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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This non-final Office action is in response to applicant’s communication received on November 12, 2024, wherein claims 2-18 (see claim objection below) are currently pending. Claim 1 is a cancelled claim.
Claim Objections
Claim 17/18 (currently listed independent claim 17) is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim set shows two claim 17s. One is dependent claim 17 and the other is independent claim 17. The independent claim 17 (listed after the dependent claim 17), seems to be mistakenly listed as claim “17” and it seems should have been claim 18 instead. For examining purposes, the independent claim “17” will be considered as claim 18 and referred to as claim 18 in the rest of the Office action and rejections below. Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 2-18 of current application 18/817,758 (hereinafter ‘758) are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory anticipatory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,106,276 (hereinafter ‘276). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the independent claims of the current application ‘758 are just broader than the claims presented in Pat. ‘276. The claimed concepts in the current application ‘758 are fully encompassed by Pat. ‘276. For example, independent claims 1, 11, and 17 of ‘276 fully encompass the current application’s (‘758) claims 2, 12, 18. Furthermore the dependent claims of current application ‘758 (claims 3-11, 13-17) are also fully encompassed by claims 2-10 and 12-16 of Pat. ‘276. See exemplary Table 1. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the slight differences between the claim language/limitations of the corresponding claims as being directed towards intention, non-functional and non-structural field-of-use language, slight variations in terminology, or obvious variants of claim elements, and therefore these claims are not patentably distinct from one another despite these slight differences. The Applicant may have reworded some of the limitations of the independent and dependent claims but the concepts claimed in the current application are all also presented in the claims of patent ‘276.
Table 1 (exemplary):
18/817,758 (current application)
Pat. No. 12,106,276
Claims 2, 12, 18
Claims 1, 11, 18
Claim 3
Claim 2
Claim 4
Claim 3
Claim 5
Claim 4
Claim 6
Claim 5
Claim 7
Claim 6
Claim 8
Claim 7
Claim 9
Claim 8
Claim 10
Claim 9
Claim 11
Claim 10
Claim 13
Claim 12
Claim 14
Claim 13
Claim 15
Claim 14
Claim 16
Claim 15
Claim 17
Claim 16
The claimed concepts in the current application ‘758 is fully anticipated (and encompassed) by Patent ‘276.
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 2-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding Step 1 (MPEP 2106.03) of the subject matter eligibility test per MPEP 2106.03, Claims 2-11 are directed to a method (i.e., process), claims 12-17 are directed to a system (i.e. machine), and claim 18 is directed to non-transitory computer program product (i.e. product or article of manufacture). Accordingly, all claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
(Under Step 2) The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
(Under Step 2A, Prong 1 (MPEP 2106.04)) The independent claims (2, 12, 18) and dependent claims (3-11, 13-17) recite obtaining/receiving information/data (the information is abstract in nature – e.g. attributes, location information, etc.,), data analysis and manipulation to determine more abstract information/data (e.g. determining data, associations, characterizations, etc.,), and providing/displaying this determined information/data (for possible further decision-making and instructions). The limitations of the independent claims (2, 12, 18) and dependent claims (3-11, 13-17), under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers methods of organizing human activity (fundamental economic principles or practices and managing user interactions and behavior in the inventory management). If claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation as fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including scheduling, social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), then it falls within the organizing human activities grouping of abstract ideas. (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance – Federal Register, Vol. 84, Vol. 4, January 07, 2019, pages 50-57). Accordingly, as discussed above, since Applicant's claims fall under organizing human activities grouping, the claims recite an abstract idea.
(Under Step 2A, prong 2 (MPEP 2106.04(d))) This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because but for the recitation of old/well-known generic/general-purpose computing/technology components/elements/terms (see listing below), in the context of the independent claims (2, 12, 18) and dependent claims (3-11, 13-17), the independent claims and dependent claims encompass the above stated abstract idea ((organizing human activity (fundamental economic principles or practices and managing user interactions and behavior in the inventory management)) – see above). The old/well-known generic/general-purpose computing/technology components/elements/terms/limitations used in the claims (and in the specification) by the Applicant are in the following list/listing (additional elements):
fuel dispenser, generic sensors, graphical display (which user also interacts with), transmitting using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components, servers, mobile devices, terminals (e.g. point-of sale), etc., (in Independent claim 2 and it’s dependent claims 3-11);
system, processors, memories, fuel dispenser, generic sensors, transmitting using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components, graphical display, mobile devices, terminals (e.g. point-of sale), etc., (in independent claim 12 and it’s dependent claims 13-17); and
non-transitory computer program product, processor, computing system, fuel dispenser, transmitting using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components, etc., (independent claim 18).
(hereinafter the above list/listing will be referred to as “generic/general-purpose computing/technology components/elements/terms/limitations (see list/listing above)” or “additional elements (see list/listing above)” in the rest of the §101 rejection – i.e. whenever “generic/general-purpose computing/technology components/elements/terms/limitations (see list/listing above)” or “additional elements (see list/listing above)” is used/stated in the rest of the §101 rejection it is referring to and incorporates the above list/listing).
As shown above, the independent claims (2, 12, 18) and dependent claims (3-11, 13-17) and specification recite generic/general-purpose computing/technology components/elements/terms/limitations (see list/listing above) which are recited at a high level of generality performing generic/general purpose computer/computing functions. (MPEP 2106.04; and also see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance – Federal Register, Vol. 84, Vol. 4, January 07, 2019, page 53-55). The generic/general-purpose computing/technology components/elements/terms/limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception (the above abstract idea) in an apply-it fashion using generic/general-purpose computing/technology components/elements/terms/limitations (see list/listing above). The CAFC has stated that it is not enough, however, to merely improve abstract processes by invoking a computer merely as a tool. Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2020). The focus of the claims is simply to use computers and a familiar network as a tool to perform abstract processes (discussed above) involving simple information exchange. Carrying out abstract processes involving information exchange is an abstract idea. See, e.g., BSG, 899 F.3d at 1286; SAP America, 898 F.3d at 1167-68; Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1261-62 (Fed. Cir. 2016). And use of standard computers and networks to carry out those functions—more speedily, more efficiently, more reliably—does not make the claims any less directed to that abstract idea. See Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 222-25; Customedia, 951 F.3d at 1364; Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2019); SAP America, 898 F.3d at 1167; Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Electric Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Accordingly, the additional elements (see list/listing above) do not integrate the abstract idea in to a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea – i.e. they are just post-solution/extra-solution activities.
(Under Step 2B (MPEP 2106.05)) The independent claims (2, 12, 18) and dependent claims (3-11, 13-17) do not include additional elements (see list/listing above) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The independent claims (2, 12, 18) and dependent claims (3-11, 13-17) recite using known generic/general-purpose computing/technology components/elements/terms/limitations (see list/listing above). For the role of a computer in a computer implemented invention to be deemed meaningful in the context of this analysis, it must involve more than performance of "well-understood, routine, [and] conventional activities previously known to the industry." Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (U.S. 2014), at 2359 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294 (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted)). These activities as claimed by the Applicant are all well-known and routine tasks in the field of art – as can been seen in the specification of Applicant’s application (for example, see Applicant’s specification at, for example, ¶¶ 0063 and 0065-0067 [general-purpose/generic computers/processors/etc., and generic/general-purpose computing components/devices/etc.,], 0022-0024 [general-purpose/generic computers/processors/etc., and generic/general-purpose computing components/devices/etc.,], 0058-0060 [general-purpose/generic computers/processors/etc., and generic/general-purpose computing components/devices/etc.,]) and/or the specification of the below cited art (used in the rejection below and on the PTO-892) and/or also as noted in the court cases in §2106.05 in the MPEP. Further, "the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Alice, at 2358. None of the hardware offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the system to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. Adding generic computer components to perform generic functions that are well‐understood, routine and conventional, such as gathering data, performing calculations, and outputting a result would not transform the claim into eligible subject matter. Abstract ideas are excluded from patent eligibility based on a concern that monopolization of the basic tools of scientific and technological work might impede innovation more than it would promote it. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. The additional element(s) or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se amount(s) to no more than: (i) mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, and/or (ii) recitation of generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Applicant is directed to the following citations and references: Digitech Image., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc.(U.S. Patent No. 6,128,415); and (2) Federal register/Vol. 79, No 241 issued on December 16, 2014, page 74629, column 2, Gottschalk v. Benson. Viewed as a whole, the claims do not purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself, or to improve any other technology or technical field. Use of an unspecified, generic computer does not transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Thus, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (U.S. 2014).
The dependent claims (3-11, 13-17) (as also discussed above) further define the independent claims and merely narrow the described abstract idea, but not adding significantly more than the abstract idea. The above rejection includes and details the discussion of dependent claims and the above rejection applies to all the dependent claim limitations. In summary, the dependent claims further state using obtained data/information (where the information itself is abstract in nature), obtaining/receiving information/data (the information is abstract in nature – e.g. attributes, location information, etc.,), data analysis and manipulation to determine more abstract information/data (e.g. determining data, associations, characterizations, etc.,), and providing/displaying this determined information/data (for possible further decision-making and instructions). These claims are directed towards organizing human activities (fundamental economic principles or practices and managing user interactions and behavior in the inventory management). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (as discussed above) because the claims and specification recite generic/general-purpose computers and computing components/devices (fuel dispenser, generic sensors, transmitting using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components, graphical display, mobile devices, terminals (e.g. point-of sale), etc., (dependent claims 3-11); processors, memories, fuel dispenser, generic sensors, transmitting using generic/general-purpose communication devices/components, graphical display, mobile devices, terminals (e.g. point-of sale), etc., (dependent claims 13-17)) performing generic computer functions. (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance – Federal Register, Vol. 84, Vol. 4, January 07, 2019, page 53-55). The dependent claims also merely recites post-solution/extra-solution activities (with generic/general-purpose computers and/or computing components/devices/etc.,). The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea in to a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea – i.e. they are just post-solution/extra-solution activities. The dependent claims merely use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea without adding any new additional elements. Also, the dependent claims also do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the juridical exception because the additional elements either individually or in combination are merely an extension of the abstract idea itself (also see detailed discussion above).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Field-Darragh et al., (US 2014/0279294) (hereinafter Field) in view of Terranova (US 6,882,900).
As per claim 2, Field discloses a method comprising:
collecting first data using an image sensor of a terminal/kiosk/store-device, the first data including image data of a terminal/kiosk/store-device user interacting with the terminal/kiosk/store-device (¶¶ 0065 [customer…information; see with 0164-0168 [camera…image sensors…gesture of user…camera…track physical movements of…user], 0172 [customer preference]], 0083 [customer…metrics and analytics; see with 0164-0168 [camera…image sensors…gesture of user…camera…track physical movements of…user], 0172 [customer preference]], 0084-0094 [data…location…item…location information…point of sale terminal…access…data…customer], 0055 [kiosk…terminal], 0076 [terminal…kiosk], 0111 [information about customer], 0177 [sale terminal…customer…make purchase], 0181 [location…store]);
transmitting the first data to a server, the first data characterizing an attribute of the terminal/kiosk/store-device user (see citations above and in addition see Fig. 2 ¶¶ 0058-0059 [transmission of data discussed; with 0055 [server]], 0075-0077 [communication and data movement within a network and server], 0097-0099 [transmit data…server…via…internet; with 0065 [customer…information], 0083 [customer…metrics and analytics], 0111 [information about customer], 0177 [sale terminal…customer…make purchase]]);
determining a first product that is associated with the terminal/kiosk/store-device user using a first predictive model performed by the server that predicts the association of the first product with the fuel dispenser user based on the attribute of the terminal/kiosk/store-device user (¶¶ 0015-0018 [determine the location and movement of an item or group of items. Data processing elements may then use the location, item lifecycle event history, and movement data for an item or multiple items as inputs to an order processing/fulfillment process that determines how to provide a customer or store employee with the item in a desired manner (e.g., fastest, at lowest total cost, in the best condition, with the least amount of customer effort, etc.)], 0060-0062 [order item…customer…fulfillment…requested item], 0113-0116 [collaborative filtering/recommendation algorithms, heuristics, or rules to data regarding item movement, movement of a category of items, the demographics of customers as related to such movements, the demographics of customers as related to purchases of such items (e.g., conversion rates) may alone or together provide information about customer behavior and generate new strategies for recommending items to customers]);
collecting second data in a first location of a store at a retail store/environment, the second data characterizing a listing of products stored in the first location (¶¶ 0015-0017 [location…item’s location…location…"movement profile" may then be used to assist in determining the most appropriate fulfillment process for an item…placement of an item or items within the physical space], 0025-0028 [determining a location of the item based on the accessed data; [0026] determining a fulfillment confidence score for the item, wherein, the fulfillment confidence score is based at least in part on data representing one or more locations within the store or warehouse at which the item has previously been located; and [0027] determining, based on the fulfillment confidence score, if the item is suitable for use in fulfilling the request], 0042 [location data…retail store…fulfillment], 0053-0054 [map…item location information… designates a physical location (e.g., a store or warehouse)]);
transmitting the second data to the server (see citations above and in addition see Fig. 2 ¶¶ 0058-0059 [transmission of data discussed; with 0055 [server]], 0075-0077 [communication and data movement within a network and server], 0097-0099 [transmit data…server…via…internet]);
determining third data that characterizes whether the first product is included in the listing of products stored at the first location based on a comparison of the first product to the second data performed by the server (¶¶ 0025-0028 [determining a location of the item based on the accessed data; [0026] determining a fulfillment confidence score for the item, wherein, the fulfillment confidence score is based at least in part on data representing one or more locations within the store or warehouse at which the item has previously been located; and [0027] determining, based on the fulfillment confidence score, if the item is suitable for use in fulfilling the request], 0042 [location data…retail store…fulfillment], 0053-0054 [map…item location information…designates a physical location (e.g., a store or warehouse)], 0058 [ag is affixed to an item and then is caused to transfer the data while located at a particular location. The location may be known in an absolute sense or in a relative sense (e.g., (1) the location of the tag and hence the item to which it is affixed is known to be associated with a structure or fixture, the location of which is known because it is fixed in relation to the structures contained in a store, (2) the item tag is scanned or detected by a receiving element positioned at a known location, or (3) the item tag is scanned or detected by one or more receiving elements having a known scan footprint or pattern). In this way, an item having a tag can be wirelessly and uniquely identified to be at a particular location in a physical space (e.g., a fixture in a retail store, a region of a store, or a shelf in a warehouse)], 0060 [fulfillment confidence score may be generated by a decision process that takes into consideration information about the requested item, its location…provide…options regarding the fulfillment process]; also see 0062 [the confidence scores of multiple items at a given location may be aggregated together and used to determine the suitability of that location for fulfilling the sales request…if a picker determines that an item chosen for fulfillment is unavailable or not in proper condition to be saleable, another of the same item or type of item may be readily located at or near the same location], 0061-0071, 0073-0075 [if an item having a tag is determined to be located at a particular location…inventory management (or other business) process may be initiated that corresponds to that particular location…an item (or order item)…unavailable to use to fulfill an order…an item (or order item) located on a hold rack or in a dressing room for longer than a predetermined time period may initiate a process whereby an employee is sent to relocate the item back to the sales floor of a retail store (thereby making it available to fulfill an order or a different order)… an order item located in an order processing area may initiate a process to have an employee ship that item to a customer to fulfill a sales request…processes may be initiated in accordance with different types of order items at different locations…movement profile or other data for the item may be updated so that the new data may be used as part of determining a current fulfillment confidence score]; see also 0079-0080, 0216);
determining a first command based on the determined third data using the server; and transmitting the first command (see citations above and in addition see ¶¶ 0018-0025 [tag transmit information…location within a store…determine the location and movement of item or group of items…using the identifying data for the first data transfer element to access data identifying the item and using the identifying data for the second data transfer element to access data identifying the structure or fixture, or the region of the store or warehouse; [0025] determining a location of the item based on the accessed data; [0026] determining a fulfillment confidence score for the item, wherein, the fulfillment confidence score is based at least in part on data representing one or more locations within the store or warehouse at which the item has previously been located; and [0027] determining, based on the fulfillment confidence score, if the item is suitable for use in fulfilling the request]; see also 0058-0059 [tag…transfer of data…location…tag can be wirelessly and uniquely identified to be at a particular location in a physical space (e.g., a fixture in a retail store, a region of a store, or a shelf in a warehouse)…data transmitted/transferred…communication…data transmitted by tags]).
Field discloses the concept occurring in a store (retail setting) (see citations above). However, Field does not state fuel dispenser and does not state fueling station (note that Applicant’s specification points to the retail store aspects in a fueling station).
Analogous art Terranova discloses customer interaction regarding retail at a fueling station and fuel dispenser (col. 1, lines 17-40 [gasoline pumps and service stations have evolved into elaborate point-of-sale (POS) devices having sophisticated control electronics and user interfaces…dispenser…payment…dispensers allow the customer to purchase services, such as car washes, and goods, such as fast food or convenience store products at the dispenser…the fuel dispenser is adapted to communicate with various types of remote communication devices]; col. 4, line 53 – col. 5, line 38 [fueling and retail environment provides customers 12 the opportunity to purchase fuel for their vehicles 14 as well as other goods and services… fueling and retail environment 10 may include one or more of a forecourt 16, where the fuel dispensers 18 are located, a convenience or fuel station store 20, one or more quick-serve restaurants (QSR)…convenience store… a customer 12 will be able to order a car wash at a fuel dispenser 18, at the transaction terminal or register 30 of the convenience store 20, at the QSR transaction terminal 34, or at the car wash interface 48 directly. Similarly, customers are able to order fast-food items from the QSR 22 from various locations in the fueling environment 10, including at the fuel dispensers 18, drive-thru order placement interface 44, and the in-store QSR terminal]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the system/method of Field customer/user retail interactions at a fueling station and fuel dispenser (terminal) as taught by analogous art Terranova in order to optimize, expedite and provide convenience to customers/users in fueling-station-retail environment where the kiosk/terminal is the terminal display at fuel dispenser since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Terranova (it is old and well-known of fueling station and store retail environment selling various products and that the fuel dispenser has kiosk type displays to help users/customers make purchases) 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 concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (See (1) 2007 Examination Guidelines for Determining Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. 103 in View of the Supreme Court Decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. - Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 195, October 10, 2007, pages 57526-57535; (2) 2010 Examination Guidelines Updated Developments in the Obviousness Inquiry After KSR v. Teleflex. -Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 169, September 01, 2010, pages 53643-53660; and (3) materials posted at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidelines-training-materials-view-ksr).
As per claim 12, claim 12 discloses substantially similar limitations as claim 2 above; and therefore claim 12 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning as presented above for claim 2.
As per claim 18, claim 18 discloses substantially similar limitations as claim 2 above; and therefore claim 18 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning as presented above for claim 2.
As per claim 3, Field discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the attribute of the terminal/kiosk/store-device user characterized by the first data includes a history of products purchased by the terminal/kiosk/store-device user, the history of products including the first product (see citations above and also see ¶¶ 0016, 0018 [data…item lifecycle event history… movement data for an item or multiple items…order processing/fulfillment…improve inventory management processes and to provide additional value-added services to customers], 0060 [fulfillment confidence score may be based on one or more of inventory confidence information, availability confidence information, item lifecycle event history, and location confidence information…consideration information about the requested item, its location, lifecycle event or movement history, the customer's order history, the location of the various options for fulfilling the order, etc.,]; see also 0068-0072, 0082, 0116-0123 [purchase history]).
Field discloses the concept occurring in a store (retail setting) (see citations above). However, Field does not state fuel dispenser and does not state fueling station (note that Applicant’s specification points to the retail store aspects in a fueling station).
Analogous art Terranova discloses customer interaction regarding retail at a fueling station and fuel dispenser (col. 1, lines 17-40 [gasoline pumps and service stations have evolved into elaborate point-of-sale (POS) devices having sophisticated control electronics and user interfaces…dispenser…payment…dispensers allow the customer to purchase services, such as car washes, and goods, such as fast food or convenience store products at the dispenser…the fuel dispenser is adapted to communicate with various types of remote communication devices]; col. 4, line 53 – col. 5, line 38 [fueling and retail environment provides customers 12 the opportunity to purchase fuel for their vehicles 14 as well as other goods and services… fueling and retail environment 10 may include one or more of a forecourt 16, where the fuel dispensers 18 are located, a convenience or fuel station store 20, one or more quick-serve restaurants (QSR)…convenience store… a customer 12 will be able to order a car wash at a fuel dispenser 18, at the transaction terminal or register 30 of the convenience store 20, at the QSR transaction terminal 34, or at the car wash interface 48 directly. Similarly, customers are able to order fast-food items from the QSR 22 from various locations in the fueling environment 10, including at the fuel dispensers 18, drive-thru order placement interface 44, and the in-store QSR terminal]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the system/method of Field customer/user retail interactions at a fueling station and fuel dispenser (terminal) as taught by analogous art Terranova in order to optimize, expedite and provide convenience to customers/users in fueling-station-retail environment where the kiosk/terminal is the terminal display at fuel dispenser since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Terranova (it is old and well-known of fueling station and store retail environment selling various products and that the fuel dispenser has kiosk type displays to help users/customers make purchases) 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 concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (See (1) 2007 Examination Guidelines for Determining Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. 103 in View of the Supreme Court Decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. - Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 195, October 10, 2007, pages 57526-57535; (2) 2010 Examination Guidelines Updated Developments in the Obviousness Inquiry After KSR v. Teleflex. -Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 169, September 01, 2010, pages 53643-53660; and (3) materials posted at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidelines-training-materials-view-ksr).
As per claim 13, claim 13 discloses substantially similar limitations as claim 3 above; and therefore claim 13 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning as presented above for claim 3.
As per claim 4, Field discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the second data includes image data that characterizes an image of the first location, and wherein the determining of the third data includes determining, from the image data, whether the first product is stored at the first location (see citations above for claims 1-3 and also see ¶¶ 0053 [images…location information], 0183 [location of item…confirm item’s location…maps…images], 0301 [map of the store and overlay information about the items and their locations…augmented reality technology platform (such as a virtual reality generator) and used to generate an overlay with item information and specific location information on a live image of the store floor or a map of the store floor]).
As per claim 5, Field discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the third data indicates that the first product is included in the listing of products stored at the first location, and wherein the method further comprises: determining a first communication, based on the first command, that characterizes a second product, the second product having a complementary association with the first product; and providing the first communication to the terminal/kiosk/retail-store-device for presentation on the interactive display of the fuel dispenser (¶¶ 0010 [recommend to customer…complementary to the (item customer wants – first product)], 0012, 0015-0017, 0114-0117; also 0006-0007, 0049 [mobile device], 0055, 0064-0065, 0104-0106 [guidance displays for a mobile or fixed client device], 0121 [screen displays…kiosk…mobile device], 0154-0155 [user interface…interaction…mobile device…graphical user interfaces…include images and text descriptions]).
Field discloses the concept occurring in a store (retail setting) (see citations above). However, Field does not state fuel dispenser and does not state fueling station (note that Applicant’s specification points to the retail store aspects in a fueling station).
Analogous art Terranova discloses customer interaction regarding retail at a fueling station and fuel dispenser (col. 1, lines 17-40 [gasoline pumps and service stations have evolved into elaborate point-of-sale (POS) devices having sophisticated control electronics and user interfaces…dispenser…payment…dispensers allow the customer to purchase services, such as car washes, and goods, such as fast food or convenience store products at the dispenser…the fuel dispenser is adapted to communicate with various types of remote communication devices]; col. 4, line 53 – col. 5, line 38 [fueling and retail environment provides customers 12 the opportunity to purchase fuel for their vehicles 14 as well as other goods and services… fueling and retail environment 10 may include one or more of a forecourt 16, where the fuel dispensers 18 are located, a convenience or fuel station store 20, one or more quick-serve restaurants (QSR)…convenience store… a customer 12 will be able to order a car wash at a fuel dispenser 18, at the transaction terminal or register 30 of the convenience store 20, at the QSR transaction terminal 34, or at the car wash interface 48 directly. Similarly, customers are able to order fast-food items from the QSR 22 from various locations in the fueling environment 10, including at the fuel dispensers 18, drive-thru order placement interface 44, and the in-store QSR terminal]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the system/method of Field customer/user retail interactions at a fueling station and fuel dispenser (terminal) as taught by analogous art Terranova in order to optimize, expedite and provide convenience to customers/users in fueling-station-retail environment where the kiosk/terminal is the terminal display at fuel dispenser since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Terranova (it is old and well-known of fueling station and store retail environment selling various products and that the fuel dispenser has kiosk type displays to help users/customers make purchases) 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 concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (See (1) 2007 Examination Guidelines for Determining Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. 103 in View of the Supreme Court Decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. - Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 195, October 10, 2007, pages 57526-57535; (2) 2010 Examination Guidelines Updated Developments in the Obviousness Inquiry After KSR v. Teleflex. -Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 169, September 01, 2010, pages 53643-53660; and (3) materials posted at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidelines-training-materials-view-ksr).
As per claim 14, claim 14 discloses substantially similar limitations as claim 5 above; and therefore claim 14 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning as presented above for claim 5.
As per claim 6, Field discloses the method of claim 5, further comprising: providing the first communication to a mobile device of the user for presentation on an interactive display of the mobile device (see citations above for claims 2-3 and 5 and also see ¶¶ 0003 [customers…mobile device], 0006-0007, 0049 [mobile device], 0055, 0064-0065, 0104-0106 [guidance displays for a mobile or fixed client device], 0121 [screen displays…kiosk…mobile device], 0154-0155 [user interface…interaction…mobile device…graphical user interfaces…include images and text descriptions]).
Field discloses the concept occurring in a store (retail setting) (see citations above). However, Field does not state fuel dispenser and does not state fueling station (note that Applicant’s specification points to the retail store aspects in a fueling station).
Analogous art Terranova discloses customer interaction regarding retail at a fueling station and fuel dispenser (col. 1, lines 17-40 [gasoline pumps and service stations have evolved into elaborate point-of-sale (POS) devices having sophisticated control electronics and user interfaces…dispenser…payment…dispensers allow the customer to purchase services, such as car washes, and goods, such as fast food or convenience store products at the dispenser…the fuel dispenser is adapted to communicate with various types of remote communication devices]; col. 4, line 53 – col. 5, line 38 [fueling and retail environment provides customers 12 the opportunity to purchase fuel for their vehicles 14 as well as other goods and services… fueling and retail environment 10 may include one or more of a forecourt 16, where the fuel dispensers 18 are located, a convenience or fuel station store 20, one or more quick-serve restaurants (QSR)…convenience store… a customer 12 will be able to order a car wash at a fuel dispenser 18, at the transaction terminal or register 30 of the convenience store 20, at the QSR transaction terminal 34, or at the car wash interface 48 directly. Similarly, customers are able to order fast-food items from the QSR 22 from various locations in the fueling environment 10, including at the fuel dispensers 18, drive-thru order placement interface 44, and the in-store QSR terminal]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the system/method of Field customer/user retail interactions at a fueling station and fuel dispenser (terminal) as taught by analogous art Terranova in order to optimize, expedite and provide convenience to customers/users in fueling-station-retail environment where the kiosk/terminal is the terminal display at fuel dispenser since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Terranova (it is old and well-known of fueling station and store retail environment selling various products and that the fuel dispenser has kiosk type displays to help users/customers make purchases) 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 concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (See (1) 2007 Examination Guidelines for Determining Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. 103 in View of the Supreme Court Decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. - Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 195, October 10, 2007, pages 57526-57535; (2) 2010 Examination Guidelines Updated Developments in the Obviousness Inquiry After KSR v. Teleflex. -Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 169, September 01, 2010, pages 53643-53660; and (3) materials posted at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidelines-training-materials-view-ksr).
As per claim 7, Field discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the third data indicates that the first product is not stored at the first location, and wherein the method further comprises: receiving fourth data characterizing a second location at the retail store/environment; determining, based on the transmitted first command, the first product, and the received fourth data, fifth data that characterizes whether the first product is stored at the second location; determining a second command based on the determined fifth data; and transmitting the second command (¶¶ 0016 [location…"movement profile" may then be used to assist in determining the most appropriate fulfillment process for an item], 0062 [fulfilling (sales order/request)…determines that an item…is unavailable…readily located at or near the same location], 0068-0069 [discusses tracking of item movement], 0073-0075 [if an item having a tag is determined to be located at a particular location…inventory management (or other business) process may be initiated that corresponds to that particular location…an item (or order item)…unavailable to use to fulfill an order…an item (or order item) located on a hold rack or in a dressing room for longer than a predetermined time period may initiate a process whereby an employee is sent to relocate the item back to the sales floor of a retail store (thereby making it available to fulfill an order or a different order)… an order item located in an order processing area may initiate a process to have an employee ship that item to a customer to fulfill a sales request…processes may be initiated in accordance with different types of order items at different locations…movement profile or other data for the item may be updated so that the new data may be used as part of determining a current fulfillment confidence score], 0216; also see 0288-0300, 0010 [an order placed in a retail store is typically fulfilled with inventory located on-site in the store, in a nearby store, or from a warehouse…out of stock], 0049 [mobile device], 0055, 0064-0065, 0104-0106 [guidance displays for a mobile or fixed client device], 0121 [screen displays…kiosk…mobile device], 0154-0155 [user interface…interaction…mobile device…graphical user interfaces…include images and text descriptions]).
Field discloses the concept occurring in a store (retail setting) (see citations above). However, Field does not state fuel dispenser and does not state fueling station (note that Applicant’s specification points to the retail store aspects in a fueling station).
Analogous art Terranova discloses customer interaction regarding retail at a fueling station and fuel dispenser (col. 1, lines 17-40 [gasoline pumps and service stations have evolved into elaborate point-of-sale (POS) devices having sophisticated control electronics and user interfaces…dispenser…payment…dispensers allow the customer to purchase services, such as car washes, and goods, such as fast food or convenience store products at the dispenser…the fuel dispenser is adapted to communicate with various types of remote communication devices]; col. 4, line 53 – col. 5, line 38 [fueling and retail environment provides customers 12 the opportunity to purchase fuel for their vehicles 14 as well as other goods and services… fueling and retail environment 10 may include one or more of a forecourt 16, where the fuel dispensers 18 are located, a convenience or fuel station store 20, one or more quick-serve restaurants (QSR)…convenience store… a customer 12 will be able to order a car wash at a fuel dispenser 18, at the transaction terminal or register 30 of the convenience store 20, at the QSR transaction terminal 34, or at the car wash interface 48 directly. Similarly, customers are able to order fast-food items from the QSR 22 from various locations in the fueling environment 10, including at the fuel dispensers 18, drive-thru order placement interface 44, and the in-store QSR terminal]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the system/method of Field customer/user retail interactions at a fueling station and fuel dispenser (terminal) as taught by analogous art Terranova in order to optimize, expedite and provide convenience to customers/users in fueling-station-retail environment where the kiosk/terminal is the terminal display at fuel dispenser since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Terranova (it is old and well-known of fueling station and store retail environment selling various products and that the fuel dispenser has kiosk type displays to help users/customers make purchases) 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 concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (See (1) 2007 Examination Guidelines for Determining Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. 103 in View of the Supreme Court Decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. - Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 195, October 10, 2007, pages 57526-57535; (2) 2010 Examination Guidelines Updated Developments in the Obviousness Inquiry After KSR v. Teleflex. -Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 169, September 01, 2010, pages 53643-53660; and (3) materials posted at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidelines-training-materials-view-ksr).
As per claim 15, claim 15 discloses substantially similar limitations as claim 7 above; and therefore claim 15 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning as presented above for claim 7.
As per claim 8, Field discloses the method of claim 7, wherein the fifth data indicates that the first product is stored at the second location, and wherein the method further comprises: determining a notification, based on the transmitted second command, that characterizes a recommendation to relocate the first product from the second location to the first location; and providing the notification to a point-of-sale terminal at the retail store/environment for presentation on a display thereof (see citations above for claims 1-8 and also see ¶¶ 0062-0065 [fulfilling (sales order/request)…determines that an item…is unavailable…readily located at or near the same location…point-of-sale], 0068-0069 [discusses tracking of item movement], 0073-0075 [if an item having a tag is determined to be located at a particular location…inventory management (or other business) process may be initiated that corresponds to that particular location…an item (or order item)…unavailable to use to fulfill an order…an item (or order item) located on a hold rack or in a dressing room for longer than a predetermined time period may initiate a process whereby an employee is sent to relocate the item back to the sales floor of a retail store (thereby making it available to fulfill an order or a different order)… an order item located in an order processing area may initiate a process to have an employee ship that item to a customer to fulfill a sales request…processes may be initiated in accordance with different types of order items at different locations…movement profile or other data for the item may be updated so that the new data may be used as part of determining a current fulfillment confidence score], 0216; also see 0038 [point of sale],, 0049 [point of sale terminal], 0288-0300).
Field discloses the concept occurring in a store (retail setting) (see citations above). However, Field does not state fuel dispenser and does not state fueling station (note that Applicant’s specification points to the retail store aspects in a fueling station).
Analogous art Terranova discloses customer interaction regarding retail at a fueling station and fuel dispenser (col. 1, lines 17-40 [gasoline pumps and service stations have evolved into elaborate point-of-sale (POS) devices having sophisticated control electronics and user interfaces…dispenser…payment…dispensers allow the customer to purchase services, such as car washes, and goods, such as fast food or convenience store products at the dispenser…the fuel dispenser is adapted to communicate with various types of remote communication devices]; col. 4, line 53 – col. 5, line 38 [fueling and retail environment provides customers 12 the opportunity to purchase fuel for their vehicles 14 as well as other goods and services… fueling and retail environment 10 may include one or more of a forecourt 16, where the fuel dispensers 18 are located, a convenience or fuel station store 20, one or more quick-serve restaurants (QSR)…convenience store… a customer 12 will be able to order a car wash at a fuel dispenser 18, at the transaction terminal or register 30 of the convenience store 20, at the QSR transaction terminal 34, or at the car wash interface 48 directly. Similarly, customers are able to order fast-food items from the QSR 22 from various locations in the fueling environment 10, including at the fuel dispensers 18, drive-thru order placement interface 44, and the in-store QSR terminal]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the system/method of Field customer/user retail interactions at a fueling station and fuel dispenser (terminal) as taught by analogous art Terranova in order to optimize, expedite and provide convenience to customers/users in fueling-station-retail environment where the kiosk/terminal is the terminal display at fuel dispenser since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Terranova (it is old and well-known of fueling station and store retail environment selling various products and that the fuel dispenser has kiosk type displays to help users/customers make purchases) 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 concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (See (1) 2007 Examination Guidelines for Determining Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. 103 in View of the Supreme Court Decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. - Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 195, October 10, 2007, pages 57526-57535; (2) 2010 Examination Guidelines Updated Developments in the Obviousness Inquiry After KSR v. Teleflex. -Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 169, September 01, 2010, pages 53643-53660; and (3) materials posted at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidelines-training-materials-view-ksr).
As per claim 16, claim 16 discloses substantially similar limitations as claim 8 above; and therefore claim 16 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning as presented above for claim 8.
As per claim 9, Field discloses the method of claim 8, further comprising: providing the notification to a mobile device of a retail store/environment attendant for presentation on a display thereof (see citations above and also see, for example, ¶¶ 0038 [displayed…hand held device…employee], 0051-0055 [receive information…mobile device operated by a store employee], 0065 [employees…mobile devices…generate orders…based on information received], 0100-0102, 0104-0106, 0177-0179, 0182).
Field discloses the concept occurring in a store (retail setting) (see citations above). However, Field does not state fuel dispenser and does not state fueling station (note that Applicant’s specification points to the retail store aspects in a fueling station).
Analogous art Terranova discloses customer interaction regarding retail at a fueling station and fuel dispenser (col. 1, lines 17-40 [gasoline pumps and service stations have evolved into elaborate point-of-sale (POS) devices having sophisticated control electronics and user interfaces…dispenser…payment…dispensers allow the customer to purchase services, such as car washes, and goods, such as fast food or convenience store products at the dispenser…the fuel dispenser is adapted to communicate with various types of remote communication devices]; col. 4, line 53 – col. 5, line 38 [fueling and retail environment provides customers 12 the opportunity to purchase fuel for their vehicles 14 as well as other goods and services… fueling and retail environment 10 may include one or more of a forecourt 16, where the fuel dispensers 18 are located, a convenience or fuel station store 20, one or more quick-serve restaurants (QSR)…convenience store… a customer 12 will be able to order a car wash at a fuel dispenser 18, at the transaction terminal or register 30 of the convenience store 20, at the QSR transaction terminal 34, or at the car wash interface 48 directly. Similarly, customers are able to order fast-food items from the QSR 22 from various locations in the fueling environment 10, including at the fuel dispensers 18, drive-thru order placement interface 44, and the in-store QSR terminal]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the system/method of Field customer/user retail interactions at a fueling station and fuel dispenser (terminal) as taught by analogous art Terranova in order to optimize, expedite and provide convenience to customers/users in fueling-station-retail environment where the kiosk/terminal is the terminal display at fuel dispenser since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Terranova (it is old and well-known of fueling station and store retail environment selling various products and that the fuel dispenser has kiosk type displays to help users/customers make purchases) 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 concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (See (1) 2007 Examination Guidelines for Determining Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. 103 in View of the Supreme Court Decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. - Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 195, October 10, 2007, pages 57526-57535; (2) 2010 Examination Guidelines Updated Developments in the Obviousness Inquiry After KSR v. Teleflex. -Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 169, September 01, 2010, pages 53643-53660; and (3) materials posted at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidelines-training-materials-view-ksr).
As per claim 10, Field discloses the method of claim 7, wherein the fifth data indicates that the first product is not stored at the second location, and wherein the method further comprises: determining a second communication, based on the transmitted second command, that characterizes a third product, the third product being an alternative product to the first product; and providing the second communication to the terminal/kiosk/store-device for presentation on a graphical display of the terminal/kiosk/store-device (¶¶ 0010 [recommend to customer…complementary to the (item customer wants – first product)], 0012, 0015-0017, 0114-0117 [recommendation…another…item]).
Field discloses the concept occurring in a store (retail setting) (see citations above). However, Field does not state fuel dispenser and does not state fueling station (note that Applicant’s specification points to the retail store aspects in a fueling station).
Analogous art Terranova discloses customer interaction regarding retail at a fueling station and fuel dispenser (col. 1, lines 17-40 [gasoline pumps and service stations have evolved into elaborate point-of-sale (POS) devices having sophisticated control electronics and user interfaces…dispenser…payment…dispensers allow the customer to purchase services, such as car washes, and goods, such as fast food or convenience store products at the dispenser…the fuel dispenser is adapted to communicate with various types of remote communication devices]; col. 4, line 53 – col. 5, line 38 [fueling and retail environment provides customers 12 the opportunity to purchase fuel for their vehicles 14 as well as other goods and services… fueling and retail environment 10 may include one or more of a forecourt 16, where the fuel dispensers 18 are located, a convenience or fuel station store 20, one or more quick-serve restaurants (QSR)…convenience store… a customer 12 will be able to order a car wash at a fuel dispenser 18, at the transaction terminal or register 30 of the convenience store 20, at the QSR transaction terminal 34, or at the car wash interface 48 directly. Similarly, customers are able to order fast-food items from the QSR 22 from various locations in the fueling environment 10, including at the fuel dispensers 18, drive-thru order placement interface 44, and the in-store QSR terminal]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the system/method of Field customer/user retail interactions at a fueling station and fuel dispenser (terminal) as taught by analogous art Terranova in order to optimize, expedite and provide convenience to customers/users in fueling-station-retail environment where the kiosk/terminal is the terminal display at fuel dispenser since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Terranova (it is old and well-known of fueling station and store retail environment selling various products and that the fuel dispenser has kiosk type displays to help users/customers make purchases) 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 concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (See (1) 2007 Examination Guidelines for Determining Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. 103 in View of the Supreme Court Decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. - Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 195, October 10, 2007, pages 57526-57535; (2) 2010 Examination Guidelines Updated Developments in the Obviousness Inquiry After KSR v. Teleflex. -Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 169, September 01, 2010, pages 53643-53660; and (3) materials posted at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidelines-training-materials-view-ksr).
As per claim 17, claim 17 discloses substantially similar limitations as claim 10 above; and therefore claim 17 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning as presented above for claim 10.
As per claim 11, Field discloses the method of claim 10, further comprising: providing the second communication to a mobile device of the user for communication on an interactive display of the mobile device (see citations above for claims 1-8 and also see ¶¶ 0006 [receiving notifications…customers…devices], 0051-0055 [mobile device…customer], 0102 [provide information to customer], 0105 [customer is given information on mobile device], 0118 [information displayed on…customer's mobile device], 0154-0166).
Field discloses the concept occurring in a store (retail setting) (see citations above). However, Field does not state fuel dispenser and does not state fueling station (note that Applicant’s specification points to the retail store aspects in a fueling station).
Analogous art Terranova discloses customer interaction regarding retail at a fueling station and fuel dispenser (col. 1, lines 17-40 [gasoline pumps and service stations have evolved into elaborate point-of-sale (POS) devices having sophisticated control electronics and user interfaces…dispenser…payment…dispensers allow the customer to purchase services, such as car washes, and goods, such as fast food or convenience store products at the dispenser…the fuel dispenser is adapted to communicate with various types of remote communication devices]; col. 4, line 53 – col. 5, line 38 [fueling and retail environment provides customers 12 the opportunity to purchase fuel for their vehicles 14 as well as other goods and services… fueling and retail environment 10 may include one or more of a forecourt 16, where the fuel dispensers 18 are located, a convenience or fuel station store 20, one or more quick-serve restaurants (QSR)…convenience store… a customer 12 will be able to order a car wash at a fuel dispenser 18, at the transaction terminal or register 30 of the convenience store 20, at the QSR transaction terminal 34, or at the car wash interface 48 directly. Similarly, customers are able to order fast-food items from the QSR 22 from various locations in the fueling environment 10, including at the fuel dispensers 18, drive-thru order placement interface 44, and the in-store QSR terminal]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in the system/method of Field customer/user retail interactions at a fueling station and fuel dispenser (terminal) as taught by analogous art Terranova in order to optimize, expedite and provide convenience to customers/users in fueling-station-retail environment where the kiosk/terminal is the terminal display at fuel dispenser since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (TSM/KSR-G); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Terranova (it is old and well-known of fueling station and store retail environment selling various products and that the fuel dispenser has kiosk type displays to help users/customers make purchases) 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 concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (See (1) 2007 Examination Guidelines for Determining Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. 103 in View of the Supreme Court Decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. - Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 195, October 10, 2007, pages 57526-57535; (2) 2010 Examination Guidelines Updated Developments in the Obviousness Inquiry After KSR v. Teleflex. -Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 169, September 01, 2010, pages 53643-53660; and (3) materials posted at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidelines-training-materials-view-ksr).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on the PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. For example, some of the pertinent prior art is as follows:
Harrell (US 10,108,943): Provides for commerce at a fuel dispenser. In one general aspect, a system and process at a fuel dispenser may have the ability to present a user interface including data regarding at least one merchant remote from the fuel dispenser's fueling facility and to determine if ordering data corresponding to the remote merchant has been received. If ordering data corresponding to the remote merchant has been received, the system and process may have the ability to present a user interface regarding payment data. The system and process may also have the ability to determine if payment data has been received and, if payment data has been received, generate a message regarding the ordering data for a remote merchant computer.
McCall et al., (US 2005/0261916): Discusses providing a price-per-unit (PPU) discount on fuel to a customer who purchases at least one cross-marketed product or service. A first PPU discount is awarded to the customer based on a purchase by the customer of a first cross-marketed product or service. A customer identification is assigned to the customer, the first discount amount is stored in a discounts issued database that associates the first discount amount with the customer identification. Additional PPU discounts may be added to the first discount if the customer purchases additional cross-marketed products or services. When the customer inputs the customer identification in a subsequent transaction, the PPU discount is retrieved from the database, and is used to reduce the PPU of the fuel.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GURKANWALJIT SINGH whose telephone number is (571)270-5392. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, Brian Epstein can be reached at 571-270-5389. 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.
/GURKANWALJIT SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625