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 amendment filed on 04/23/2026.
Claims 1, 10, and 17-18 have been amended.
Claim 19 has been added.
Claim 16 has been canceled.
Claims 1-15 and 17-19 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Regarding Applicant’s discussion of the foreign priority on Page 13 of Remarks, Examiner agrees that a certified copy of the priority document has been received on 02/03/2026. Accordingly, an acknowledgement of the certified copy is provided in the “Priority” section below and acknowledged on the PTO-326 form.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 14 of Remarks, filed 04/23/2026, with respect to the drawing objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The drawing objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 14-15 of Remarks, filed 04/23/2026, with respect to the specification objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The specification and title objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 16 of Remarks, filed 04/23/2026, with respect to the claim 16 objection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection is rendered moot by virtue of claim 16’s cancellation, and the incorporation of the features of claim 16 into the independent claims is done in a manner that precludes the objection from being applied to the amended independent claims. The claim 16 objection has been withdrawn. However, Examiner notes that Applicant’s amendments to claim 17 necessitated a new claim objection for claim 17 that is discussed below.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 16 of Remarks, filed 04/23/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation of “an acquisition part”, “a determination part”, and “an output part” in claim 17 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Claim 17 has been amended to remove the “an acquisition part”, “a determination part”, and “an output part” limitations that invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f), and structure of a processor configured to execute a program stored on a non-transitory computer readable medium has been introduced into claim 17. The 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation of claim 17 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 17 of Remarks, filed 04/23/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 10 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Claim 10 has been amended to remove the relative term “a large commodity”, and the listing of specific commodities replacing “a large commodity” have definite scopes and supported by the original disclosure. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 10 has been withdrawn. Examiner notes, however, that amendments to the independent claims have necessitated new 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections as will be discussed below.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 17-41 of Remarks, filed 04/23/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of claims 1-15 and 17-19 have been fully considered but are generally not persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of claims 1-15 and 17-19 have been maintained.
After summarizing the rejections on pages 17-18, Applicant argues on Page 18 that at Step 1 all claims fall into at least one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter. As stated in the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of the 01/23/2026 Non-Final, Examiner agrees that the claims fall into at least one of the statutory categories.
Next, Applicant argues across pages 18-22 that at Step 2A Prong One that the invention of claim 1 has been amended such that the claims no longer recite Mental Process. Examiner generally agrees. Specifically, Examiner notes that the amendment of claim 1 to include a camera photographing the vehicle and acquiring a vehicle image and the inputting the image into a learned classifier model are not practicably performed in the human mind. Accordingly, the Mental Process characterization has been withdrawn in the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections below.
Applicant next argues across pages 22-28 that at Step 2A Prong One the invention of claim 1 also does not recite a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity. Applicant argues that Examiner has not “given appropriate consideration to the claim language as a whole” (Page 24 Remarks). Particularly, from page 24 it appears as if Applicant is arguing that the inclusion of the classifier identifying a vehicle number of vehicles entering the administrative region turns the claim into an imaging process and precludes the claim from reciting an abstract idea. Examiner respectfully disagrees. While the learned classifier and the camera may not fall into the abstract idea and be additional elements that will be discussed later, their inclusion does not preclude the claim from reciting an abstract idea. The claim still recites the abstract idea of organizing online order pickups at a store in the limitations specifying a vehicle number, acquiring a user ID and ordered commodity information associated with the User ID, and determining and outputting parking location information for the user based on location information about parking locations in a parking space and the ordered commodity information. The organization and execution of order pickup falls into “commercial interactions” under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity because the organization and execution of order pickup is at least a business relationship between a store/supplier and its customers (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II.B. “’Commercial interactions’ or ‘legal interactions’ include agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations” (emphasis added)). Namely, the store/supplier is instructing its customers on where to go in order to receive delivery of the customers’ orders. The inclusion of a camera and a learned classifier does not preclude the claim from reciting a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity and thus reciting an abstract idea.
Next, Applicant appears to argue across pages 24-26 that claim 1 does not recite a judicial exception because the claim allegedly recites an improvement in computer functionality or in other technology. Examiner notes that Prong One only asks whether the claim recites a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.04 II.A.1.). The “Improvements” consideration is thus not considered until Prong Two. Because this consideration is not evaluated until Prong Two, and because Applicant appears to make the same “Improvements” consideration argument again when arguing Prong Two, Examiner will wait until Prong Two discussion to address this argument.
Applicant next argues across pages 26-28 that the claimed invention does not recite a fundamental economic practice (emphasis Applicant’s), and that the learned classifier should not be regarded as an abstract idea. Examiner notes that Fundamental Economic Practices is a separate area of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity from commercial interactions (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II.A. and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II.B.), and that Examiner has not classified the judicial exception recited in the claimed invention as a fundamental economic practice either in this Office Action or the Office Action dated 01/23/2026. As discussed above, while the learned classifier may not be part of the abstract idea itself, the recitation of a learned classifier does not preclude the claim from reciting an abstract idea. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Next, Applicant argues from pages 28-38 that the claimed invention is integrated into a practical application. Particularly, Applicant argues from pages 28-32 that the claimed invention amounts to an improvement in technology, and argues that the specification as filed provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize a technical improvement. Applicant cites to various passages of the specification in support of this argument, but Examiner notes that the passages cited by Applicant indicate that an improvement is being made to the commercial interaction itself and not to technology. For example, the problems highlighted by specification [0003], [0010], and [0007] are burdens regarding the delivery process itself (burden on the clerk, damage/deteriorating product during delivery to the parking location, etc.). The solutions cited to in specification [0011], [0013], and [0122] are the determination of a more efficient parking place for the customer based on the parking locations in the area and the items/commodities in the customer’s order that need to be brought to the car. Thus, the problems and solutions highlighted by Applicant are directed towards the commercial interaction (the judicial exception) itself. Per MPEP 2106.05(a) II. “However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology.” Therefore, while the passages cited by Applicant may be an improvement to the commercial interaction in the form of optimizing parking space usage by customers to relieve clerk burden and preserve purchase quality, the more efficient direction of customers to parking spaces does not amount to an improvement in technology.
While Applicant is correct on page 31-32 that an improvement need not be explicitly set forth in the specification so long as one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize an improvement was present, neither in Applicant’s cited section nor in the remainder of the specification is an improvement to technology conveyed. Applicant’s argument on page 32 that the claimed invention specifying a vehicle only to a vehicle to a vehicle that enters an administrative region is an improvement to computer functionality is not persuasive. First, Examiner notes that amended claim 1 recites “specifying a vehicle number from the input vehicle image when the vehicle label is acquired and the advancing direction label indicates a direction in which the vehicle enters the administrative region”. While claim 1 recites specifying a vehicle number when an advancing direction indicates the vehicle is entering the administrative region, nothing in amended claim 1 states that a vehicle number is only specified from the image when a vehicle is entering the administrative area as Applicant argues on page 32. Furthermore, the specification [0061] similarly does not explicitly state that a vehicle number is specified only when a vehicle is entering an administrative region. The specification also does not state or imply that obtaining vehicle numbers from vehicle leaving an administrative area is a technical problem or a limitation in the functioning of a computer. In short, the claimed invention does not require the alleged technical improvement argued by Applicant, and the specification does not disclose the technical improvement argued by Applicant or indicate that the capturing of vehicle numbers for vehicles leaving an administrative area is a technical problem. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument that the claimed invention reflects a technical improvement at Step 2A Prong Two is not persuasive.
Applicant next argues on pages 32-34 that the amended claim 1 now recites an allegedly particular, limited application of the abstract idea and do not monopolize the abstract idea. Applicant argues that this allegedly particular, limited application constitutes a technological solution to a technological problem. Examiner respectfully disagrees. For the reasoning discussed above, the problems and solutions being discussed in the specification and claims are not technical solutions to technical problems but are instead improvements to the commercial interaction of delivering customer orders to customer vehicles in a parking lot. Regarding the particular and limited application argued by Applicant, MPEP 2106.04 I. states “While preemption is the concern underlying the judicial exceptions, it is not a standalone test for determining eligibility. Rapid Litig. Mgmt. v. CellzDirect, Inc., 827 F.3d 1042, 1052, 119 USPQ2d 1370, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Instead, questions of preemption are inherent in and resolved by the two-part framework from Alice Corp. and Mayo (the Alice/Mayo test referred to by the Office as Steps 2A and 2B). Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1150, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379, 115 USPQ2d 1152, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 2015). It is necessary to evaluate eligibility using the Alice/Mayo test, because while a preemptive claim may be ineligible, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate that a claim is eligible”. Accordingly, the entirety of the judicial exception not being monopolized by the claimed invention does not indicate eligibility on its own. Regarding the amended features, Examiner also notes that the there is no particularity in how the camera is arranged or what kind of camera is capturing the images, and no particularity regarding the workings of the classifier other than it has been learned using a bounding box and advancing direction of the vehicle. Therefore, the additional elements introduced in claim 1, in combination with the other additional elements, do not recite a particular, limited application. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant next argues on pages 35-36 that, like Desjardins, the amended claim 1 now recites more detailed logical structures and processes that make the claim eligible. Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, Examiner notes that learning of the classifier is not an actively recited step of the claimed invention but instead a descriptor of the classifier being used in the claimed invention. In other words, while the classifier has been learned, the claimed invention does not positively recite performing the learning as part of the claimed invention. Specification [0061] similarly implies that the classifier is learned “in advance” and not part of the claimed method. Second, the operation of the classifier is not described in the claim. The claim recites the image being input into the classifier and a vehicle label and advancing direction label being output without reciting how the learned classifier processes the image to produce the outputs. Therefore, the amended claims are not recited more detailed logical structures and processes of the classifier. The classifier, learned outside of the claimed invention, is being used as a tool with the goal of acquiring a vehicle number from an image. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1) “Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application”. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments that the claims are eligible for analogous reasoning as Desjardins are not persuasive.
Across pages 36-37, Applicant argues that Examiner is oversimplifying the claim limitations and is improperly applying using the “apply it” consideration. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed above, the classifier is being used as a tool and merely reciting the goal of acquiring a vehicle label and advancing direction label from an image. Additionally, the newly recited camera is also not recited in any particular detail or arrangement and is also being used as a tool to acquire an image of a vehicle, and the newly added user database is a generic computing component being used in its ordinary capacity as a tool to store user IDs. These new additional elements, in combination with the preexisting additional elements of a computer and a memory, are generic computing components being used as tools to perform the commercial interaction of determining a particular vehicle has entered an administrative area, determining a particular user corresponding to the particular vehicle, determining a parking location for the user based on the parking location information and the items in the user’s order, and communicating the determined parking location to the user. See MPEP 2106.05(f) for generic computing components being used as tools in their ordinary capacity and reciting the outcome without description of how the additional elements arrive at the outcome indicating that the limitations do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Applicant’s arguments regarding claim 1 (as well as claims 17 and 18) at Step 2A Prong Two are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that new claim 19 integrates the judicial exception into a practical application because the claim recites “outputting, to a delivery machine without a person that carries the commodity, a control command of making the delivery machine move along a delivery route from a delivery start point in the store to a commodity receipt location within a predetermined distance from the parking location” and controls a machine. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Particularly, Examiner notes that claim 19 is reciting that the control command is output, with the intended result of the control command being that the delivery machine without a person is to move along a delivery route from a delivery start point to a commodity receipt point. That is, the outputting of the control command and what the control command is meant to do are positively recited in the claim, but the claim stops at the outputting of the control command and does not explicitly recite active control of the delivery machine. The outputting of the control command at most amounts to well understood, routine, and conventional data transmission extra-solution activity as will be discussed in greater detail in the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection below. Examiner suggests amending, to an extent that can be supported by specification paragraphs [0155]-[0157], the claims to positively recite control of the delivery machine to help weigh the claims towards eligibility. As claim 19 stands, however, Applicant’s arguments at Step 2A Prong Two are not persuasive.
Finally, Applicant argues across pages 38-41 that the claimed invention provides an inventive concept at Step 2B. Particularly, Applicant argues that the additional elements of the amended claims are not well-understood, routine, and conventional because the Office did not provide Berkheimer evidence to support such a conclusion. Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP 2106.05 II. recites “Thus, in Step 2B, examiners should: • Carry over their identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two; • Carry over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) - (c), (e) (f) and (h): • Re-evaluate any additional element or combination of elements that was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP § 2106.05(g), because if such re-evaluation finds that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, this finding may indicate that the additional element is no longer considered to be insignificant; and • Evaluate whether any additional element or combination of elements are other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, per MPEP § 2106.05(d)”. MPEP 2106.05(f) states “The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words ‘apply it’… Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more” (emphasis added). As discussed above, the additional elements of amended claim 1, as an ordered combination, are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computing components, this conclusion gets carried over into Step 2B. Evidence of the additional elements being well-understood, routine, and conventional as argued by Applicant is thus not necessary for the present claim 1 at Step 2B. Applicant’s arguments that claim 1 amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception are thus unpersuasive. Applicant’s arguments regarding claims 2-15 and independent claims 17 and 18 are unpersuasive for similar reasoning discussed above regarding claim 1.
Examiner notes that the outputting of a control command to a delivery machine of claim 19 is being considered insignificant extra-solution activity at Step 2A Prong Two. As is required under the Alice/Mayo test, Examiner has provided the evidence that data transmissions have been recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional (“Option 2” of Applicant’s Remarks page 40). Thus, the outputting of the control command of claim 19, in combination with the additional elements of claim 1, does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception at Step 2B. Consequently, all of claims 1-15 and 17-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 41-45 of Remarks, filed 04/23/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) rejections of claims 1, 11, 13, 15, and 17-18 and the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of now canceled claim 16 have been fully considered and are partially unpersuasive and are partially moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Specifically, Examiner notes that newly amended limitation of acquiring a vehicle image by photographing the vehicle by a camera arranged in the parking place is explicitly taught in Liguori [0028] and [0033]. Liguori further teaches performing computer vision operations on the acquired vehicle image to identify a vehicle entering an administrative area and specify the vehicle’s license plate number across paragraphs [0034], [0056]-[0057]. Regarding the introduction of the learned classifier (not present in the original claim set), and the limitation from now-canceled claim 16 that entry information is acquired when a user ID associated with the specified vehicle number is specified from a database, the limitations are taught by the Yoo reference (Korean Publication No. 10-2021-0153421, hereafter known as Yoo) as shown below. The 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) rejections of claims 1, 11, 13, 15, and 17-18 have been withdrawn, and the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 16 has been withdrawn in light of the claim’s cancellation. However, claims 1, 11, 13, 15, and 17-18 now stand rejected, as necessitated by Applicant’s amendment, under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Examiner also notes that Applicant’s amendments necessitated the replacement of the Takeyama and Herz references with the Fujimori reference (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2021/0372805, hereafter known as Fujimori) in order to teach dependent claims 7 and 8.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on application JP2022-025918 filed in Japan on 02/22/2022. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Applicant appears to have inadvertently duplicated the word “output” in claim 17. Claim 17 recites “output output information including the parking location information”
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.
Examiner also notes that the amendments to claim 1 introduce contingent limitations of “specifying a vehicle number from the input vehicle image when the vehicle label is acquired and the advancing direction label indicates a direction in which the vehicle enters the administrative region; and determining that the entry information is acquired when a user ID associated with the specified vehicle number is specified from a user database”. For the reasoning discussed above, the broadest reasonable interpretation of method claim 1 does not require “specifying a vehicle number from the input vehicle image” because, in a case when either the vehicle label is not acquired or the advancing direction is not that of the vehicle entering the administrative area, the limitation is not required in the method. The broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1 also does not require “determining that the entry information is acquired when a user ID associated with the specified vehicle number is specified from a user database” because in the case when a user ID associated with the vehicle number is not specified from a user database the limitation is not required to be performed.
Like with claims 2 and 4, prior art has been applied to these contingent limitations in the interest of compact prosecution.
Examiner also notes that despite these contingencies being present in claims 17 and 18, the broadest reasonable interpretation of claims 17 and 18 requires these contingent limitations. See MPEP 2111.04 “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur. The system claim interpretation differs from a method claim interpretation because the claimed structure must be present in the system regardless of whether the condition is met and the function is actually performed”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Particularly, claim 19 recites “outputting, to a delivery machine without a person that carries the commodity, a control command of making the delivery machine move along a delivery route from a delivery start point in the store to a commodity receipt location within a predetermined distance from the parking location” (emphasis added). Specification [0154]-[0162] discusses the embodiment in which a delivery machine without a person delivers the commodity, with [0157] in particular reciting “The commodity receipt location is, for example, in the vicinity of a parking location with respect to the ordered commodity. For instance, when the parking location is determined on the basis of a unit of a division 303, the commodity receipt location is in the vicinity of the determined division 303. For instance, when the parking location is determined on the basis of a unit of a parking space 304, the commodity receipt location is in the vicinity of the determined parking space 304” (emphasis added). Therefore, while the specification provides original written description support for the commodity receipt location being “in the vicinity of” the parking location, the specification does not provide original written description support for the commodity receipt location being “within a predetermined distance” of the parking location.
While “vicinity” connotes being nearby to the parking location, being in the vicinity of the parking location does not require a predetermined distance used being used to delineate the limits of where a commodity receipt location can be. Applicant also does not provide a special definition for “vicinity” in the original specification that would necessitate such a predetermined distance. Examiner also notes that throughout Applicant’s specification predetermined distances from doors/entryways a store are used to delineate parking areas. However, Applicant notably does not used this predetermined distance architecture when describing the location of a commodity receipt area relative to a parking location. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would not recognize that Applicant has possession of the claimed invention of claim 19 at the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 1-15 and 17-19 are 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 1, the claim recites “acquiring a vehicle label and an advancing direction label of the vehicle by inputting the vehicle image into a classifier having learned the vehicle image given a bounding box showing the vehicle and given the advancing direction of the vehicle” (emphasis added). It is unclear from this claim limitation what vehicle image Applicant is claiming the classifier has been learned on. Specifically, the “having” in “having learned the vehicle image” would indicate that the classifier has been previously trained//learned using general/other vehicle images before the particular vehicle image acquired as part of the steps of claim 1 is input into the classifier. However, the limitation reciting that the classifier has learned “the” vehicle image would indicate that the same particular vehicle image acquired as part of the steps of claim 1 has also been used to train/learn the classifier. As parts of the claim limitation appear to indicate that other/general vehicle images have been used to train/learn the classifier while other parts of the limitation appear to indicate that the same particular vehicle image is used to both to learn the classifier and as an input to the classifier, the scope of claim 1 is unclear.
The scopes of independent claims 17 and 18 are indefinite for similar reasoning as discussed above regarding claim 1. Dependent claims 2-15 and 19 have indefinite scopes by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
For the purposes of examination, Examiner is interpreting the limitation of “acquiring a vehicle label and an advancing direction label of the vehicle by inputting the vehicle image into a classifier having learned the vehicle image given a bounding box showing the vehicle and given the advancing direction of the vehicle” as meaning the classifier has been learned on other vehicle images besides the particular vehicle image acquired in the steps of claim 1 and input into the classifier. Examiner is making this interpretation based on specification [0061] “The classifier is prepared in advance through machine learning of vehicle image information given a bounding box showing the vehicle and an advancing direction of the vehicle” (emphasis added) and one of ordinary skill in the art’s understanding of training classifiers that training data is separate from data input into the model once the model is deployed.
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 1-15 and 17-19 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 1-15 and 19 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.
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, wherein the acquiring includes: acquiring a vehicle image; acquiring a vehicle label and an advancing direction label of the vehicle; specifying a vehicle number from the input vehicle image when the vehicle label is acquired and the advancing direction label indicates a direction in which the vehicle enters the administrative region; and determining that the entry information is acquired when a user ID associated with the specified vehicle number is specified 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, a memory, photographing a vehicle using a camera arranged in the parking place, a classifier having learned the vehicle image given a bounding box showing the vehicle and given the advancing direction of the vehicle, and a user database. 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, a memory, photographing a vehicle using a camera arranged in the parking place, a classifier having learned the vehicle image given a bounding box showing the vehicle and given the advancing direction of the vehicle, and a user database 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 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: acquire 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; determine 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 output output information including the parking location information, wherein further cause to: acquire a vehicle image; acquire a vehicle label and an advancing direction label of the vehicle; specify a vehicle number from the input vehicle image when the vehicle label is acquired and the advancing direction label indicates a direction in which the vehicle enters the administrative region; and determine that the entry information is acquired when a user ID associated with the specified vehicle number is specified 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, a non-transitory memory configured to store a program, a processor configured to execute the program stored on the memory, a memory, photographing a vehicle using a camera arranged in the parking place, a classifier having learned the vehicle image given a bounding box showing the vehicle and given the advancing direction of the vehicle, and a user database. 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, a non-transitory memory configured to store a program, a processor configured to execute the program stored on the memory, a memory, photographing a vehicle using a camera arranged in the parking place, a classifier having learned the vehicle image given a bounding box showing the vehicle and given the advancing direction of the vehicle, and a user database 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 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, wherein the acquiring includes: acquiring a vehicle image; acquiring a vehicle label and an advancing direction label of the vehicle; specifying a vehicle number from the input vehicle image when the vehicle label is acquired and the advancing direction label indicates a direction in which the vehicle enters the administrative region; and determining that the entry information is acquired when a user ID associated with the specified vehicle number is specified 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, a memory, photographing a vehicle using a camera arranged in the parking place, a classifier having learned the vehicle image given a bounding box showing the vehicle and given the advancing direction of the vehicle, and a user database. 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, a memory, photographing a vehicle using a camera arranged in the parking place, a classifier having learned the vehicle image given a bounding box showing the vehicle and given the advancing direction of the vehicle, and a user database 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 19 further limits the abstract idea of claim 1 while introducing the additional element of outputting, to a delivery machine without a person that carries the commodity, a control command of making the delivery machine move along a delivery route from a delivery start point in the store to a commodity receipt location within a predetermined distance from the parking location. The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the element of outputting, to a delivery machine without a person that carries the commodity, a control command of making the delivery machine move along a delivery route from a delivery start point in the store to a commodity receipt location within a predetermined distance from the parking location is insignificant post-solution activity of transmitting data. Adding this new additional element into the additional elements from claim 1 still amounts to no more than insignificant post-solution activity of transmitting data. The claim also does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because data transmission has been recognized by the courts to be well-understood, routine, and conventional per MPEP 2106.05(d) II. “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network” and thus cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 11, 13, 15, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liguori et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2023/0169612, hereafter known as Liguori) in view of Yoo (Korean Publication No. 10-2021-0153421, hereafter known as Yoo).
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)
wherein the acquiring includes: acquiring a vehicle image by photographing the vehicle by a camera arranged in the parking place (see [0028] “The image capture devices 154 include or correspond to cameras or other image capture devices that are configured to capture images at a location, such as a store, a restaurant, or another location that supports smart drive through lanes and/or curbside delivery/pickup of orders. For example, the image capture devices 154 may include or correspond to cameras, video cameras, digital cameras, security cameras, network cameras, and the like, that are positioned throughout the location. In some implementations, the image capture devices 154 include or correspond to already installed and implemented cameras for other purposes, such as security monitoring” and [0033] “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. The image capture devices 154 may send (e.g., transmit) the first image data 172 to the server 102 for use in identifying the customer vehicle” for a camera acquiring a vehicle image of a vehicle entering a parking area)
acquiring a vehicle label and an advancing direction label of the vehicle by inputting the vehicle image into a classifier (see [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. As another example, the computer vision engine 130 may perform image detection operations to detect the customer vehicle in the images, object recognition operations to identify the customer vehicle from the rest of the images, and classification operations to determine a make or model of the customer vehicle” and see [0056] for computer vision identifying that a vehicle is arriving a drive thru lane and [0057] for computer vision identifying that a vehicle has arrived at a parking location. Examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “advancing direction” in light of the specification covers whether the vehicle is arriving/departing)
specifying a vehicle number from the input vehicle image when the vehicle label is acquired and the advancing direction label indicates a direction in which the vehicle enters the administrative region (see [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. As another example, the computer vision engine 130 may perform image detection operations to detect the customer vehicle in the images, object recognition operations to identify the customer vehicle from the rest of the images, and classification operations to determine a make or model of the customer vehicle” and see [0056] for computer vision identifying that a vehicle is arriving a drive thru lane and [0057] for computer vision identifying that a vehicle has arrived at a parking location)
While Liguori teaches acquiring vehicle images from a camera and performing computer vision and classifying operations to identify a vehicle and a vehicle’s license plate number that is entering an administrative area, Liguori does not explicitly teach the classifier having learned the vehicle image given a bounding box showing the vehicle and given the advancing direction of the vehicle. Additionally, while Liguori teaches storing license plate number with a user ID in a customer profile in [0036], Liguori also 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. However, Yoo teaches:
acquiring a vehicle label and an advancing direction label of the vehicle by inputting the vehicle image into a classifier having learned the vehicle image given a bounding box showing the vehicle and given the advancing direction of the vehicle (see [0088] “the mask R-CNN based learning model according to an embodiment, for each of a plurality of anchor boxes corresponding to a window of a specific size in the feature map, IoU ( intersection-over-union) can be learned based on the specified training data for a positive label (positive label) according to the calculation. 10, the IoU of the actual bounding box 1010 and the anchor box 1020 is the area of the overlapping area of the actual bounding box 1010 and the anchor box 1020. The actual bounding box 1010 and the anchor box ( 1020), which corresponds to the value divided by the area of the entire area. According to one embodiment, if the intersection-over-union (IoU) between the anchor box and the actual bounding box is equal to or greater than a certain reference value, a positive label may be specified, otherwise a negative label may be specified” and [0079] “n operation 530 of generating a mask according to an embodiment, based on the automobile regions detected in operation 520 , it is determined whether or not the vehicle belongs to classes corresponding to automobile regions in units of pixels included in the image information. generating a mask. That is, the generating of the mask according to an embodiment may include applying object candidate regions to an artificial neural network and performing classification and bounding box regression to generate corresponding vehicle regions detected” for performing classification to identify vehicle regions of an image using a model trained given bounding boxes of vehicles. See [0053] for the images being of vehicles entering a parking area (in combination with Liguori, the administrative area))
and determining that the entry information is acquired when a user ID associated with the specified vehicle number is specified from a user database (see [0053] “The parking management system according to an embodiment may receive image information including a vehicle entering the parking lot through a camera installed at a parking lot entrance, a parking lot entrance gate, or the like. By recognizing the vehicle number through image recognition from the received image information, and comparing the recognized vehicle number with reservation information corresponding to the available parking space in the corresponding parking lot, a signal to control vehicle access, that is, opening and closing of the parking lot entrance gate A control signal can be transmitted” for recognizing that entry information is received when stored user reservation information corresponding to observed license plate information. In combination with Liguori, recognizing entry information when observed license plate information matches stored order information including a user ID)
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 classifier learning given bounding boxes and advancing direction of Yoo into the system of Liguori. As Yoo states in [0003] “the vehicle detection method using an image has a problem in that its performance is sensitive according to the lighting that changes every moment, and the algorithm for detecting an object in the image is not suitable for an environment that requires real-time processing because of the large amount of computation. Accordingly, there is a need for a vehicle detection algorithm that has improved these problems in order to provide a faster and more accurate parking management service”. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the incorporation of the learned classifier of Yoo into the computer vision system of Liguori would have resulted in a faster and more accurate method for detecting the arrival of particular vehicles to a parking area.
Regarding the user reservation/ID information being associated with a vehicle number, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filed date of the claimed invention to include user reservation information/ID tied to vehicle number as taught by Yoo in the system of Liguori, 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. Particularly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the association of user ID/reservation and vehicle license plate information as entry information would have had predictable results as Liguori already teaches a user profile and the obtaining of vehicle license plate numbers upon entry.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Liguori and Yoo 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, the combination of Liguori and Yoo 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, the combination of Liguori and Yoo 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")
a non-transitory memory configured to store a program (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)
a processor configured to execute the program stored on the memory to cause the information processing device to (see [0022] for processors executing instructions stored in memory to perform the functions of Liguori)
Regarding the remaining limitations of claim 17, see the rejection of claim 1 above.
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.
Claims 2-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liguori in view of Yoo and Fujimori et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2021/0372805, hereafter known as Fujimori).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Liguori and Yoo 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"), the combination of Liguori and Yoo does not explicitly teach the first area of the parking place being an area that is within a predetermined distance from the store. Fujimori teaches:
wherein the parking place includes a first area which is within a first predetermined distance from the store (see [0068] “The terminal controller 11 may determine the parking space closest to the entrance to be used among the parking spaces where the vehicle 30 can park, or a parking space located within a predetermined distance from the entrance to be used, as the space to be used”)
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 a parking space within predetermined distance from a store entrance of Fujimori 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 Fujimori 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, Yoo, and Fujimori 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, Fujimori further teaches:
wherein the first area is a parking area which is within the first predetermined distance from a doorway of the store (see [0068] “The terminal controller 11 may determine the parking space closest to the entrance to be used among the parking spaces where the vehicle 30 can park, or a parking space located within a predetermined distance from the entrance to be used, as the space to be used”)
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 a parking space within predetermined distance from a store entrance of Fujimori 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 Fujimori 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, Yoo, and Fujimori 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 Fujimori, 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, Yoo, and Fujimori 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)
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Liguori, Yoo, and Fujimori 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, the combination of Liguori and Yoo does not explicitly teach the first area being a parking area within a predetermined distance from a doorway. The combination of Liguori and Yoo 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. Fujimori teaches:
wherein the store has a plurality of doorways (see [0040] “The parking lot 6 adjacent to the complex facility 5 includes a first parking floor 61, a second parking floor 62, and a third parking floor 63. The first entrance 71 is located between the first parking floor 61 and the first shop floor 51. The second entrance 72 is located between the second parking floor 62 and the second shop floor 52. The third entrance 73 is located between the third parking floor 63 and the third shop floor 53. The first entrance 71, the second entrance 72 and the third entrance 73 are collectively referred to as entrances. A user who parks the vehicle 30 in the parking lot 6 exits the vehicle 30, goes to the complex facility 5 through any of the entrances, and visits one of the shops located in the complex facility 5” for a shopping center with a plurality of entrances)
doorway information indicating respective locations of the doorways is acquired (see [0063] "The terminal controller 11 acquires the position of each entrance included in the complex facility 5 and determines the candidate entrance corresponding to each candidate shop based on the position of the candidate shop. The terminal controller 11 may, for example, determine the entrance closest to the candidate shop as the candidate entrance")
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 [0063] and [0097] “The terminal controller 11 may determine the entrance with the shortest walking distance from the shop to be used as the entrance to be used”)
and the first area is a parking area which is within the first predetermined distance from the first doorway (see [0068] “The terminal controller 11 may determine the parking space closest to the entrance to be used among the parking spaces where the vehicle 30 can park, or a parking space located within a predetermined distance from the entrance to be used, as the space to be used”)
Regarding the first area being within a predetermined distance to a doorway, 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 a parking space within predetermined distance from a store entrance of Fujimori 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 Fujimori 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.
Furthermore, 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 within a predetermined distance of an entrance that is the shortest distance from the storage location of the ordered commodity of Fujimori into the combination of Liguori and Yoo. As Fujimori states in [0097] “The terminal controller 11 may determine the entrance with the shortest walking distance from the shop to be used as the entrance to be used. This can also improve convenience for the user”. Accordingly, by incorporating the teachings of Fujimori into the combination of Liguori and Yoo, 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 Yoo, Fujimori, 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, Yoo, and Fujimori 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. Fujimori further teaches:
wherein the store has a plurality of doorways (see [0040] “The parking lot 6 adjacent to the complex facility 5 includes a first parking floor 61, a second parking floor 62, and a third parking floor 63. The first entrance 71 is located between the first parking floor 61 and the first shop floor 51. The second entrance 72 is located between the second parking floor 62 and the second shop floor 52. The third entrance 73 is located between the third parking floor 63 and the third shop floor 53. The first entrance 71, the second entrance 72 and the third entrance 73 are collectively referred to as entrances. A user who parks the vehicle 30 in the parking lot 6 exits the vehicle 30, goes to the complex facility 5 through any of the entrances, and visits one of the shops located in the complex facility 5” for a shopping center with a plurality of entrances)
doorway information indicating respective locations of the doorways is further acquired (see [0063] "The terminal controller 11 acquires the position of each entrance included in the complex facility 5 and determines the candidate entrance corresponding to each candidate shop based on the position of the candidate shop. The terminal controller 11 may, for example, determine the entrance closest to the candidate shop as the candidate entrance")
and the first area is a parking area which is within the first predetermined distance from the (see [0068] “The terminal controller 11 may determine the parking space closest to the entrance to be used among the parking spaces where the vehicle 30 can park, or a parking space located within a predetermined distance from the entrance to be used, as the space to be used”)
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 a parking space within predetermined distance from a store entrance of Fujimori 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 Fujimori 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.
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 within a predetermined distance of an entrance that is the shortest distance from the storage location of the ordered commodity of Fujimori into the combination of Liguori and Yoo. As Fujimori states in [0097] “The terminal controller 11 may determine the entrance with the shortest walking distance from the shop to be used as the entrance to be used. This can also improve convenience for the user”. Accordingly, by incorporating the teachings of Fujimori into the combination of Liguori and Yoo, 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, Yoo, and Fujimori 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, Yoo, and Fujimori 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, Yoo, and Fujimori 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, Yoo, and Fujimori 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, Yoo, Fujimori, 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 Fujimori, 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, Yoo, Fujimori, 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, Yoo, Fujimori, 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, Yoo, Fujimori, 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 Yoo, Fujimori, Urai et al. (WIPO Publication No. 2022/168265, hereafter known as Urai), and Goulart.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Liguori, Yoo, and Fujimori 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, the combination of Liguori and Yoo does not explicitly teach the first area being a parking area within a predetermined distance from a first doorway. The combination of Liguori and Yoo 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. Fujimori further teaches:
wherein the store has a plurality of doorways (see [0040] “The parking lot 6 adjacent to the complex facility 5 includes a first parking floor 61, a second parking floor 62, and a third parking floor 63. The first entrance 71 is located between the first parking floor 61 and the first shop floor 51. The second entrance 72 is located between the second parking floor 62 and the second shop floor 52. The third entrance 73 is located between the third parking floor 63 and the third shop floor 53. The first entrance 71, the second entrance 72 and the third entrance 73 are collectively referred to as entrances. A user who parks the vehicle 30 in the parking lot 6 exits the vehicle 30, goes to the complex facility 5 through any of the entrances, and visits one of the shops located in the complex facility 5” for a shopping center with a plurality of entrances)
doorway information indicating respective locations of the doorways, (see [0063] "The terminal controller 11 acquires the position of each entrance included in the complex facility 5 and determines the candidate entrance corresponding to each candidate shop based on the position of the candidate shop. The terminal controller 11 may, for example, determine the entrance closest to the candidate shop as the candidate entrance")
and the first area is a parking area which is within the first predetermined distance from the (see [0068] “The terminal controller 11 may determine the parking space closest to the entrance to be used among the parking spaces where the vehicle 30 can park, or a parking space located within a predetermined distance from the entrance to be used, as the space to be used”)
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 a parking space within predetermined distance from a store entrance of Fujimori 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 Fujimori 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.
Furthermore, 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 within a predetermined distance of an entrance that is the shortest distance from the storage location of the ordered commodity of Fujimori into the combination of Liguori and Yoo. As Fujimori states in [0097] “The terminal controller 11 may determine the entrance with the shortest walking distance from the shop to be used as the entrance to be used. This can also improve convenience for the user”. Accordingly, by incorporating the teachings of Fujimori into the combination of Liguori and Yoo, 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, Yoo, and Fujimori 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, Yoo, and Fujimori. 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, Yoo, and Fujimori.
The combination of Liguori, Yoo, Fujimori, 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 Fujimori, 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, Yoo, Fujimori, 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, Yoo, Fujimori, 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, Yoo, Fujimori, 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 Yoo, Fujimori, and Urai.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Liguori, Yoo, and Fujimori 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, Yoo, and Fujimori 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, Yoo, and Fujimori, 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, Yoo, and Fujimori 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, Yoo, and Fujimori still does not explicitly teach the specific commodity includes at least one of a fresh food, a frozen food, a precision machine, a piece of furniture, a refrigerator, a washing machine, and a television. Urai teaches:
wherein the specific commodity includes at least one of a fresh food, a frozen food, a precision machine, a piece of furniture, a refrigerator, a washing machine, and a television (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, Yoo, and Fujimori, 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 Yoo and Langos (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2006/0076397, hereafter known as Langos).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Liguori and Yoo 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, the combination of Liguori and Yoo 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 the combination of Liguori and Yoo 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 the combination of Liguori and Yoo 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 the combination of Liguori and Yoo 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 Yoo and Longino (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2014/0244437, hereafter known as Longino).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Liguori and Yoo 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, the combination of Liguori and Yoo 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 combination of Liguori and Yoo. 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 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liguori in view of Yoo and Ducrou et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,482,421; hereafter known as Ducrou).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Liguori and Yoo teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Liguori further teaches human employees performing the deliveries to customer vehicles. Accordingly, the combination of Liguori and Yoo does not explicitly teach outputting, to a delivery machine without a person that carries the commodity, a control command of making the delivery machine move along a delivery route from a delivery start point in the store to a commodity receipt location within a predetermined distance from the parking location. Ducrou teaches:
outputting, to a delivery machine without a person that carries the commodity, a control command of making the delivery machine move along a delivery route from a delivery start point in the store to a commodity receipt location within a predetermined distance from the parking location (see Col. 7 lines 36-52 “Dispatch data may be provided to the attendant 140 by way of one or more attendant devices 142. For example, the attendant devices 142 may comprise tablets, wearable devices, display screens, and so forth. Responsive to the dispatch data, the attendant 140 gathers the staged order 126 and may place it in or on one or more totes 144. The tote 144 may comprise a bag, basket, a cart, and so forth. In some implementations where the staged order 126 comprises a single item 112 that is easily carried, the tote 144 may be omitted. Further, responsive to the dispatch data, the attendant 140 proceeds with the tote 144 to a parking space 106. The parking space 106 may be determined based on data from sensors 118 at the facility 102. For example, the sensors 118 may comprise cameras configured to read the license plate number of the vehicle 108 and determine a parking space 106 that the vehicle 108 has parked in” and Col. 7 lines 56-64 “While the attendant 140 is described in this disclosure primarily as being a human, in some implementations, the attendant 140 may comprise a robot or other device. For example, the attendant 140 may comprise a tote 144 that is equipped for autonomous or semi-autonomous operation. In some implementations, a human operator may direct the robotic attendant 140 and may interact with the user 128, such as via a video chat facilitated by a camera and a display device onboard the robotic attendant 140” for issuing a dispatch command to an autonomous delivery tote without a human to bring items from a store to a user’s vehicle at the vehicle parking spot. Examiner is interpreting the commodity receipt location of the vehicle parking space as being within a predetermined distance (i.e. the size of the parking spot) from the parking location)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of issuing dispatch commands to autonomous delivery totes to bring ordered items from a store to a parking spot of a customer of Ducrou to the combination of Liguori and Yoo 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 the combination of Liguori and Yoo 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 issuing dispatch commands to autonomous delivery totes to bring ordered items from a store to a parking spot of a customer. Further, applying issuing dispatch commands to autonomous delivery totes to bring ordered items from a store to a parking spot of a customer to the combination of Liguori and Yoo would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow for more consistent and higher throughput of curbside delivery orders in the combined system. Particularly Liguori contemplates and accounts for staffing issues of human employees who are to make the deliveries out to customer cars in [0044] and their effect on the ability to serve customers at a location in [0039]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that by incorporating autonomous delivery totes of Ducrou into the curbside delivery system of Liguori and Yoo, the combined system would alleviate the need for staffing actions of Liguori and make the delivery process offered to customers less dependent of staffing.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Gong et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2020/0164510) teaches a robot loading a customer’s order into their vehicle at a parking spot
Pugh (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2019/0172123) teaches diverting customers with large orders from a drive-thru lane to a designated parking waiting area
Manyam (U.S. Patent No. 12,073,629) teaches identifying users arriving at a facility based on what vehicle they arrive to the facility in
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, Nathan Uber can be reached at (571) 270-3923. 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
/NATHAN C UBER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights