance from a first doorway. Liguori also does not explicitly teach the store having multiple doorways, acquiring doorway information indicating locations of doorways and a location of a store terminal, determining a location of an ordered commodity outside a second predetermined distance from the store terminal, and determining the first doorway that is the shortest distance from the location of the first ordered commodity. Takeyama further teaches:
and the first area is a parking area which is within the first predetermined distance from the (see Fig. 5 and [0050] "In the parking lot illustrated in FIG. 5, parking spaces A1 to A30, parking spaces B1 to B30, and parking spaces C1 to C30 exist. Among the aforementioned parking spaces, it is assumed that the parking spaces A1 to A14 are parking spaces located close to the doorway of the store...the information regarding the attribute of the parking space in the parking lot in FIG. 5 includes information indicating the parking spaces A1 to A14 are parking spaces located close to the doorway of the store...determination of which parking space has what kind of attribute (such as ranges of parking spaces located close to the doorway of the store and the gateway of the parking lot) may be made by the manager of the parking lot, and the result of the determination may be included in the parking lot information" for a first parking lot area that is within a predetermined distance of the doorway of the store, with the predetermined distance chosen by a store manager)
Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior 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 close parking spaces being those within predetermined distance from a storefront of Takeyama for the broad categorization of parking spots “close” to a storefront of Liguori.
In other words, the more detailed definition of “close parking space” of Takeyama is being substituted in for Liguori’s more general consideration of whether a space is “close” to the store. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
The combination of Liguori and Takeyama still does not explicitly teach store having multiple doorways, acquiring doorway information indicating locations of doorways and a location of a store terminal, determining a location of an ordered commodity outside a second predetermined distance from the store terminal, and determining the first doorway that is the shortest distance from the location of the first ordered commodity. Herz teaches:
wherein the store has a plurality of doorways (see [0034] "The LargeRetailStore1 building 210 has several entry/exit points: a main entrance 208, a second entrance 212 for gardening supplies, and a third entrance 214 for picking up large items such as appliances" and Fig. 2)
doorway information indicating respective locations of the doorways is further acquired (see [0034] "The LargeRetailStore1 building 210 has several entry/exit points: a main entrance 208, a second entrance 212 for gardening supplies, and a third entrance 214 for picking up large items such as appliances" and [0025] "if a large retail store has a main entrance, a separate gardening supplies entrance, and another separate entrance for picking up large appliances, and the authorized occupant of the vehicle indicates an intent to purchase gardening supplies, a parking space near the gardening entrance may be more appropriate than a parking space near one of the other entrances" and [0045] for a display representing the store and parking lot environment for the acquiring of doorway locations of the store)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the determination of parking spot near a doorway that is the shortest distance from the storage location of the ordered commodity of Herz into the combination of Liguori and Takeyama. As Herz states in [0024] “if the destination is a large retail store…there may be several different entrances, of which only a few may be appropriate for the vehicle's occupants given their objectives and the current state of the parking or traffic nearby” and [0025] “the authorized occupant of the vehicle indicates an intent to purchase gardening supplies, a parking space near the gardening entrance may be more appropriate than a parking space near one of the other entrances”. Accordingly, by incorporating the teachings of Herz into the combination of Liguori and Takeyama, the resulting combination would be able to be applied to large stores with multiple entrances, as the resulting combination would consider which entrance would be the most appropriate for the customer based on the items in their order.
The combination of Liguori, Takeyama, and Herz still does not explicitly teach acquiring a location of a store terminal, determining a location of an ordered commodity outside a second predetermined distance from the store terminal, and determining the first doorway that is the shortest distance from the location of the first ordered commodity. Jin teaches:
in the acquiring, location information about a store terminal (see [0073] "a user device of a picker, such as device 1196, may report the device location to FO system 113. Each picker on a warehouse floor may carry a separate device. Devices may include hardware and/or software to determine the location's position" for determining picker location based on a terminal of a picker at the store)
in the determining, a location of a first ordered commodity which is outside a second predetermined distance from a location of the store terminal among the ordered commodities is specified on the basis of the ordered commodity information, the commodity location information, and the location information about the store terminal (see [0108] "FO system 113 may then iteratively, for pending items of the order: access at least one data structure to determine a location of the pending item; determine a set of near pickers within a threshold distance to the location; access the at least one data structure to determine previous items correlated to each of the set of near pickers; and remove from the set any near picker having a number of previous items greater than a queue threshold. FO system 113 may also add to the set pickers within an expanded threshold distance in response to the set being empty after the removing of pickers" for determining a first item that is outside the threshold distance, but inside the expanded threshold distance from a current picker location based on the order information, item location information, and information of a picker. See [0078] for sequencing picks based on distance from the picker)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of acquiring picker location information, identifying ordered items that are outside of a predetermined distance from the picker, and sequencing the pick route based on distance of Jin to the combination of Liguori, Takeyama, and Herz would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Jin to the teaching of the combination of Liguori, Takeyama, and Herz would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such acquiring picker location information, identifying ordered items that are outside of a predetermined distance from the picker, and sequencing the pick route based on distance. Further, applying acquiring picker location information, identifying ordered items that are outside of a predetermined distance from the picker, and sequencing the pick route based on distance to the combination of Liguori, Takeyama, and Herz would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more efficient and quicker commodity pickups for the store employees, thus resulting in lower wait times for customers and the increase in order capacity for the store. As Jin [0078] states “Ordinality may also be based on a picking sequence optimized to reduce overall picking time”. By assigning order items to pickers and sequencing the item picks to save time, the efficiency of the fulfillment process is increased.
The combination of Liguori, Takeyama, Herz, and Jin still does not explicitly teach determining the first doorway that is the shortest distance from the location of the first ordered commodity. Goulart teaches:
and a first doorway which is at a shortest distance from the location of the first ordered commodity is specified on the basis of the doorway information (see [0066] "the product locator module 312 determines a checkout waypoint and an entrance waypoint...the product locator module 312 can set the checkout waypoint equal to the location of the aisles closest to the last item on the electronic shopping list...Alternatively, the entrance waypoint can be determined based on the product waypoints" for determining the entrance that is closest to the location of the last product on the list. In combination with the closest to farthest picking sequence of Jin [0078], the last item in the sequence would be the item beyond the predetermined distance from the picker location)
and the first area is a parking area which is within the first predetermined distance from the first doorway (see [0066] "the product locator module 312 determines a checkout waypoint and an entrance waypoint...the product locator module 312 can set the checkout waypoint equal to the location of the aisles closest to the last item on the electronic shopping list...Alternatively, the entrance waypoint can be determined based on the product waypoints". In combination with Takeyama, the door determined by Goulart is the door from which the predetermined distance of the parking area is based)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of selecting a store entrance closest to the last item in a shopping route of Goulart to the combination of Liguori, Takeyama, Herz, and Jin would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Goulart to the teaching of the combination of Liguori, Takeyama, Herz, and Jin would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such selecting a store entrance closest to the last item in a shopping route. Further, applying selecting a store entrance closest to the last item in a shopping route to the combination of Liguori, Takeyama, Herz, and Jin would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more efficient and quicker commodity pickups for the store employees, thus resulting in lower wait times for customers and the increase in order capacity for the store. As Goulart [0025] states “The route can be optimized to minimize or substantially minimize the amount of distance traveled or the amount of time to travel through the store”. By assigning a store entrance that is closest to the last item on the pick list, the efficiency of the fulfillment process is increased.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liguori in view of Takeyama, Herz, Urai et al. (WIPO Publication No. 2022/168265, hereafter known as Urai), and Goulart.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Liguori and Takeyama teaches all of the limitations of claim 2 above. Liguori further teaches:
the ordered commodity information indicates a plurality of the ordered commodities (see [0035] "the location assignment engine 132 may assign the customer to... closer parking spot based on the order information 110 including a large number of items" for a plurality of items in the order)
in the acquiring, commodity location information indicating respective locations of the commodities in the store, (see [0032] "the order information 110 may include one or more items ordered by the customer...other information associated with the one or items (e.g., storage locations"))
As discussed above, Liguori does not explicitly teach the first area being a parking area within a predetermined distance from a first doorway. Liguori also does not explicitly teach the store having multiple doorways, acquiring doorway information indicating locations of doorways and weight information of the commodities, determining a second ordered commodity having a weight exceeding a predetermined weight, and determining the third doorway that is the shortest distance from the location of the second ordered commodity. Takeyama further teaches:
and the first area is a parking area which is within the first predetermined distance from the (see Fig. 5 and [0050] "In the parking lot illustrated in FIG. 5, parking spaces A1 to A30, parking spaces B1 to B30, and parking spaces C1 to C30 exist. Among the aforementioned parking spaces, it is assumed that the parking spaces A1 to A14 are parking spaces located close to the doorway of the store...the information regarding the attribute of the parking space in the parking lot in FIG. 5 includes information indicating the parking spaces A1 to A14 are parking spaces located close to the doorway of the store...determination of which parking space has what kind of attribute (such as ranges of parking spaces located close to the doorway of the store and the gateway of the parking lot) may be made by the manager of the parking lot, and the result of the determination may be included in the parking lot information" for a first parking lot area that is within a predetermined distance of the doorway of the store, with the predetermined distance chosen by a store manager)
Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior 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 close parking spaces being those within predetermined distance from a storefront of Takeyama for the broad categorization of parking spots “close” to a storefront of Liguori.
In other words, the more detailed definition of “close parking space” of Takeyama is being substituted in for Liguori’s more general consideration of whether a space is “close” to the store. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
The combination of Liguori and Takeyama still does not explicitly teach store having multiple doorways, acquiring doorway information indicating locations of doorways and weight information of the commodities, determining a second ordered commodity having a weight exceeding a predetermined weight, and determining the third doorway that is the shortest distance from the location of the second ordered commodity. Herz teaches:
wherein the store has a plurality of doorways (see [0034] "The LargeRetailStore1 building 210 has several entry/exit points: a main entrance 208, a second entrance 212 for gardening supplies, and a third entrance 214 for picking up large items such as appliances" and Fig. 2)
doorway information indicating respective locations of the doorways…is further acquired (see [0034] "The LargeRetailStore1 building 210 has several entry/exit points: a main entrance 208, a second entrance 212 for gardening supplies, and a third entrance 214 for picking up large items such as appliances" and [0025] "if a large retail store has a main entrance, a separate gardening supplies entrance, and another separate entrance for picking up large appliances, and the authorized occupant of the vehicle indicates an intent to purchase gardening supplies, a parking space near the gardening entrance may be more appropriate than a parking space near one of the other entrances" and [0045] for a display representing the store and parking lot environment for the acquiring of doorway locations of the store)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the determination of parking spot near a doorway that is the shortest distance from the storage location of the ordered commodity of Herz into the combination of Liguori and Takeyama. As Herz states in [0024] “if the destination is a large retail store…there may be several different entrances, of which only a few may be appropriate for the vehicle's occupants given their objectives and the current state of the parking or traffic nearby” and [0025] “the authorized occupant of the vehicle indicates an intent to purchase gardening supplies, a parking space near the gardening entrance may be more appropriate than a parking space near one of the other entrances”. Accordingly, by incorporating the teachings of Herz into the combination of Liguori and Takeyama, the resulting combination would be able to be applied to large stores with multiple entrances, as the resulting combination would consider which entrance would be the most appropriate for the customer based on the items in their order.
The combination of Liguori, Takeyama, and Herz still does not explicitly teach acquiring weight information of the commodities, determining a second ordered commodity having a weight exceeding a predetermined weight, and determining the third doorway that is the shortest distance from the location of the second ordered commodity. Urai teaches:
weight information about each of the commodities is further acquired (see [0036] "The product DB 2103 may store, for example, attributes of products. The product attributes include, for example, frozen, refrigerated, fresh, perishable, size, and weight. For example, the product size is at least one of length, width, and height of the product. For example, the weight of the product is the weight of the product itself")
in the determining, a second ordered commodity having a weight exceeding a predetermined weight among the ordered commodities is specified on the basis of the weight information (see [0065] "the generation unit 213 may generate routes in order according to the weight of the product. The weight may be the weight of the product itself...the generation unit 213 may generate a route that passes through products whose weight is equal to or greater than a predetermined weight among the products included in the shopping list at the end" for determining a heavy commodity to put at the end of the pickup route for a worker gathering items of an order)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the acquiring of weight information on the commodities, identifying a commodity that is above a predetermined weight, and setting the commodity above a predetermined weight as the last commodity to be picked of Urai into the combination of Liguori, Takeyama, and Herz. As Urai [0065] states, the organization of the route in this manner allows for easier to carry items to be picked up first while harder to carry items are saved for later. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that incorporating this technique of Urai would reduce the demands placed on the workers fulfilling the orders of the combination of Liguori, Takeyama, and Herz.
The combination of Liguori, Takeyama, Herz, and Urai still does not explicitly teach determining the third doorway that is the shortest distance from the location of the second ordered commodity. Goulart teaches:
and a third doorway which is at a shortest distance from a location of the second ordered commodity is specified on the basis of the commodity location information and the doorway information (see [0066] "the product locator module 312 determines a checkout waypoint and an entrance waypoint...the product locator module 312 can set the checkout waypoint equal to the location of the aisles closest to the last item on the electronic shopping list...Alternatively, the entrance waypoint can be determined based on the product waypoints" for determining the entrance that is closest to the location of the last product on the list. In combination with Urai, this last product is the product heavier than a predetermined weight)
and the first area is a parking area which is within the first predetermined distance from the third doorway (see [0066] "the product locator module 312 determines a checkout waypoint and an entrance waypoint...the product locator module 312 can set the checkout waypoint equal to the location of the aisles closest to the last item on the electronic shopping list...Alternatively, the entrance waypoint can be determined based on the product waypoints". In combination with Takeyama, the door determined by Goulart is the door from which the predetermined distance of the parking area is based)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of selecting a store entrance closest to the last item in a shopping route of Goulart to the combination of Liguori, Takeyama, Herz, and Urai would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Goulart to the teaching of the combination of Liguori, Takeyama, Herz, and Urai would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such selecting a store entrance closest to the last item in a shopping route. Further, applying selecting a store entrance closest to the last item in a shopping route to the combination of Liguori, Takeyama, Herz, and Urai would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more efficient and quicker commodity pickups for the store employees, thus resulting in lower wait times for customers and the increase in order capacity for the store. As Goulart [0025] states “The route can be optimized to minimize or substantially minimize the amount of distance traveled or the amount of time to travel through the store”. By assigning a store entrance that is closest to the last item on the pick list, the efficiency of the fulfillment process is increased.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liguori in view of Takeyama an Urai.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Liguori and Takeyama teaches all of the limitations of claim 2 above. While Liguori further teaches different types of orders based on order content in [0035], the combination of Liguori and Takeyama still does not explicitly teach the specific commodity includes at least one of a commodity having an attribute of requiring a rapid delivery to the user and a commodity having an attribute of putting a large burden on a clerk for a delivery to the user. Urai teaches:
wherein the specific commodity includes at least one of a commodity having an attribute of requiring a rapid delivery to the user and a commodity having an attribute of putting a large burden on a clerk for a delivery to the user (see [0037] "Product categories may be stored in the product DB 2103 as attributes such as frozen, refrigerated, perishable, and perishable...the broad product categories may be frozen, chilled, fresh, perishable, room temperature, and the like" for products with attributes requiring rapid delivery to the customer. Examiner notes that frozen and refrigerated products are examples of rapid delivery products provided by Applicant in specification [0079])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filed date of the claimed invention to include perishable, refrigerated, and frozen commodities as taught by Urai in the combination of Liguori and Takeyama, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Liguori and Takeyama teaches all of the limitations of claim 2 above. While Liguori further teaches different types of orders based on order content in [0035], the combination of Liguori and Takeyama still does not explicitly teach the specific commodity includes at least one of a fresh food, a frozen food, a precision machine, and a large commodity. Urai teaches:
wherein the specific commodity includes at least one of a fresh food, a frozen food, a precision machine, and a large commodity (see [0037] "Product categories may be stored in the product DB 2103 as attributes such as frozen, refrigerated, perishable, and perishable...the broad product categories may be frozen, chilled, fresh, perishable, room temperature, and the like". Examiner notes that, while not required to teach the claim, the term “precision” in “precision machine” is being interpreted as merely a label for “machine” and is therefore being interpreted as non-descriptive material)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filed date of the claimed invention to include perishable, refrigerated, and frozen commodities as taught by Urai in the combination of Liguori and Takeyama, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liguori in view of Langos (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2006/0076397, hereafter known as Langos).
Regarding claim 12, Liguori teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. While Liguori teaches commodity information comprising commodity storage locations and [0057] "Based on assignment of the customer to the first parking spot 336, the server may send order fulfillment data to a client device associated with an employee that is assigned deliveries to the first parking spot 336, a client device associated with a first available employee, a client device within a store, restaurant, or other order fulfillment structure, or any other client device associated with providing curbside deliveries" that imply commodity storage information is communicated, Liguori does not explicitly teach the output information including display data of an image showing a location of the ordered commodity. Langos teaches:
wherein the output information includes display data of a display screen image showing a location of the ordered commodity in the store (see [0032] "When an order occurs, the microprocessor reviews databases having information relating to both the commodity ordered and its location. A store employee who is in charge of filling the order may be prompted by a display screen or alternatively by a printout with a list of ordered items and their location")
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of outputting display data of the location of the ordered commodity in the store to an employee device of Langos to Liguori would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Langos to the teaching of Liguori would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such outputting display data of the location of the ordered commodity in the store to an employee device. Further, applying outputting display data of the location of the ordered commodity in the store to an employee device to Liguori would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more efficient picking of items by the store employees. Specifically, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that providing store employees with displays indicating the location of ordered items would allow the employees to more quickly gather the ordered items and bring the order to the waiting customer.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liguori in view of Longino (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2014/0244437, hereafter known as Longino).
Regarding claim 14, Liguori teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Liguori further teaches in [0069] "the method 600 may also include sending the order information, the estimated waiting time, the assignment data, or a combination thereof, to a mobile device associated with the customer. For example, the mobile device may include or correspond to the mobile device 156 of FIG. 1. Additionally or alternatively, outputting the order fulfillment data may include sending the order fulfillment data to a client device at the selected waiting location to cause one or more ordered items to be provided to the customer vehicle". However, Liguori does not explicitly teach the output data comprising display data showing a current location of a clerk delivering the ordered commodity in the store. Longino teaches:
wherein the output information includes display data of a display screen image showing a current location of a clerk delivering the ordered commodity in the store (see [0040] “the customer assistance application will display a floor plan map of the store 300 and show the current location of the employee. This information is provided by the store server computer 15 as it continuously receives location information from all employee mobile smart devices 201” for a customer device receiving information on an employee location that is displayed on the customer device)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the display of an employee location on a customer device of Longino into the system of Liguori. As Longino [0040] states “This information is provided by the store server computer 15 as it continuously receives location information from all employee mobile smart devices 201. This tracking features provides valuable feed back to the customer” and in [0041] “Since the current location of the employee is periodically updated on the display 230, the customer can monitor the progress of the employee…and can arrive back at their original location in time to meet the employee or they may decide to meet the employee at an intermediate location along the employee's path”. Accordingly, providing employee location to the customer device provides information to the customer that gives them the ability to move from their parking location and return to their car in time to get the order or meet the employee while they are bringing their order out the car.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liguori in view of Ducrou et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,482,421; hereafter known as Ducrou).
Regarding claim 16, Liguori teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Liguori further teaches:
wherein the memory holds a user database associating the user ID and a vehicle number with each other (see [0036] "the server 102 may access the customer profile database based on the order ID data 170 (e.g., using the extracted order ID) or a customer ID provided by the customer to retrieve the profile data 118 from the customer profile database. The customer ID may include a name, a profile ID, an account number, or the like...The profile data 118 may indicate...stored vehicle identification information (e.g., license plate number, vehicle color, vehicle make and model, etc.)" for a profile associating user ID with a vehicle license plate number. See [0022] for the profile data being in the memory)
and, in the acquiring, a vehicle image is acquired by photographing the vehicle in the entry into the administrative region by the camera, the vehicle number is specified from the vehicle image (see [0033] "the image capture devices 154 may capture images of the customer vehicle to generate first image data 172. For example, the first image data 172 may include images or video frames of the customer vehicle proximate to the customer interface device 150 during entry of the order ID captured by one or more cameras positioned about the site and configured to capture images of a location surrounding the customer interface device 150" and [0034] "The server 102 may receive the first image data 172 and the computer vision engine 130 may perform one or more computer vision operations on the first image data 172 to generate vehicle identification data 112 corresponding to the customer vehicle. For example, if the customer vehicle has an attached license plate, the computer vision engine 130 may perform image detection operations to detect the customer vehicle within the images, object recognition operations to identify a license plate or other identifier of the customer vehicle, optical character recognition operations to recognize one or more characters of the license plate or the other identifier, or a combination thereof, to generate the vehicle identification data 112)
While Liguori teaches the use of cameras to note a customer’s license plate and storing that license plate number in a customer profile as discussed above, Liguori does not explicitly teach that entry information is acquired when the user ID from associated with the vehicle number is specified from the user database. Ducrou teaches:
and the entry information is determined to be acquired when the user ID associated with the specified vehicle number is specified from the user database (see Col. 4 lines 25-31 "During subsequent visits, this association between vehicle identification data and the user's identity may be used. Continuing the example, upon the second visit to the facility, the license plate number of the vehicle used by the user “Kay” may be read automatically by a license plate reader and may be used to identify the user that has entered the facility" and Col. 12 lines 33-40 “based on the detection of the vehicle identification data 218 and getting a license plate number of “KF5 QNJ”, the inventory management system 116 may determine that the user 128(1) named “Kay” has entered the parking area 104” for a user ID “Kay” determined to have entered a facility based on their user ID being associated with a read license plate number, with the relationship between user ID and license plate specified from the user database)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of identifying a user who has entered a facility based on the association of a user ID and vehicle license plate information stored in advance of Ducrou to Liguori would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Ducrou to the teaching of Liguori would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such identifying a user who has entered a facility based on the association of a user ID and vehicle license plate information stored in advance. Further, applying identifying a user who has entered a facility based on the association of a user ID and vehicle license plate information stored in advance to Liguori would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more efficient check in of users and assignment of users to parking spots. As Ducrou states in Col. 4 lines 20-25, without stored vehicle-user ID linkage, additional validation needs to be performed by an attendant, while a stored association allows for automated check in. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that this stored association and its referencing would speed up repeat visits to the facility to pickup orders.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Mo et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,565,543) teaches dividing areas into a store into areas based on distance to the nearest entrance when planning e-commerce fulfillment
Giraudo (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2021/0065471) teaches guiding a user through a store to gather items, saving items requiring special care for last
Bjelcevic et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0237543) teaches prompting a user to park in a particular spot when picking up a curbside delivery order
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL C MORONEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4403. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5:30.
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, Resha H. Desai can be reached at (571) 270-7792. 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.
/M.C.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/RESHA DESAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628