DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the claims filed on 22 August 2024.
Claims 1-16 are currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japanese on 02 February 2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of an English translation of the JP2022-025920 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
The English language translation of a non-English language foreign application must be filed together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate.
According to 37 C.F.R. 1.55(g):
(3) An English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is not required except:
(i) When the application is involved in an interference (see § 41.202 of this chapter) or derivation (see part 42 of this chapter) proceeding;
(ii) When necessary to overcome the date of a reference relied upon by the examiner; or
(iii) When specifically required by the examiner.
(4) If an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, it must be filed together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate.
As in accordance to 37 C.F.R. 1.55(g)(3)(iii), the English translation of a non-English language foreign application is required when specifically required by the examiner. Examiner is requiring the filing of the certified English translation due to pertinent art filed between the U.S. filing date (22 August 2024) and the foreign Japanese filing date (02 February 2022).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. It is also noted the contingent limitation in claim 1 and in claim 14 would need to be addressed in order for claim 14 to be allowable. See the 103 rejection for claim 1 below for further details.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
an acquisition part… in claim 15;
a determination part… in claim 15;
a decision part… in claim 15; and
an output part… in claim 15.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-14; 15; and 16 are rejected under 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-14; 15; and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Representative claim 1 recites:
acquiring a user ID, desired time information associated with the user ID and indicating a desired time or a desired timeframe for receiving a commodity, and ordered commodity information associated with the user ID;
determining, on the basis of the desired time information and the ordered commodity information, whether an ordered commodity indicated by the ordered commodity information is receivable at the desired time or in the desired timeframe;
deciding a receipt time or a receipt timeframe for the ordered commodity when the ordered commodity is determined to be receivable at the desired time or in the desired timeframe; and
outputting receipt time information indicating the receipt time or the receipt timeframe. Therefore, the claim is directed to “providing information about delivery of commodities at a store”, which is a method of organizing human activity because it is a sales activity.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites the following additional element(s): a computer. The additional element individually or in combination do not integrate the exception into a practical application because it merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, this additional element(s) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 1 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 element(s) individually and in combination merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Accordingly, claim 1 is ineligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2-14 merely further limit the abstract idea and are thereby considered to be ineligible.
Claim(s) 15; and 16 are parallel in nature to claim(s) 1. Accordingly claim(s) 15; and 16 are rejected as being directed towards ineligible subject matter based upon the same analysis as claim 1.
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 7; 15; and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carr et al. (US 2016/0148300 A1) in view of Smith (US 2022/0101414 A1).
Claim 1 –
As per claim 1, Carr discloses an information processing method for providing information about delivery of commodities at a store, the information processing method comprising:
by a computer,
acquiring a user ID, desired time information associated with the user ID and indicating a desired time or a desired timeframe for receiving a commodity, and ordered commodity information associated with the user ID; (“The customer order will include at least one good, and…may include a customer identification number” in paragraph [0053]; and “the customer may enter a desired pick-up date and time” in paragraph [0074]; Fig. 9) and
outputting receipt time information indicating the receipt time or the receipt timeframe. (see “customer orders are finalized and presented via second server 28 after being finalized” in paragraph [0082])
Carr does not disclose:
determining, on the basis of the desired time information and the ordered commodity information, whether an ordered commodity indicated by the ordered commodity information is receivable at the desired time or in the desired timeframe; and
deciding a receipt time or a receipt timeframe for the ordered commodity when the ordered commodity is determined to be receivable at the desired time or in the desired timeframe;
Smith teaches determining, on the basis of the desired time information and the ordered commodity information, whether an ordered commodity indicated by the ordered commodity information is receivable at the desired time or in the desired timeframe (see “ a user can select the time slot before selecting the items in the order” in paragraph [0056]; “activity 420 of determining real-time availabilities of first time slots at the primary store and real-time availabilities of second time slots at the one or more secondary stores” in paragraph [0062]; and “activity 460 of determining whether all items in the order are available at a secondary store of the one or more secondary stores associated with the time slot” in paragraph [0080]; Fig.4 of Smith); and deciding a receipt time or a receipt timeframe for the ordered commodity when the ordered commodity is determined to be receivable at the desired time or in the desired timeframe (see “date selector 940 can allow the user to select a date in order to display pickup time slots that are available on that date” in paragraph [0070]; “once the user selects a time slot option (e.g., 951-955), such as by using selector 961, the time slot associated with that time slot option can be used for pickup at the store” in paragraph [0071]; Fig. 9 of Smith). This step of Smith is applicable to the method of Carr as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to picking up orders at a store at a selected time. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Carr to include determining the availability of the desired time and a receipt of the time as taught by Smith. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Carr in order to smoothen demand across stores within a region, and/or can provide transparency and increased same day slot availability to the customer (see paragraph [0043] of Smith).
Additionally, in regard to claim 1, the Examiner further notes the recited "when the ordered commodity is determined to be receivable…" in line 10 does not move to distinguish the claimed invention from the cited art. These phrases are conditional/contingent limitations with the noted "deciding a receipt time or a receipt timeframe" step not necessarily performed. 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. Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. [See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system claims.; MPEP §2111.04 II]. However, for compact prosecution the examiner has cited to prior art.
Claim 2 –
Carr in view of Smith teach the method of claim 1 as described above.
Carr does not disclose the limitation below. However, Smith further teaches a method:
wherein, in the outputting, when the ordered commodity is determined to be unreceivable at the desired time or in the desired timeframe, a change request for a change of the desired time or the desired timeframe is output. (see “button 1150 can allow the user to reject the selected time slot, such as because the user is unwilling to use a secondary store in which one or more of the items in item listing 1130 are unavailable” in paragraph [0084]; Fig. 11 of Smith)
The motivation for making this modification to the disclosure of Carr is the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 1.
Additionally, in regard to claim 2, the Examiner further notes the recited "when the ordered commodity is determined to be unreceivable…" in line 2 does not move to distinguish the claimed invention from the cited art. These phrases are conditional/contingent limitations with the noted "outputting a change request" step not necessarily performed. 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. Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. [See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system claims.; MPEP §2111.04 II]. However, for compact prosecution the examiner has cited to prior art.
Claim 3 –
Carr in view of Smith teach the method of claim 1 as described above.
Carr does not disclose the limitation below. However, Smith teaches a method further comprising:
acquiring a current time, (see “real-time availabilities” in paragraph [0088] of Smith)
wherein, in the determining, a picking-up period required to pick up the ordered commodity is calculated on the basis of the ordered commodity information, (“the real-time availability of a time slots can be based on whether or not the time slot is filled to capacity with orders (i.e., unavailable) or not yet filled to capacity (i.e., available)” in paragraph [0062]; “Heat maps 700 and 800 can indicate a level of utilization for each time slot, with red indicating very high utilization and green indicating low utilization.” in paragraph [0063]; and “the description can indicate that a secondary store can be used for the select time slot, but that some of the items are not available at that secondary store” in paragraph [0083]; Fig. 7-8) and
it is determined on the basis of the current time and the picking-up period whether the ordered commodity is receivable at the desired time or in the desired timeframe. (see paragraphs [0062]-[0063], and [0083]; Fig. 7-8)
The motivation for making this modification to the disclosure of Carr is the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 7 –
Carr in view of Smith teach the method of claim 1 as described above.
Carr further discloses a method:
wherein, in the outputting, display information about a location of the ordered commodity and a route for picking up the ordered commodity is output. (see “picking route” in paragraph [0077]; and “The display 72 may also present the picking route to the employee; indicating how the employee should progress through the store 20 while collecting items for the customer order(s).” in paragraph [0079])
Claim 15 –
Claim 15 is directed to a device. Claim 15 recites limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 1 which is directed towards a method. Claim 15 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 1.
Claim 16 –
Claim 16 is directed to a medium. Claim 16 recites limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 1 which is directed towards a method. Claim 15 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 1.
Claims 4-6 and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carr et al. (US 2016/0148300 A1) in view of Smith (US 2022/0101414 A1) and further in view of Krishnamoorthy et al. (US 2022/0327599 A1).
Claim 4 –
Carr in view of Smith teach the method of claim 3 as described above.
Carr does not disclose the limitation below. However, Smith teaches a method, further comprising:
acquiring crowdedness timeframe information indicating a crowdedness timeframe of the store (see “Heat maps 700 and 800 can indicate a level of utilization for each time slot, with red indicating very high utilization and green indicating low utilization.” in paragraph [0063] of Smith),
The motivation for making this modification to the disclosure of Carr is the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 1.
Carr in view of Smith do not teach:
wherein, in the determining, it is determined whether a pickup time obtained by adding the picking-up period with respect to the current time falls within the crowdedness timeframe, and
when the pickup time is determined not to fall within the crowdedness timeframe, it is determined whether the ordered commodity is receivable at the desired time or in the desired timeframe on the basis of determination as to whether the pickup time is earlier than the desired time.
Krishnamoorthy teaches wherein, in the determining, it is determined whether a pickup time obtained by adding the picking-up period with respect to the current time falls within the crowdedness timeframe (see “inputs 316” and “The number of timeslots within the first set of timeslots may be set based on availability of time within a given working day for the retail store 116 to service customer orders and an average or median service time to service each customer order.” in paragraph [0053]; and “the capacity constraint may set the number of customer orders to be scheduled for the in-store pickup within each timeslot of the first set of timeslots” in paragraph [0061] of Krishnamoorthy); and when the pickup time is determined not to fall within the crowdedness timeframe, it is determined whether the ordered commodity is receivable at the desired time or in the desired timeframe on the basis of determination as to whether the pickup time is earlier than the desired time (see “The objective function information 316E may include…the expectation of the customer 120 may be met or even exceeded if the customer order is ready for pickup at the retail store 116 or at a parking spot of the retail store 116 before or at the start of a half hour timeslot booked by the customer 120 for the order pickup.” in paragraph [0059]; and “capacity constraint” in paragraphs [0061]-[0062] of Krishnamoorthy). This step of Smith is applicable to the method of Krishnamoorthy as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to scheduling an order pick up at a store. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined method of Carr in view of Smith to include determining the pickup time occurs before the crowdedness timeframe as taught by Krishnamoorthy. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the combination of Carr in view of Smith in order to give the retail store time to prepare the order (see paragraph [0003] of Krishnamoorthy).
Additionally, in regard to claim 4, the Examiner further notes the recited "when the pickup time is determined not to fall within the crowdedness timeframe…" in line 6 does not move to distinguish the claimed invention from the cited art. These phrases are conditional/contingent limitations with the noted "it is determined whether the ordered commodity is receivable at the desired time or timeframe" step not necessarily performed. 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. Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. [See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system claims.; MPEP §2111.04 II]. However, for compact prosecution the examiner has cited to prior art.
Claim 5 –
Carr in view of Smith teach the method of claim 3 as described above.
Carr in view of Smith teach do not teach the limitation below. However, Krishnamoorthy further teaches a method:
wherein, in the calculating of the picking-up period, the picking-up period is calculated on the basis of the number of ordered commodities indicated by the ordered commodity information. (see “order preparation constraints may include an average time or a median time that may be required by each human worker to service a sub-order of a certain size” in paragraph [0055] of Krishnamoorthy)
The motivation for making this modification to the teachings of Carr in view of Smith is the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 4.
Claim 6 –
Carr in view of Smith teach the method of claim 3 as described above.
Carr further discloses a method, further comprising:
acquiring commodity location information indicating respective locations of the commodities at the store, (see “The second server 28 may include a layout of the store 20 which indicates which types of items are found on the various aisles in the store 20.” in paragraph [0077])
Carr in view of Smith do not teach the limitation below. However, Krishnamoorthy further teaches a method:
wherein in the calculating of the picking-up period,
a location of the ordered commodity is specified on the basis of the commodity location information and the ordered commodity information, (see “the order preparation constraints may include an average time or a median time that may be required by each human worker to service a sub-order of a certain size, including items associated with a certain department or sub-department of the retail store 116.” in paragraph [0055] of Krishnamoorthy) and
the picking-up period is calculated on the basis of the location of the ordered commodity. (see paragraph [0055] of Krishnamoorthy)
The motivation for making this modification to the teachings of Carr in view of Smith is the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 4.
Claim 8 –
Carr in view of Smith teach the method of claim 3 as described above.
Carr in view of Smith do not teach the limitation below. However Krishnamoorth teaches a method, further comprising:
determining a clerk to pick up the ordered commodity (see paragraphs [0055]-[0057] and [0062] of Krishnamoorthy);
acquiring schedule information associated with a clerk ID of the clerk and indicating a scheduled picking-up period being a picking-up period having been scheduled for the clerk (see “worker device 108A” in paragraph [0030] and paragraphs [0055]-[0057] and [0062] of Krishnamoorthy);
calculating an available period for the clerk by subtracting the scheduled picking-up period from the desired timeframe; (see paragraphs [0055]-[0057] and [0062] of Krishnamoorthy)
determining whether the picking-up period exceeds the available period; (see paragraphs [0055]-[0057] and [0062] of Krishnamoorthy) and
determining that the ordered commodity is receivable at the desired time or in the desired timeframe when the picking-up period does not exceed the available period. (see paragraphs [0055]-[0057] and [0062] of Krishnamoorthy)
The motivation for making this modification to the teachings of Carr in view of Smith is the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 4.
Additionally, in regard to claim 8, the Examiner further notes the recited "when the picking-up period does not exceed the available period" in line 9 does not move to distinguish the claimed invention from the cited art. These phrases are conditional/contingent limitations with the noted "determining that the ordered commodity is receivable…" step not necessarily performed. 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. Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. [See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system claims.; MPEP §2111.04 II]. However, for compact prosecution the examiner has cited to prior art.
Claim 9 –
Carr in view of Smith and further in view of Krishnamoorthy teach the method of claim 8 as described above. Carr in view of Smith do not teach the limitation below. However, Krishnamoorthy teaches a method, further comprising:
determining whether the ordered commodity indicated by the ordered commodity information includes a specific commodity, wherein the available period is calculated when the ordered commodity includes the specific commodity. (see paragraphs [0053]-[0054] of Krishnamoorthy) and
The motivation for making this modification to the teachings of Carr in view of Smith is the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 4.
Additionally, in regard to claim 8, the Examiner further notes the recited "when the ordered commodity includes the specific commodity" in line 9 does not move to distinguish the claimed invention from the cited art. These phrases are conditional/contingent limitations with the noted "the available period is calculated" step not necessarily performed. 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. Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. [See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system claims.; MPEP §2111.04 II]. However, for compact prosecution the examiner has cited to prior art.
Claim 10 –
Carr in view of Smith teach the method of claim 3 as described above.
Carr does not disclose the limitation below. However, Smith teaches a method, further comprising:
acquiring crowdedness timeframe information indicating a crowdedness timeframe of the store; (see Fig. 7-8 of Smith)
The motivation for making this modification to the disclosure of Carr is the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 1.
Carr in view of Smith do not teach the limitations below. However, Krishnamoorthy teaches a method:
determining a clerk to pick up the ordered commodity; (see paragraphs [0055]-[0057] and [0062] of Krishnamoorthy)
acquiring a scheduled picking-up period being a picking-up period which is associated with a clerk ID of the clerk and has been scheduled; (see “worker device 108A” in paragraph [0030] and paragraph [0056] of Krishnamoorthy)
calculating an available period for the clerk by subtracting the crowdedness timeframe and the scheduled picking-up period from the desired timeframe; (see paragraphs [0061]-[0062] of Krishnamoorthy)
determining whether the picking-up period exceeds the available period; (see paragraphs [0055]-[0057] and [0062] of Krishnamoorthy) and
determining that the ordered commodity is receivable at the desired time or in the desired timeframe when the picking-up period does not exceed the available period. (see paragraphs [0055]-[0057] and [0061]-[0062] of Krishnamoorthy)
The motivation for making this modification to the teachings of Carr in view of Smith is the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 4.
Additionally, in regard to claim 10, the Examiner further notes the recited "when the picking-up period does not exceed the available period" in line 11 does not move to distinguish the claimed invention from the cited art. These phrases are conditional/contingent limitations with the noted "determining that the ordered commodity is receivable…" step not necessarily performed. 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. Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. [See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system claims.; MPEP §2111.04 II]. However, for compact prosecution the examiner has cited to prior art.
Claim 11 –
Carr in view of Smith and further in view of Krishnamoorthy teach the method of claim 8 as described above. Carr in view of Smith do not teach the limitations below. However, Krishnamoorthy teaches a method, further comprising:
calculating an available period for another clerk when the picking-up period exceeds the available period, (see paragraphs [0055]-[0057] and [0062] of Krishnamoorthy) and
determining whether the picking-up period exceeds the available period for the another clerk. (see paragraphs [0055]-[0057] and [0062] of Krishnamoorthy)
The motivation for making this modification to the teachings of Carr in view of Smith is the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 4.
Additionally, in regard to claim 11, the Examiner further notes the recited "when the picking-up period exceeds the available period" in line 2 does not move to distinguish the claimed invention from the cited art. These phrases are conditional/contingent limitations with the noted "calculating an available period for another clerk…" step not necessarily performed. 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. Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. [See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system claims.; MPEP §2111.04 II]. However, for compact prosecution the examiner has cited to prior art.
Claim 12 –
Carr in view of Smith and further in view of Krishnamoorthy teach the method of claim 11 as described above. Carr does not disclose the limitation below. However, Smith teaches a method, further comprising:
outputting a change request for a change of the desired time or the desired timeframe when the picking-up period exceeds the available period for the another clerk. (see “button 1150 can allow the user to reject the selected time slot, such as because the user is unwilling to use a secondary store in which one or more of the items in item listing 1130 are unavailable” in paragraph [0084]; Fig. 11 of Smith)
The motivation for making this modification to the disclosure of Carr is the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 1.
Additionally, in regard to claim 12, the Examiner further notes the recited "when the picking-up period exceeds the available period for the another clerk " in line 2 does not move to distinguish the claimed invention from the cited art. These phrases are conditional/contingent limitations with the noted "outputting a change request…" step not necessarily performed. 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. Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. [See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system claims.; MPEP §2111.04 II]. However, for compact prosecution the examiner has cited to prior art.
Claim 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carr et al. (US 2016/0148300 A1) in view of Smith (US 2022/0101414 A1) and further in view of Rademaker (US 2016/0247113 A1).
Claim 13 –
Carr in view of Smith teach the method of claim 1 as described above.
Carr in view of Smith do not teach a method, further comprising:
acquiring location information about a user terminal carried by the user and traffic information about a traffic in a periphery of the store;
estimating an arrival time of the user on the basis of the traffic information when the user terminal is located in the periphery of the store a predetermined period before the receipt time or the receipt timeframe; and
outputting the arrival time.
Rademaker teaches acquiring location information about a user terminal carried by the user and traffic information about a traffic in a periphery of the store (see “a mapping service provider 212 to determine a path from the current location of the customer to the retailer location, or to a point within the predetermined radius from the retailer location...traffic information may also be used to determine predicted rates of travel for the segments of the path” in paragraph [0061] of Rademaker); estimating an arrival time of the user on the basis of the traffic information when the user terminal is located in the periphery of the store a predetermined period before the receipt time or the receipt timeframe (see paragraph [0061] of Rademaker); and outputting the arrival time (see “order management engine 314 transmits an order notification to the retailer at the retailer location, the order notification including an identification of the product and the predicted arrival time.” in paragraph [0062] of Rademaker). This step of Smith is applicable to the method of Rademaker as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to scheduling an order pick up at a store. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined method of Carr in view of Smith to include estimating the arrival time of the user as taught by Rademaker. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the combination of Carr in view of Smith in order to coordinate preparation/fulfillment of the product by the retailer to coincide with the customer’s arrival at the retailer (see paragraph [0017] of Rademaker).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RESHA DESAI whose telephone number is (571)270-7792. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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.
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.
/RESHA DESAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628